dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

, \ 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent cicaciY :.mwarranted 
invasion of personaJ privacY 
YifmtTC COpy 
DATE: 
JUL 19 2011 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
tLS. J)('»artmcnt of Homeland ~tcurit) 
U.S. Citi!CnsllJp and Immigra[ion Sl'rvl\':c" 
Admjtl1~tra!i\'c Apreai" Orfice {.\/\O) 
20 Mas~achu~clts I\ve., :\J,\'\" .. l\'lS .209(1 
Washill!;!lon. DC 20529-:2(}9() 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 U.S.c. § I I 53(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 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fce of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(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, 
)jDudncL r Perry Rhcw 
-t' 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. I 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 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.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 C.F.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 the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) - (vi) and (viii). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will 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 
I The petitioner was initially represented by attorney _. In this decision, the term "previous counsel" shall 
refer to ••• 
-Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
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. 723101" 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 material 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; 
, 
Page 4 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the perfonning 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 (9th Cir. 2010). 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.2 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 detennination." !d. 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)." ld. at 
1122 (citing to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits detennination" as 
the corollary to this procedure; 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, uscrs detennines 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 the[irl 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. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
ld. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits detennination. 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 Stales, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001). affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Sollane v. DO], 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
2 Specifically. the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond thuse set tlmh in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on April 23, 2009, seeks to classify the petitIOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research scientist. In a March 12, 2009 personal statement 
accompanying the petition, the petitioner states that his field of expertise is chemistry, 
biomedical science, and pharmaceutical science. The petitioner received his Ph.D. in Chemistry 
from the University of Twente in 1993. At the time of the petitioner was working as a 
Senior Principal Scientist for The petitioner has submitted 
documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).J 
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. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted his membership card for the American Association of Pharmaceutical 
Scientists (AAPS) and general information about the organization stating: "Membership is open 
to any individual who supports the objectives of the association and is willing to contribute to the 
achievement of these objectives." There is no evidence showing that the AAPS requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the petitioner's field. Further, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "membership in associations" in the plural. The use of the plural is 
consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. 
Specifically, the regulations at 8 c.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a 
single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the 
singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the 
plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts 
have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used 
j The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
in a regulation 4 Therefore, even if the petitioner were to submit supporting documentary 
evidence showing that the petitioner's membership in the AAPS meets the elements of this 
criterion, which he has not, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
requires evidence of the petitioner's membership in more than one association requiring 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this criterion or 
offer any arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. 
U.S. AII'y Gen., 401 P.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (lIth Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfor 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.5 
1994 article about him in Food Spectrum entitled 
The petitioner also submitted a 1994 article 
pU]Jli(;ation of the university) entitled 
appear suitable for better treatment of blood sickness," but the author of the article was not 
identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Purther, pursuant to 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USC IS shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as complete 
and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the 
foreign language into English. The English language translations accompanying the preceding two 
articles were not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
Moreover, there is no circulation evidence showing that Food Spectrum and University of'Twente 
News qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner also submitted citation evidence indicating that his work has been cited by other 
researchers in their publications. Articles which cite to the petitioner's work are primarily about 
4 See Maramjaya v. USc/S, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. 
Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory 
requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single 
degree rather than a combination of academic credentials}. 
5 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 Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 7 
the authors' own work or recent developments in the field in general, and are not about the 
petitioner or even his work. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires that the published material be "about the alien." With regard to this criterion, a footnoted 
reference to the alien's work without evaluation is of minimal probative value. The submitted 
citations do not discuss the merits of the petitioner's work, his standing in the field, any 
significant impact that his 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, the 
AAO notes that the 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. Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work (d' others in the same or an allied .field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The petitioner did not initially submit documentary evidence for this regulatory criterion. In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted five e-mails dated May 16, 
2009 requesting that he review abstracts 3690, 3904, 3304, 3311, and 3874 for the AAPS Annual 
Meeting 2009. The preceding abstract review requests post-date the petition's April 23, 2009 
filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. Commr. 1971). 
Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. Nevertheless, there is 
no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner actually completed the abstract 
reviews for the AAPS Annual Meeting 2009. The plain language of this regulatory criterion 
requires "felvidence of the alien's participation ... as a judge of the work of others." Receiving a 
request to perfOlm an abstract review is not tantamount to evidence of one's actual "participation" 
as a reviewer or judge. 
l"'l:llllJ"';;l submits a December 8, 2009 letter from University 
Chemical Engineering, University of Toronto.6 • 
I would like to verify that [the petitioner] had reviewed 6-12 paper manuscripts in total from 
other researchers submitted for publications in the following scientific journals from 1998 to 
2000: 
Journal (if Biomedical Materials Research 
Journal of Biomaterials Science 
Journal (!f Controlled Release 
Biomaterials 
() In a previous letter dated March 26, 2009, _ states that the petitioner was a postdoctoral fellow in his research 
group at the University of Toronto from 1998 to 2000 and that he served as fhe advisor for the petitioner's postdoctoral 
research. 
--Page 8 
The preceding letter from _ does not specify the means by which the petitioner was 
selected as a reviewer, the titles of the manuscripts he reviewed, and the names and fields of 
specification of those whose work he evaluated. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSofjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter o.fTreasure 
Craft o.f California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Further, rather than submitting 
documentary evidence of his participation from 1998 to 2000, the petitioner instead submitted a 
brief letter written by his former supervisor attesting to his purported involvement in reviewing 
manuscripts some ten years earlier. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required 
by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). According to the same 
regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be 
obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is 
demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Where a record does not 
exist, the petitioner must submit an original written statement on letterhead from the relevant 
authority indicating the reason the record does not exist and whether similar records for the time 
~ace are available. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(ii). The December 8, 2009 letter from. 
_ does not comply with the preceding regulatory requirements. Moreover,_ 
letter does not indicate if the petitioner was simply assisting his supervisor with . 
reviews assigned by the above journals' editors to Dr. Sefton. The AAO notes that 
March 26, 2009 letter to uscrs states that the petitioner "helped me to review scientific papers 
for publications in international journals." The record contains no review requests directly from 
the preceding journals' editors addressed to the petitioner as of the petition's filing date. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the petitioner has served as "a 
judge of the work of others." The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging 
capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The 
regulation cannot be read to include every informal instance of a supervisor requesting input and 
assistance from his subordinate. In this instance, there is no documentary evidence establishing 
that the petitioner served as part of a formal judging process for the above journals. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions (!f' m,~jor significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing his work. 
As a is currently working on the 
research and development of some important pharmaceutical products such as steroid 
drugs for hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive drugs, and the drugs for 
kidney diseases, among others. He is especially focused on development of new 
Page 9 
analytical method for testing the pharmaceutical products and identification of unknown 
compounds in pharmaceutical products, which is critical to the development of 
pharmaceutical products for both existent and emerging diseases. Since pharmaceutical 
products contain many similar compounds and excipients, the analysis of the products are 
very difficult, especially for the analysis of some complex pharmaceutical products. [The 
petitioner] is making a mark in this difficult area of pharmaceutical research working to 
develop analytical methods for complex pharmaceutical products and as an expert in LC­
MS and structure elucidation of unknown compounds. His research and development will 
contribute significantly to the development of our important pharmaceutical products. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has already made significant achievements in the three years he has 
worked here, including development of new analytical methods for our important 
products, determination of pharmaceutical compositions in new pharmaceutical products, 
and identification of unknown compounds, which is very important for our product 
development. 
_states that the petitioner's work is important to product 
development, but there is no evidence demonstrating that the analytical methods he developed 
while working for the company are recognized beyond his immediate employer such they 
constitute original contributions of major significance in the field, The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C,F,R, § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the contributions be "of major significance 
in the field" rather than limited to a particular research institution or does 
not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work at has 
substantially impacted others in the field or that it otherwise equates to original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
rThe petitioneri made significant contributions on the design and synthesis of the novel 
iron chelating polymers with higher iron chelating ability than siderophores. How to 
remove iron for the environment is the first and most challenging step in the iron removal 
strategy research. As microorganism can synthesize iron chelators, siderophores to 
acquire iron from their environment, it is necessary to have some iron chelating 
compounds with higher affinity for iron than siderophores. As the iron chelating 
polymers have desirable properties in iron chelating ability, selectivity, water­
insolubility, stability and reusability, Ithe petitioner] found that iron can be selectively 
removed from the environment or media. [The petitioner] published his original 
contributions on synthesis and properties of the novel iron chelating polymers in top 
scientific journals such as the fournal of Biomaterials Science-Polymer Edition, 
European Polymer Journal and Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 
-Page 10 
In addition, [the petitioner] conducted novel studies on the biomedical applications of the 
iron chelating polymers, including the iron detoxification of human plasma for treatment 
of iron overload disease, in Vitro antibacterial activity for treatment of antibiotic resistant 
disease and malaria, removal of iron from milk and other nutrient media for inhibition of 
microbial growth in food, and selective removal of iron from grape juice for inhibition of 
yeast growth. Based on his broad research work, several papers were published in 
international scientific journals such as Journal o.f'Medicinal Chemistry, Journal of Dairy 
Science, and International Journal of Food Science and Technology. These papers were 
also widely recognized and cited by other scientists around the world. 
In the field of biomaterials, [the petitioner] also conducted novel studies in the 
adsorption/desorption of human proteins such as HDL (high density lipoproteins) on 
biomaterials, and their biomedical applications. Protein adsorption is an important tool in 
the study of blood compatibility of biomaterials. [The petitioner's] research on the 
adsorption of human proteins such as HDL provided some new information about the 
relationship between the protein absorption and the hydrophilicity of the biomaterials. He 
was also one of the first scientists who directly visualized the adsorbed HDL with a 
tapping mode atomic force microscope (AFM). His work on this important research was 
published in two scientific papers which were extensively cited by other scientists. 
As a Postdoctoral Research Fellow, [the petitioner] focused on research in biomaterials 
and micro-encapsulation of cells for two years at the University of Toronto, Canada. As 
micro-encapsulating of mammalian cells need biomaterials to encapsulate the cells and 
transplant the encapsulated cells into the body, the biocompatibility and other 
physiochemical properties are critical for the living of the cells after transplantation. With 
his strong skills in chemical synthesis, [the petitioner] significantly improved the 
synthesis of the biomaterials and developed new biomaterials for cell micro­
encapsulation. This work was considered very important in cell micro-encapsulation, 
tissue engineering and biomedical science and published in several papers. In addition, 
l the petitioner] was invited to contribute an important chapter in the scientific book: 
Methods of Tissue Engineering. 
In his 10 years of pharmaceutical industry experience, l the petitioner] made novel 
contributions in drug analysis, especially the development of new analytic methods for 
pharmaceutical products and identification of unknown compounds in pharmaceutical 
products, which was very important in the research and development of new drug 
products and in the control of the product's quality. Analytical methods are essential for 
the detection of unknown compounds because unknown compounds are in the mixture of 
similar compounds and/or in the pharmaceutical products that contain many other 
substances and inactive properties. With his broad knowledge and hands-on experience in 
chemistry and pharmaceutical science, [the petitioner] developed many novel and truly 
remarkable analytical methods to separate and analyze many unknown (novel) 
compounds in pharmaceutical products, such as Butorphanol nasal solution and 
ophthalmic products. This is reflected in his presentations and publications in conferences 
-Page II 
and scientific journals such as the Pittsburgh Conference on Analytical Chemistry and 
Applied Spectroscopy and The AAPS journal . ... 
With regard to regarding the petitioner's published and presented work, 
the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO 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, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable 7 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. Thus, there is no 
presumption that every published article or presentation is a contribution of major significance; 
rather, the must document the actual impact of his article or presentation. In this instance, 
does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's findings and analytical 
methodologies are being applied by others in the field or that they otherwise equate to original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Regarding comments that the petitioner's work has been cited by other scientists, the 
the petitioner's appellate submission includes citation indices from lSI Web of Knowledge 
indicating that 17 of his published articles have been cited by independent researchers more than 
one hundred times in the aggregate. For instance, the petitioner's two most frequently cited aIticles 
in journal of Applied Polymer Science and journal of Colloid and Inteiface Science had been 
independently cited to 15 and 22 times respectively as of the petition's April 23, 2009 filing date. 
The petitioner has not established that this moderate level of citation for the two preceding aIticles is 
indicative of original contributions of major significance in the field. 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" in 
the field. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, 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. 
ba,:hr:lor's degree and master's degree in chemistry 
petitioner at Wuhan University in China. _ states: 
In 1986, [the petitioner] obtained his first patent in China for his chemical synthesis 
invention. He discovered a new reaction method for the synthesis of polyethylene glycol 
7 Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they 
were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USClS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9'" Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d IllS 
(9th Cir. 20 I 0). In 20 I 0, the Kazarian court reaftirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding 
that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
-Page 12 
diglycidyl ethers by phase-transfer catalysis. Polyethylene glycol diglycidyl ethers are 
broadly useful compounds. They are also very active in reacting further into other 
compounds or polymers, which makes it difficult to synthesize and separate them with a 
high yield. IThe petitioner] innovatively used phase transfer catalysis to improve the 
yields of the reactions and made the separation much easier. His method was innovative 
and very useful for the synthesis of this type of the compounds. 
In 1999, [the petitioner] was granted his second patent in the U.S. for his invention of 
novel polymeric and related methods. While working on an 
industrial project for [the petitioner] invented some 
polymeric coupling agents that have great industrial applications in the adhesion of 
macromolecules with metals. As the polymeric coupling agents have two types of 
functional groups for bonding the two surfaces, they have desirable properties for their 
applications. 
In 1996, I the petitioner] filed for two patent applications with the Australian Patent 
Office for his work on metal removal and its biomedical applications. He essentially 
discovered that the growth of bacteria could be inhibited by removing the essential metals 
such as iron from their environment during his applied research at Panfida Technology. 
This discovery may lead to biomedical applications in treating diseases that are resistant 
to antibiotics as well as bacterial diseases such as malaria. Furthermore, it may also be 
applied to the inhibition of microbial growth in food products. 
In 1999, [the petitioner] disclosed his research on biomaterials for patent applications in 
Canada and the U.S. At University of Toronto, he developed a novel synthetic method 
and synthesized several novel biomaterials that were very useful for the micro­
encapsulation of cells. This invention may lead to application in tissue engineering and 
disease treatment, among other uses. 
In 2008 at rthe petitioner] was able to determine the 
pharmaceutical compositIons of natural conjugated estrogens with novel analytical 
methods, which was disclosed to _ for a U.S. patent application. Natural 
conjugated estrogens are complex mixture derived from pregnant mare's urine and can be 
used as the drug for hormone replacement therapy. As the mixture contains a lot of 
unknown hormone compounds with biological activities and other inactive compounds, it 
is extremely difficult to determine the pharmaceutical compositions in the natural 
conjugated estrogens. [The petitioner's] research revealed the pharmaceutical 
compositions of the product with innovative analytical methods, which was very 
important for the research and development of the pharmaceutical product. 
Regarding the preceding patents and patent applications referenced by _ and submitted 
by the petitioner, the AAO has previously stated that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a 
track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of" 
New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, (Comm'r. 1998). Rather, the 
significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. [d. In this instance, 
Page 13 
there is no documentary evidence indicating the extent to which the petitioner's inventions have 
been successfully utilized in the industry. Thus, the impact of the petitioner's inventions is not 
documented in the record. 
pursued his bachelor's 
degree in chemistry in the 1980s along with the petitioner at Wuban University. _states: 
While obtaining his Masters degree in China, as well as performing research as a lecturer 
at Wuhan University in China, [the petitioner] made innovative, original chemical 
synthesis that led to important publications. [The petitioner] developed a novel synthetic 
method which could be used in the synthesis of some organic compounds that were very 
difficult to be synthesized with traditional methods. This finding was granted a Chinese 
patent. 
[The petitioner] also invented novel polymeric coupling agents that could be used for the 
adhesion of macromolecules and metals. The adhesion of macromolecules such as 
rubbers with metals is difficult because they are dissimilar substrates. As many parts in 
automobiles and medical instruments need to be made with macromolecule and metals 
together, the adhesion of the two substrates is critical for making the parts. Due to some 
problem with the regular adhesives, [the petitioner] invented novel polymeric coupling 
agents that have two functional groups within the same backbone (frame) for binding the 
dissimilar substrates: one for the macromolecules and the other one for metals. The 
perfect design made the polymeric coupling agents the desirable propertied for the 
adhesion. He synthesized the polymeric coupling agents with some new methods, and 
applied the products in the adhesion of molecules with metals. [The petitioner's] 
invention was awarded a U.S. patent and was successfully used in industry. 
In addition, I the petitioner J made some other inventions including novel chelating 
compounds for the treatment of antibiotic resistant diseases and malaria, novel 
biomaterials for microencapsulation of cells, the determination of drug compositions in 
some natural products. These inventions were either filed with patent offices or disclosed 
for patent applications. 
_ does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's synthetic method for 
organic compounds, polymeric coupling agents for the adhesion of macromolecules and metals, 
and chelating compounds for the treatment of antibiotic resistant diseases and malaria have been 
implemented by others throughout the field, successfully commercialized in the industry, or that 
they otherwise constitute original contributions of major significance in the field. 
_states: 
When [the petitioner I moved to Canada in 1998, he conducted two years of pioneering 
research in my group on the microencapsulation of living cells in a semi-permeable 
membrane using water insoluble, biocompatible polymers to treat diseases such as 
diabetes. My group was the first one in the world to achieve this result without killing the 
Page 14 
cells. [The petitioner] did a superb job of synthesizing new polymers to micro­
encapsulate calls. He revised the synthesis of our standard hydroxyethyl 
methacrylatemethyl - methacrylate (HEMA-MMA) copolymer so that the polymer was 
less branched and more useful than before. He synthesized a number of different 
polymers with various purposes in mind - to make capsules with higher water contents 
and greater permeability, or to make capsules without hydroxyl groups so that 
complement was not activated or simply to make capsules that were less sticky. Not only 
did he synthesize the polymer, he characterized them chemically, measured their 
permeability and showed their utility in micro-encapsulating live cells. He successfully 
demonstrated extraordinary skills on synthesis of polymers and biomaterials. 
Assuming the petitioner's skills are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to 
alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of 
the Department of Labor through the alien employment certification process. See Matter of New 
York State Dep't of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. at 221. It is not enough to be skillful and 
knowledgeable and to have others attest to those talents. An alien must have demonstrably 
impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. Dr. Sefton praises the petitioner's 
skills in synthesizing new polymers, but he does not provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's work at the University of Toronto impacted the field at large . 
••••• Primary Patent Examiner, United States Patent and Trademark Office, also pursued 
her bachelor's degree in chemistry in the 1980s along with the petitioner at Wuhan University .• 
• states: 
The first contribution I would like to note is [the petitioner's[ development of a new 
method to synthesize polymeric crown ethers (functional polymers) by one-step 
polymerization of some monomers. As polymeric crown ethers have selective complex 
properties and can be easily removed from chemical reaction mixtures, they are widely 
used in chemical separations and reaction catalysis. Normal synthesis of polymeric crown 
ethers need at least two steps, such as: synthesis of crown ethers, synthesis of polymers, 
and coupling the crown ethers into the polymers. [The petitioner] discovered a one-step 
polymerization to synthesize the useful polymeric crown ethers. In addition, he invented 
the synthesis method of polyethylene glycol diglycidal ethers by phase transfer catalysis. 
With this novel method, the useful polyethylene glycol diglycidal ethers can be easily 
synthesized with a high yield. This work resulted in a patent issuance by the China Patent 
Office in 1986. 
The second contribution [the petitioner] made was the synthesis of iron chelating 
polymers/resins and their biomedical applications. He successfully synthesized some 
novel iron chelating polymers and studied their biomedical applications including the 
treatment of iron overload diseases, inhibition of microbial growth in food without 
preservatives, and potential treatment of antibiotic-resistant infectious disease and 
malaria. His work has thus contributed significantly to some disease treatments and food 
storage. He published more than 10 scientific papers in some top referenced journals 
such as Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer 
-Page IS 
Edition, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, and Journal of Dairy Science. Based on his 
discoveries, two provisional patent applications were also filed with Australia Patent 
Office. 
The third contribution [the petitioner] made was the synthesis of polymeric coupling 
agents and their applications in adhesion of macromolecular materials and metal 
substrates. He designed and synthesized the novel functional polymers, and found their 
use in adhesion of different materials, including rubbers and metals. This work was 
awarded a U.S. patent issued by our office in 1999, titled "Polymeric coupling agents for 
the adhesion of macromolecular materials and metal substrates" (No. 5,882,799). 
The fourth contribution [the petitioner] made was the synthesis of novel polymers for 
microencapsulation of cells. [The petitioner] successfully synthesized new polymers with 
improved properties, such as blood compatibility and permeability for the micro­
encapsulation of cells. The properties of the biomaterials are critical for keeping the cell 
live during the cell micro-encapsulation and after the transplantation of the micro­
capsules. His work has not only resulted in the publication of scientific papers but also 
contributed to an invention for a patent application in Canada. 
The fifth contribution [the petitioner] made was the new analytical methods for 
pharmaceutical products, especially for the identification of unknown compounds in 
pharmaceutical products. He has developed many new analytical methods for the 
separation and identification of novel compounds in pharmaceutical products using some 
advanced techniques such as GC-MS (gas chromatography with mass spectrometer) and 
LC-MS (liquid chromatography with mass spectrometer). The novelty and usefulness of 
the methods can be exemplified in his methods for identification of unknown compounds 
in pharmaceutical products and determination of pharmaceutical compositions in natural 
drug products. His work has led to the identification of a number of unknown compounds 
in some important drug products, including Butorphanol nasal solution, Salbutamol 
Sulfate and natural conjugated estrogens. He has presented several papers in scientific 
conferences and disclosed an invention for U.S. patent application based on his original 
research. 
_ lists five of the petitioner's research contributions from various projects to which he was 
assigned, but she does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work is being 
utilized by others in the field beyond his immediate projects. For instance, there is no 
documentary evidence indicating widespread medical or commercial implementation of the 
petitioner'S iron chelating polymers or that they otherwise constitute contributions of major 
significance in the field. Regarding the petitioner's research publications, there is no evidence 
showing that any single article authored by the petitioner has been cited to more than 22 times as 
of the petition's filing date. As previously discussed, the petitioner has not established this 
moderate level of citation per article is indicative of original scientific contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
Page 16 
Canada, states served as 
_further states: 
I W]e invited [the petitioner] to join one of our cOlmp'anies 
Associate Research Director position 
University of Guelph, 
Australia .• 
The novel strategy [the petitioner] developed with Panfida was based on the fact that 
yeast and bacteria need iron for their growth. Removal or deprivation of iron from their 
environment would result in the inhibition of the microbial and cellular growth, which 
would have very important applications in biomedical science . . .. [The petitioner] 
achieved a very high level of productivity and delivered innovative and excellent results. 
These included several promising candidate compounds which were retained for future 
aspects of our research. . .. [The petitioner] also worked in several very important 
research projects, such as inhibition of microbial growth in grape juice and synthesis of 
novel polymers for the treatment of antibiotic-resistant infectious diseases and malaria. 
His contribution was critically important to the success of the research, which led to the 
discovery of the novel strategy for inhibition of microbial growth and potential treatment 
of some diseases. 
_does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's iron deprivation strategy 
for inhibition of microbial growth has been successfully commercialized 
in the pharmaceutical industry or implemented others in the field. Regarding the petitioner's 
employment that the petitioner's work resulted 
in "several candidate compounds which were retained for future aspects of our 
research" and showed "potential" for treatment of some diseases. there is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's work had already 
significantly impacted the greater field as of the petition's filing date so as to considered a 
contribution of major significance. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 
I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 
18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only 
subsequent to the filing of a petition." [d. at 176. Further, as previously discussed, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's contributions 
be "of . significance in the field" rather than limited to a particular company such as _ 
_ continues: 
IThe petitioner] also took an active interest in the practical aspects pertaining to the use 
of the metal-chelating polymers to limit microbial growth and some parts of his research 
work led to the publication of three peer-reviewed manuscripts in prestigious 
internationally recognized scientific journals and one paper presented in an international 
conference. The following peer-reviewed published papers exemplify his important 
Page 17 
original contribution to our research: (a) "Inhibition of yeast growth in grape JUice 
through removal of iron and other metals," International Journal of Food Science and 
Technology, published in 1997 with [the petitioner] as first-author, (b) "Selective removal 
of iron from grape juice using an iron(III) chelating resin," Separation and Purification 
Technology, published in 1997 with [the petitioner] as first-author, and (c) "Synthesis and 
properties of a temperature-sensitive chelating hydrogel and its metal complexes," 
Polymers for Advanced Technologies, published in 1996 with [the petitioner] as sole 
author. His scientific results were also presented at prestigious international conferences, 
including the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC): 6th 
International Symposium on Macromolecule-Metal Complexes. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
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 scientist 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. 
[The petitioner [ discovered and synthesized novel polymers that can be used in the 
treatment of iron overload diseases, antibiotic-resistant infectious diseases and inhibition 
of microbial growth in food. He published his original findings on this research in 14 
peer-reviewed papers as the first or sole author in the top international journals including 
the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry and the Journal of Dairy Science. His contributions 
in this area are not only scientifically significant but also practically remarkable in 
pharmaceutical and food industries. 
[The petitioner J is also the inventor of two patents and four other inventions. These 
patents and inventions provided novel and useful materials and/or methods, which have 
significant impact in science and technology. For instance, his patent 
entitled polymeric coupling agents for the adhesion of macromolecular materials and 
metal substrates was acquired by and also cited by other 
inventors in five (5) different U.S. patents (issued from 2004 to 2008) in automobiles and 
medical devices. [The petitioner's] other invention of novel analytical method for the 
pharmaceutical compositions in a natural drug product is currentl y used in the 
development of important pharmaceutical products. 
_ does not provide specific examples of how the polymers developed by the petitioner for 
disease treatment and inhibition of microbial growth in food are being utilized in the 
pharmaceutical and food industries or that they otherwise constitute original scientific 
contributions of major significance in the field. Regarding the petitioner's patents, patent 
applications, and other inventions, there is no documentary evidence indicating widespread 
Page 18 
medical, industrial, or commercial implementation of his innovations at the time of filing or that 
they otherwise equate to contributions of major significance in the field, 
The AAO notes that all but two of the preceding references are the petitioner's current or former 
supervisors or Wuhan University alumnae, While letters from those who are close to the 
petitioner are important in providing details about his work on various projects, they cannot by 
themselves establish that his work is recognized beyond his circle of acquaintances, 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 of 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 letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of 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 a research scientist 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, the AAO 
cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence ufthe alien's authorship (d' scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented his authorship of scholarly 
qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
established that he meets this criterion. 
articles and, thus, has submitted 
Accordingly, the petitioner has 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner initially submitted project presentations and internal reports pertaining to his work 
at as evidence for this regulatory criterion. While the preceding 
documentation shows the petitioner's activities for his it fails to demonstrate that he 
performed in a leading or critical role for and that his company has a 
distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from Anal ytical Research 
& Development, stating: 
is a leading and distinguished specialty pharmaceutical 
company more 6,000 employees and $2.5 billion revenue. We are using 
innovative science and market insight to develop responsive pharmaceutical products for 
· -Page 19 
U.S. and the world. _ established its distinguished reputation in the pharmaceutical 
industries as its products are ranked as the fifth in prescription sales nationwide. 
[The petitioner] is 
in our company. He is the authoritative expert we resort to in the analytical _ for 
important and specific products related challenges with his extraordinary ability and 
background in chemistry. He oversees and supervises a group of scientists in various 
advanced research assignments and _ initiatives at [The petitioner] is 
primarily responsible for several challenging _projects with millions of dollars 
investment, including the drug products for hormone replacement therapy and cancer 
treatment. In each and everyone of these projects, [the petitioner] takes the lead and is 
indispensable in his role. His scientific insight, engineering intuition, experimental design 
and execution, and analytical inventions are the key element and instrumental in our 
successful development of the most challenging and valuable pharmaceutical products to 
public health. It will cause irreparable damage and loss to our company if [the petitioner] 
ceases to work in the projects due to his legal residence status problem. He is also the 
only specialist in LC-MS (liquid chromatograph-mass spectrometer) analysis and one of 
the few top experts in organic chemistry at~. Therefore, his expertise is very 
critical to our success in the development of specific pharmaceutical products that are 
intended for improving the quality of life for patients around the world. 
that . generates "$2.5 billion" in revenue and that her 
company's "products are ranked as the fifth in prescription sales nationwide," but the record 
does not include documentary evidence to support her assertions. As previously discussed, 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The 
~formation provided in the letter from the petitioner'S superior at _ 
~ is not sufficient to demonstrate that the company has earned a distinguished 
reputation. USCIS need not rely on self-serving documentation. 8 Further, there is no 
organizational chart or other evidence documenting how the petitioner's position fell within the 
general hierarchy of For . does not specify how 
many Senior Principal Scientists are employed by her company. The documentation submitted 
by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for the company's success or standing 
to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." Aside from the petitioner's 
role for the petitioner's appellate submission does not include 
arguments or evidence addressing the petitioner's leading or critical role for any other 
organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. As previously discussed, section 
203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act requires the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent with that 
statutory requirement, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the submission of 
evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for "organizations or 
establishments" in the plural. Therefore, even if the petitioner were to submit supporting 
8 See Braga v. Paulos, No. CV 06 5105 S10 (C. D. CA July 6.2007) affd 2009 WL 604888 (9'" Cir. 2009) (concluding 
that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as 
major media). 
• 
Page 20 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's role and 
meet the elements of this criterion, which he has not, the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires evidence of a leading or critical role for more than one distinguished organization 
or establishment. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he 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). 
Nevertheless, the AAO will review the evidence in the aggregate as part of its final merits 
determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the AAO will next conduct a final merits determination 
that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: 
(I) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the[ir] 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 also Kazarian, 
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 the preceding discussion of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) - (v) and (viii). 
With regard to the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iii), the petitioner submitted two 
1994 articles in Food Spectrum and University of Twente News. As previously discussed, the 
English language translations accompanying these articles were not certified by the translator as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, there is no circulation evidence 
showing that Food Spectrum and University of Twente News qualify as professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that 
articles have been published about the petitioner subsequent to 1994. The statute and regulations, 
however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or international acclaim as a 
researcher has been sustained. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(I)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as of the 
filing date of the petition. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), the nature of the petitioner's 
judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of his 
recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. As 
previously discussed, the five e-mails dated May 16, 2009 requesting that the petitioner review 
• 
Page 21 
abstracts 3690, 3904, 3304, 3311, and 3874 for the AAPS Annual Meeting 2009 post-date the 
petition's April 23, 2009 filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time 
of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Regarding the 
two letters from the petitioner's former supervisor _ stating that the petitioner helped 
review 6-12 manuscripts, the letters do not indicate the titles of the manuscripts reviewed, their 
specific dates of completion, and the names and fields of specification of those whose work the 
petitioner reviewed. The petitioner has not established that reviewing articles for a journal at the 
request of his immediate supervisor is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top of the field of endeavor. Moreover, the AAO notes that peer review of manuscripts 
is a routine element of the process by which articles are selected for publication in scientific 
journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of numerous professionals 
in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for a publication to ask several 
reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The publication's editorial staff may 
accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish or reject submitted 
papers. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence 
that he has received and completed independent requests for review from a substantial number of 
journals or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal as of the petition's filing 
date, the AAO cannot conclude that his level and frequency of peer review is commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field of endeavor. For instance, 
ume states that he served on the editorial board of Laboratory Robotics and 
Automation. 
Regarding the petitioner's original research findings discussed under 8 C.P.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). The report 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) .... " Id. Research work that is unoriginal 
would 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." 
While the petitioner has published scholarly articles based on his research at the University of 
Toronto, Panfida Technology, the University of Twente, and Wuhan University, the Department of 
Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), 2010-11 Edition, (accessed at www.hls.gov/oco 
on June 16, 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 http://www.hls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos066.pdf. 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. [d. 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 
• 
-Page 22 
permanent college or university faculty position." See http://www.bls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos047.pdf. 
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 published research 
articles in professional journals subsequent to 2000, conference papers subsequent to 2006, or book 
chapters subsequent to January 2007. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to 
demonstrate that his national or international acclaim as a researcher has been sustained. See 
section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
documentation submitted for 8 C.F.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 on 
appeal indicates that no single article authored by him had been cited to more than 22 times as of 
the petition's filing date. This level of citation per article is not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
petitioner's published work has attracted a level of interest in his field commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 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 
two articles from 1994 in publications whose circulation is not documented, undocumented 
manuscript reviews assigned to the petitioner by _ at the University of Toronto, the 
petitioner's publications and conference presentations, citation evidence showing that several of his 
articles from the 1990s have been moderately cited, two patents and four patent applications that 
have not been shown to have significantly impacted the field, his employment as a Senior Principal 
and the praise of his references. 
Moreover, many of the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive than those of the 
petitioner. For example, _ states: 
I am currently a full tenured professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry 
at California State University, Los Angeles, with an international reputation as an expert 
in chemistry and biochemical analysis. . .. Recognition of my research work and 
mentoring of postdoctoral and graduate students is reflected by the 2001 Dreyfus Teacher 
Scholar Award and my selection by the National Science Foundation as a panelist on the 
Graduate Research Fellowship and Chemistry Research Instrumentation and Facilities 
Programs. My research laboratory has been supported by grants from the National 
Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, American Chemical Society, 
Department of Defense, and various private foundations and State agencies for a total of 
nearly 7 million dollars in the past 12 years. I have published close to 90 research papers. 
_states: 
• 
-Page 23 
I received my Sc.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1974 and 
joined the University of Toronto directly thereafter when I was appointed to the Faculty 
of Applied Science and Engineering as an Assistant Professor in the Department of 
Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry. I became Assistant Chair of the 
Department in 1981, formerly served as Director of the Institute of Biomaterials and 
Biomedical Engineering, and was appointed as a University Professor (the highest level 
of distinction at the University). I am also a Founder and Chief Scientific Officer of 
a biomaterials company based in Toronto, Canada. As a pioneer in 
biomaterials and biomedical engineering, my work on the development of pioneering 
procedures for microencapsulating mammalian cells for the purposes of cell 
transplantation and the preparation of materials that are compatible with blood has had a 
major international impact. I have authored more than 300 publications and 200 abstracts, 
hold IS U.S. and international patents, and gave more than 350 invited seminars and 
scientific presentations in 20 countries. I sit on (or have sat on) the editorial boards of 
many journals, such as the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, the Journal of 
Biomaterials Science, the Journal of Controlled Release, and Biomaterials. In 1988, I 
received from the Canadian Society for 
Chemical Engineering and was one of of Achievement Award by 
that in 1999. I received the and 
from the U.S. Society for Biomaterials. In 2008, I received 
most distinguished award given by the Canada Council for the 
Arts. As a University Professor, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a Fellow of the 
Chemical Institute of Canada and the Society for Biomaterials, and a Foreign Fellow of 
AIMBE (The American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering), I have also 
served the biomaterials and biomedical community through my work on organizing 
committees and working parties of these Societies, NSERC (Natural Sciences and 
Engineering Research Council of Canada), MRC (Medical Research Council)/CIHR 
(Canadian Institutes of Health Research), and U.S. NIH (National Institutes of Health). 
to a personnel announcement submitted by the petitioner, provides 
managerial oversight and control of research and development functions at the~ where 
the petitioner works. Previously, _ worked at Barr Laboratories where he held positions 
such as Manager of Research and Development, Associate Director and Director of Research and 
Development. 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is above the 
level he has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time 
of filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a scientific 
researcher, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
Page 24 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. 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, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DO], 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 V.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.