dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

. Identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
bwasion of personal privacy 
PVBUCCOpy 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. ll(.'partmcnt of Homeland Scrudf~ 
U_S Clli/('ll'Jlll' dlld Illlllllt!Y,lIlt111 S~'t-\'I''C~ 
Admilliqrdtl\,: "\p)1,':II,, ()ffICl' i -\.V) I 
2tl Mil~\.Il'hll~l'lh ;\,,-' .. -'.J.W .. \'1\ _'nl)tl 
Wa<:.hin0Inn. DC ::'O-;::'lJ ::'()l)() 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
MAR 0 3 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 USC § 1153(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 CF.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 CF.R. § I 03.5(a)( I )(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~ 
5--Perry Rhew ~ 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed, 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U,S.C § lI53(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's 
decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Page 3 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101,1 Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. Id. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published matcrial about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
rcmuncration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9
th 
Cir. 20 I 0). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.] With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of thel ir I field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-1120. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), qff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003): 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.f.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page S 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on March 31, 2008, seeks to classify the petIt lOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research scientist specializing in virology. The petitioner received her 
Ph.D. in Microbiology from Arizona State University (ASU) in August 2007. The petitioner has 
submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)2 
Published material about the alien in pn!f'essional or major trade publications or 
other mqjor media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldf(Jr which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.] 
The petitioner submitted press release issued by ASU and posted at Physorg.com. 
MedicaINewsToday.com, News-Medical.net, ScienceDaily.com, CuringDeath.com, Bio­
Medicine.org, E~ the ASU Biodesign Institute's website. This press release 
was prepared by __ Media Relations Manager and Science Editor, ASU, and then 
provided to the preceding websites. A press release is a written communication directed at the 
news media for the purpose of announcing information claimed as having news value rather than 
"published material ... in professional or major trade publications or other major media." We 
cannot conclude that a press release, which is not the result of independent media reportage and 
which is sent to media outlets to encourage them to develop articles on a subject, meets the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. Nevertheless, the preceding two-page article only includes 
two sentences the and instead focuses on her ""np.r·vi,,Of 
ASU. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), however, requires that the published material be 
"about the alien." Further, there are no internet readership statistics or other comparable evidence 
showing that that Physorg.com, MedicaINewsToday.com, News-Medical.net, ScienceDaily.com, 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
) Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairt~lx County. 
V irginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outs ide of that county. 
Page 6 
CuringDeath.com, Bio-Medicine.org, EurekAlert.org, and the ASU Biodesign Institute's website 
equate to professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of thirty scientific articles citing to her work. Almost half of 
the submitted articles were published subsequent to the petition's March 31, 2008 filing date. A 
petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12): 
Matter of Katighak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider the articles published after March 2008 in this proceeding. Nevertheless, articles which 
cite to the petitioner'S work are primarily about the author's own work, and are not about the 
petitioner or even her work. With regard to this criterion, a footnoted reference to the alien's work 
without evaluation is of minimal probative value. As previously discussed, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien." The submitted 
articles do not discuss the merits of the petitioner's work, her standing in the field, any significant 
impact that her work has had on the field, or any other information so as to be considered 
published material about the petitioner as required by this criterion. Moreover, we note that the 
submitted articles citing to the petitioner's work similarly referenced numerous other authors. 
The research articles citing to the petitioner's work are more relevant to the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will be addressed there. 
In light of above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien '.I' original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the fiei(/' 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing her Ph.D. research at ASU under the 
supervision o~ 
in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University, states: 
[The petitioner] worked in lab in our department, and I have known her 
since she joined our center 111 In the beginning, Ithe petitioner'sj research was 
focused on coronavirus budding and assembly. She used the novel full length infectious 
system to construct mutant viruses, and discovered the important role of the envelope 
protein of coronavirus in virus budding and assembly. Furthermore, she also identified 
this envelope protein functioning as a viroporin, providing new insight of this emerging 
area as novel strategy for virus therapy. More interestingly, by introducing mutation at 
different position of this protein, four importance I sic I amino acids and their position 
have been identified as the key motif of the protein activity. Thus, it provides an 
important target for small molecule design for drug development. Since the outbreak of 
SARS coronavirus, [the petitioner I has been conducting an exciting investigation on 
invasion of corona virus in host innate immune response. Her finding of interferon 
resistance characteristics of coronavirus was one of the leading reports in the coronavirus 
field. In addition to that, she is the first researcher who identified the virus interferon 
Page 7 
antagonist and the involving mechanism. Thus, [the petitioner's1 research has opened a 
new era in the treatment and vaccine development of SARS coronavirus. 
Based upon what I have seen of her work, I believe [the petitioner I to be an extraordinary 
research scientist, who has already made some important contributions to science, and 
who will without doubt accomplish more. I am sure that [the petitioner's I recent findings 
about coronavirus assembly and identification of the coronavirus interferon antagonist in 
its interaction with the innate immune system will greatly highlight the research work in 
virology field around the world. The results of her work have been presented at several 
important national and intemational conferences, many of which have been selected as 
oral presentation, suggesting the significance of her work. The detailed results have been 
published in the prestigious academic joumals Journal o{ Virology and in the book 
chapter. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly 
articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. Here it should 
be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because 
separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of major 
significance, uscrs clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise 
would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory 
requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. We will fully address the 
petitioner's scholarly articles under the next criterion. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but 
of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous 
and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the 
field of science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and 
confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the 
impact of the petitioner's work. 
[The petitioner I has been doing research Lab in CIDY for the past 5 
years .... During her graduate study, [the very challenging research 
on a group of infectious viruses. She focused on viral-infectious disease study, 
specialized in coronavirus. During the year 2002, the outbreak of the life-threatening 
disease Sever Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) caused around a thousand deaths 
worldwide and led to a huge economic loss. Since then, a new coronavirus, SARS 
coronavirus, has been identified as the origin. Through study of this virus' life cycle, Ithe 
petitioncrl madc significant contribution to the understanding of this novel virus, and 
-Page 8 
potential new strategies for its control. One of her achievements is the identification of a 
key motif of coronavirus that is responsible for the virus' assembly, The motif is defined 
by the position of four hydrophilic amino acids in the transmembrane domain of a small 
protein whose organization is critical in order for the whole virus particle to assemble. 
Due to [the petitioner's1 unique perspective and insightful observation, she disclosed the 
importance of this motif through insightful experiments. This breakthrough not only 
helps understanding the new coronavirus, but also hugely contributes as a therapeutic 
target in small molecue [sic 1 design for drug development. The other big contribution of 
[the petitioner's [ research is beyond virus itself. She revealed a nontraditional mechanism 
carried by coronavirus to interact with host innate immune response. During the SARS 
outbreak, while most scientists were trying to fight the virus with interferon, which was a 
traditional theoretical treatment, [the petitioner 1 proposed that the virus was resistant to 
interferon. By her hard work, she not only provided strong evidence to support her 
hypothesis, but also revealed the unique mechanism by which coronavirus takes to 
interrupt the interferon system, more importantly, she discovered the viral protein that is 
the interferon antagonist. . .. As an expert in the field of infectious disease, I can 
anticipate anti-coronavirus drug and vaccine development by applying [the petitioner's] 
discoveries, in the event a reoccurrence of SARS and emergence of new viruses. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must he 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful information to the 
pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that 
adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of "major 
significance" to the field as a whole. 
I met [the petitioner[ a couple of times at conferences such as the annual American 
Society of Virology meeting and I am convinced that she is a truly outstanding young 
that a viral protein may allow the virus to evade the immune system. This ground 
breaking finding has received strong international recognition. Many scientists at other 
independent research groups have cited her work. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted copies of 30 research articles citing to her work. 
A review of the submitted documents indicates than none of the petitioner's individual articles had 
been independently cited to more than a dozen times as of the petition's March 31, 2008 filing date. 
Moreover, almost half of the submitted articles were published subsequent to the petition's filing 
date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
Page 9 
§§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider articles published after March 2008 in this proceedil~r, at least two of thc 
submitted citations were self-citations by the petitioner's coautho~. While a normal and 
~ process, the self-citations cannot demonstrate the petitioner's influence beyond. 
_laboratory. On appeal, the petitioner submits a self-serving list of 42 purported citations 
that allegedly derives from Google Scholar. Twel ve articles appearing on the petitioner's citation 
list are not documented in the record. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of So{fici. 
221&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure CraftofCalijcJrnia. 141&N Dec. 
190 (Reg'!. Comm'r. 1972)). Counsel provides no explanation for why the petitioner did not submit 
the actual printout from Google Scholar. Nevertheless, even if we accepted the self-serving list of 
undocumented citations, no single article by the petitioner has garnered more than a dozen 
independent citations as of the petition's March 31, 2008 filing date. Ultimately, the citation record 
submitted by the petitioner is not indicative of contributions of major significance in the field. 
University of Leubeck, Germany, states that he met the petitioner at scientific conferences m 
which they participated. further states: 
lThe petitioner's1 work focused on coronavirus budding and assembly. She found the 
important role of the envelope protein of corona viruses in budding. She also identified 
this envelope protein functioning as a viroporin. Her work provided new insight in this 
emerging area as a novel strategy for antiviral therapy. Since the outbreak of the SARS 
coronavirus, [the petitioner I has been investigating the intervention of the coronavirus 
with host innate immune response. She was the first scientist to identify a viral protein 
that may allow the virus to evade the immune systems. [The petitioner's1 breakthrough 
has opened up a new approach into which others have followed. Many scientists have 
cited her work. Her articles have also become the subject of many review articles. She 
has become a sought-after expert in the treatment and vaccine development of SARS 
coronavlrus. 
As previously discussed, the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner indicates that no single 
article by her had garnered more than a dozen independent citations as of the petition's filing date. 
While the submitted documentation indicates that the petitioner has performed admirably on the 
various projects to which she was assigned, the evidence of record does not establish that her 
work constitutes original contributions of "major significance" in the field. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director disregarded the information contained in the letters of 
support. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter oj' Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those 
Page 10 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter o!"V­
K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware 
of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent 
experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of virology researcher who has made 
original contributions of major significance. Without supporting evidence showing that the 
petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major significance in her field, we cannot 
conclude that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence o(the alien's authorship (!fscholarly articles in thefield. in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented her authorship of four journal articles and a book chapter as of the 
petition's filing date and, thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petItIOner has failed to 
demonstrate her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least 
three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). A 
final merits determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we will next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of thelirJ field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in 
the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(I )(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See a/so Kawriull, 
596 F.3d at 1119-1120. In the present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (v). 
Regarding the petitioner's original research findings discussed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), as 
stated above, they do not appear to rise to the level of contributions of "major significance" in the 
field. Demonstrating that the petitioner's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate 
prior research is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed work." 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an alien must (I) 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or 
athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) ... " Research work that is unoriginal would 
Page 11 
be unlikely to secure the petitioner a master's degree, let alone classification as a scientific 
researcher of extraordinary ability, To argue that all original research is, by definition, 
"extraordinary" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unoriginaL" Moreover, there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner is 
responsible for any original contributions in virology research subsequent to her departure from 
ASU in August 2007, The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate 
that her national or international acclaim as been sustained, See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U,S,C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim 
as of the filing date of the petition. 
While the petitioner has published scholarly articles based on her graduate research at ASU, the 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition, (accessed at 
www.bls.gov/oco on February 18,2011 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), provides 
information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See www.bls.gov/oc0/ocos066.htm. The handbook expressly 
states that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the 
professor's research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training 
students for faculty positions require a dissertation, or written report on original research. Id. 
Further, the OOH states specifically with respect to the biological sciences that a "solid record of 
published research is essential in obtaining a permanent position performing basic research, 
especially for those seeking a permanent college or university faculty position." See 
www.bls.gov/oc0/ocos047.htm.This information reveals that original published research, whether 
arising from research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from 
faculty in that researcher's field. Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
petitioner has authored scholarly articles based on research she conducted after her departure from 
ASU. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that her national 
or international acclaim as been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as of the 
filing date of the petition. 
Moreover, the petitioner's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the petitioner's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. As previously discussed, the documentation submitted by the petitioner 
indicates that her body of work has been moderately cited as of the petitioner's filing date. This 
level of citation is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's articles have attracted a level 
of interest in her field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of her field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner relies primarily on 
a press release distributed to various websites by ASU's Media Relations Manager in May 2007: 
four journal articles, a book chapter and seven conference presentations (all authored with her 
Page 12 
graduate research supervisor __ and citation evidence showing that her work has been 
moderately cited. 
We note that the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive. For example, • 
_states: 
lam 
Biodesign Institute and at 
Arizona State University. I have published over 265 peer-reviewed papers. Before 
my time at ASU, I was •••••••••••••••••••••••• 
_ at Washington University where I chaired the Department of Biology from 1983-
1993. In addition to my academic pursuits, I where I 
served as a member of the Board of Directors until 2000. Additionally, I have been issued 
numerous patents for my discoveries, including one for the use of recombinant avirulent 
Salmonella, Escherichia and Salmonella-Escherichia hybrids as antigen delivery vectors 
to induce mucosal, systemic and cellular immunity. I participate in a number of national 
and international activities as a member of the American Society for Microbiology, 
Society for General Microbiology, American Association of Avian Pathologists, 
American Academy for Microbiology (Fellow), American Association for the 
Advancement of Science (Fellow), International Society of Mucosal Immunology, SI. 
Louis Academy of Sciences (Fellow), Arizona Arts, Science and Technology Academy 
(Fellow) and thc National Academy of Sciences. I have served as a member of numerous 
grant review panels for the National Science Foundation, the Cystic Fibrosis Research 
Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the US. Department of Agriculture. 
From 2000 to 2006, I chaired the Board of Executive Editors, Escherichia coli and 
Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology, ASM Press and have served as Editor of the 
Journal of Bacteriology and Infection and Immunity. 
states: 
As author of numerous publications focused on various aspects of plant-based vaccine 
technology, I have participated in numerous national and international committees that 
serve general scientific interests. My work has been recognized by numerous national 
and international organizations. I was elected to membership in the U.S. National 
Academy of Sciences in 1994, and to the National Academy of Sciences in India in the 
following year. I was a member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors 
of the University of Chicago (for the Argonne National Laboratory) and served as 
chairperson for their Science and Technology Advisory Committee. I have also served as 
chairman of the National Biotechnology Policy Board of the U.S. National Institutes of 
Health and as chainnan of the National Research Council's Committee on Biobased 
Industrial Products, and on the National Research Council's Committee on Space 
Biology and Medicine. I have served for eight years on the Editorial Board of SCIENCE. 
In 2003, I was awarded the Selby Fellowship by the Australian Academy of Sciences. 
Page 13 
I was appointed to at Arizona State 
University (ASU) in Tempe in 2000 and as Regents' Professor in 2004, I served as the 
founding director of the Biodesign Institute at ASU from January 2001 through May 
2003, and then was appointed to 
•••• Prior to my service at ASU, I had held faculty positions at the 
University of Illinois, Michigan State University and Texas A&M University, and 
visiting professorships in the Laboratorie de Photosynthese du CNRS in France, the 
Department of Applied Mathematics in Canberra, Australia and the Academia Sinica in 
China. In addition to my work in academia, I served 
- a not-for-profit corporation affiliated with Cornell 
University, and as a research director at Dupont in Wilmington, Delaware. 
Finally states: 
I have served for 
the past four years. . .. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry (1986 - 1995), followed 
by a Full Professorship at the University of Jena (1995 - 2002) and the present 
appointment at the University of Leubeck (2003 - ... ). My expertise in the field of 
structural virology is internationally recognized .... 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than herself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of her field of endeavor is far 
above the level she has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that her 
achievements at the time of filing were commensurate with sustained national or international 
acclaim in virology, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
C. Continuing work in the area of expertise in the United States 
Beyond the decision of the director, the statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to 
continue work in her area of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Such evidence may include letter(s) 
from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the petitioner detailing plans on how she intends to continue her work in the 
United States. On the Form 1-140, the petitioner failed to provide any information in Part 6, 
"Basic information about the proposed employment." In this case, the petitioner has not submitted 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, 
or a statement detailing plans on how she intends to continue working as a virology researcher in 
the United States. Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted "clear evidence" that she will 
continue to work in her area of expertise in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an 
extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
Page 14 
within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or 
international level. Further, the petitioner has not submitted clear evidence demonstrating that 
she will continue to work in her area of expertise in the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has 
not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
afj'd, 345 F.3d at 683; see a/so So/fane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.s.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.