dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarrantec 
invasion of personal privac) 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ojfice of Administrrrtive Appeals MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
SRC 09 154 50050 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. (j 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability in sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the beneficiary demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present "extensive 
documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 
1 1 53(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. €j 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 criteria that call for the submission of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
55 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). Through the submission of required initial evidence, at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria must be satisfied for an alien to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets four of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
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 (USCIS) 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-99 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines the following 
ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
(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; 
(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 performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 20 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 7253 17 (9th Cir. March 4, 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.' With respect to the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
concems about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concems 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's approach 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 *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(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 the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. fj 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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying 
under three criteria, 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 Dor v. INS, 891 
F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
This petition, filed on April 23, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a research scientist. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner initially did not claim this criterion. However, on appeal, counsel claims the 
petitioner was accepted for membership in The Association for Research in Vision and 
Ophthalmology (ARVO) based on his review and acceptance of his abstract entitled "Condon 
Optimization Increases Bacterial Expression of Functionally Active Pigment Epithelium Derived 
Factor." In order to support his contention that he is a member of ARVO, the petitioner provided an 
acknowledgement from ARVO of his application and submission of his abstract for review, and an 
acceptance letter for the abstract from ARVO dated February 21,2008. 
Counsel also claimed on appeal that the petitioner was a member of the Georgian Biophysical 
Society. No evidence was provided to establish his involvement in this organization. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofsoflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Crafr ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criteria, the 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, 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 failed to provide evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission 
requirements) showing that ARVO or the Georgian Biophysical Society requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field or an allied one. While publication may be a requirement for admission into 
ARVO, this was not documented through the evidence. Further, even if the petitioner demonstrated 
that publication is required for membership in ARVO, publication of an abstract is not indicative of 
an outstanding achievement. 
Moreover, the petitioner failed to show that his membership in ARVO or the Georgian Biophysical 
Society was judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
* The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
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 class@cation is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The petitioner did not initially specifically claim this criterion. However, on appeal, counsel claims that 
the petitioner has satisfied this criterion. The petitioner alleges that "a Google search reveals 154 
references" and that "a computer search in GINFO.PL, a reliable source of international data and 
government information" identifies the petitioner in "the person category of 'world scientists."' 
However, as aforementioned, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSofJici at 165. 
In addition, the petitioner references publications which have cited to his findings. The petitioner 
submitted five articles, citing to his articles, from Advances in Protein Chemistry, Proteins: Structure, 
Function and Bioinformatics and FEBS Journal. The petitioner also provided abstracts from Medline 
Abstract, the Bulletin of Georgian Academy of Sciences, Byophysics, HighBeam Research, and the 
National Science Foundation, some of which were previously submitted. These abstracts include brief 
discussions regarding his articles. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be 
"about" the petitioner relating to his work. Compare 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) which only requires 
published material about the alien's work. Articles authored by the petitioner, or articles which cite the 
petitioner's work, are not articles about the petitioner relating to his work. However, while these 
citations are not relevant to this criterion, they will be considered below as they relate to the significance 
of the petitioner's contributions and scholarly articles, as well as whether he has the requisite sustained 
acclaim and has established that he has reached the very top of his field. 
Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that "[sluch evidence shall include 
the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation." However, the abstracts 
provided do not include authors or titles, aside from the titles of the articles they are summarizing. 
As such, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. 
Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
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. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. 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.3 
3 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 
A review of the citations and abstracts reflect that they are not primarily or principally "about" the 
petitioner. Instead, they revolve around the petitioner's research and published materials. 
In light of the above, the evidence does not meet the plain language requirements for this criterion, set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major sign@cance in the field. 
Counsel argued in his appeal brief that the petitioner is recognized for his "seminal research on 
cooperativity of salt bridges and proteins to recognize rules for more effective biocatalytic molecules 
with improved biological function." In order to satisfy this criterion, the petitioner provided the 
following evidence: 
1. A reference letter from , Chemistry and Chemical 
Biology, Rensselaer Center for Biotechnology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Rensselaer 
Polvtechnic Institute, dated March 26,2009; 
2. A reference letter from -, Neural Behavioral Sciences, 
Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, dated April 1, 2009; 
3. A reference letter from, Neural and Behavioral Sciences and 
Ophthalmology, Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, dated March 23, 2009; 
4. A reference letter from Center for Biotechnology 
and Interdisciplinary Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, dated July 15,2009; 
5. A reference letter from of Neural & Behavioral 
Sciences, Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, dated June 26,2009; 
- 
6. A reference letter from , Department of 
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, dated May 
14,2009; 
7. A reference letter from Department of Biochemistry 
and Molecular Biology, University of Texas Medical Branch, dated June 8,2009; 
8. A reference letter from , Talecris 
Biothera~eutics. dated Julv 14.2009: 
1 - J' 
9. A reference letter from Division of 
Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Louisville, dated July 
12,2009; and 
10. A list of laboratories located internationally with whom the petitioner has a relationship. 
In addition to the above evidence referenced with regard to this criterion, we have also considered 
the petitioner's articles, citations to his publications, and his involvement in conferences. To support 
his claim of impact on his field, the petitioner refers to 154 "references" from a Google search. The 
record, however, contains no documentary evidence to substantiate this claim. In fact, a current 
search on Google scholar4 finds that the petitioner's two articles were cited only 8 times in total 
while the record contains evidence of five articles that cited to his work. This citation amount is 
minimal. While these citations demonstrate brief interest in his published and presented work, they 
are not sufficient to demonstrate that his articles have attracted a level of interest in his field 
commensurate with a claim that his work may be considered to have been a contribution of major 
significance in his field. To satisfy the criterion relating to original contributions of major significance, 
the petitioner must demonstrate not only that his work is novel and useful, but also that it has had a 
demonstrable impact on his field. The petitioner has not shown, for instance, how the field has changed 
as a result of his work, beyond the incremental improvements in knowledge and understanding that are 
expected from valid original research. 
Aside from the petitioner's publications, citations thereto, and involvement in presentations, the 
petitioner relies solely on reference letters for this criterion. indicated in his letter 
(item 1) that he: 
[Clan attest that he [the petitioner] is an extraordinary scientist in the field of protein 
stability and folding. He [the petitioner] is extremely knowledgeable and has the 
sophistication in both biochemistry and biophysics. track record of 
past achievements shows that he is a valuable asset to the scientific potential of the 
United States. 
However, although describes the petitioner's research, he fails to provide a specific 
description of what type of impact the petitioner has made in his field. Likewise, - 
letter (item 2) echoes - claims but again fails to specifically explain how the 
petitioner's findings have impacted the field. states that the petitioner's: 
[Wlork has truly helped him establish as an outstanding researcher with growing 
national and international recognition. is one of a very small group of 
outstanding scientists, whose findings are being translated into new treatments for a 
human disease. As his record indicates, he is becoming a leading researcher in the 
field and has developed a unique set of broad skills that are rarely matched. 
The general claim that the petitioner's work is "important to the scientific community," as well as 
Penn State University and that his ongoing work "will be critical" is not sufficient to establish that 
the petitioner's work has already significantly impacted his field. concludes her 
letter (item 3) by stating that the petitioner "has unique skills and potential for more important 
discoveries in the medical field and in the development of novel technological strategies." Merely 
having a diverse or "unique" skill-set and "potential" does not establish the petitioner's original or 
significant contribution to the field. reference letter (item 4) similarly indicated that the 
petitioner is a "very enthusiastic investigator who will continue his well respected research and 
making pivotal contributions to the American Science in these very difficult and competitive 
and incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 9 
moments for the American scientific communit letter (item 5) also references the 
potential that the petitioner has in his research. Y stated that the petitioner's "track record of 
past achievements shows that he is a valuable asset to the scientific potential of the United States." 
also feels that the petitioner has "unlimited potential" to "make important medical 
discoveries that may aid in development of novel protein therapeutics that can improve the lives of 
patients suffering from neurodegenerative conditions." 
In this case, the petitioner failed to submit preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance. While the letters highly praise the petitioner and provide 
examples of his research and work, they fail to establish that he has made contributions of major 
significance in his field. In evaluating the reference letters, they do not specifically identify how his 
contributions have influenced the field; rather, the letters discuss the possible implications that his 
work may lead to in the future. We will not consider evidence reflecting claims of future 
speculation. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter ofBardouille, 18 I&N 
Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the 
filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
In this case, the recommendation letters are not sufficient to meet this regulatory criterion. The 
opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. The statutory requirement that an alien 
have "sustained national or international acclaim" necessitates evidence of recognition beyond the 
alien's immediate acquaintances. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
$ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3). Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinion statements as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Commr. 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 of 
support from the petitioner's personal contacts 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. Thus, the content of the writers' 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 any immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence or original contributions of major significance that one would expect of an individual who 
has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Lastly, the petitioner provided a list of laboratories and scientists with whom he has had a 
relationship (item 10). As previously stated, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of SofJici at 1 65. 
As discussed above, the petitioner has failed to establish how his work has influenced his field to the 
extent that it is considered to have been a contribution of major significance in his field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jieleld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted the following articles that he authored and co-authored that had been 
published at the time of filing, including; "Cooperativity of complex salt bridges" published in 
Protein Science, "Elimination of the C-cap in ubiquitin - structure, dynamics and thermodynamic 
consequences" published in Biophysical Chemistry, "Microcalorimetric Study of Troponin T" 
published in the Bulletin of the Georgian Academy ofsciences, "The Effect of the Ionic Force and 
Temperature on Troponin I Molecule" published in the Bulletin of the Georgian Academy of 
Sciences, and "Study of Temperature Action on Structural Properties of Titin Molecule Using 
Intrinsic Fluorescence and Calorimetry Methods" published in the Bulletin of the Georgian Academy 
ofsciences. The petitioner also provided abstracts, not full articles, from Medline Abstract, the Bulletin 
of Georgian Academy of Sciences, Ryophysics, HighBeam Research, and the National Science 
Foundation. In addition, the petitioner provided evidence relating to his involvement in conferences. 
On appeal, the petitioner also provided several articles that cited to his work, as well as abstracts that 
he wrote. 
As such, the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that he meets the plain language 
of this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must 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 the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or intemational acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 201 0 WL 7253 17 at *3. 
In this case, the specific 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. 5 204.5(h)(3). The 
petitioner submitted documentation relating to his achievements. Although the petitioner has meet one 
of the criterion, he falls far short of meeting any others. Further, the submitted evidence is not 
indicative of the petitioner's national or intemational acclaim and there is no indication that his 
individual achievements have been recognized in the field. 
With regard to the evidence submitted for 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(vi), although the petitioner has met the 
plain language of the regulation through his authorship of scholarly articles, he has not established 
that the publication of such articles in publications such as Protein Science, Biophysical Chemistry, 
and the Bulletin of the Georgian Academy of Sciences demonstrates a level of expertise and 
Page 11 
recognition indicating that he is among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to a 
research scientist, we will evaluate a citation history or other evidence of the impact of the 
petitioner's articles to determine the impact and recognition the petitioner's work has had on the 
field and whether such influence has been sustained. Mere publication with no impact or no import 
to his field is not indicative of sustained acclaim. For example, numerous independent citations for 
an article authored by the petitioner would provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized 
and that other researchers have been influenced by his work. On the other hand, few or no citations 
to articles authored by the petitioner may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his 
field. As previously indicated, the petitioner's work has only been minimally cited. Such a minimal 
citation rate is not sufficient to demonstrate that his articles have attracted a level of interest in his 
field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
While the petitioner's accomplishments may distinguish him from other researchers, we will not 
narrow his field to others with a similar level of training and experience. When compared to the 
accomplishments of these individuals, it appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far 
above the level he has attained. For example, one of his references, from 
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute claimed to have over 90 peer-reviewed publications in scientific 
journals. Additionally, - serves as an Editorial Board Member of Protein 
Engineering, Design, Selection, Proteins: Structure Function and Bioinformatics, and on the Journal 
ofBiornedicine and Biotechnology, as well as having served on two additional journals in the past. 
- likewise, has extremely impressive credentials, having authored over one hundred 
and seventy articles and chapters in peer-reviewed journals and books. In addition to currently being 
a faculty member at Penn State College of Medicine, has also served as a faculty 
member at other distinguished universities including Harvard Medical School, Rockefeller 
University and Yale University. Additionally, has served on several editorial boards, 
and on the scientific advisory board of the Macula Vision Research Foundation. 
from Penn State College of Medicine similarly attests to her ability to evaluate I the petitioner. 
claims to have published over two hundred peer-reviewed articles and abstracts, and 
has served as an Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Ocular Biology, Disease, and Mechanisms, as 
well as being a member of several Editorial Review Boards. 
111. Conclusion 
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 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 his eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of 
the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
Page 12 
US. Dept. of Tmsp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g.. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
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 29 1 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.