dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE
JUN 2 3 2011 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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, the petitioner submits a statement. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO upholds the 
director's findings. 
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 H.R. 723 Wist Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29,1991). The tenn "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt oflesser 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 ofmajor 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 perfonned 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 performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 FJd 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.l With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] 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). 
!d. 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 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 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(iv); Solfane v. DOJ, 381 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the petitioner notes that some articles have referenced the conformer or conformation he 
worked out by his last name. The petitioner asserts that "it is the greatest honor for a scientist to name a 
scientific concept after his nam~ferences the naming of element 106 as 
in honor of Nobel ____ and notes that at the ceremony_ 
It was a greater honor than the Nobel Prize. 
The record contains three articles that reference the conformer or conformation 
name. The first of these articles is by the petitioner's own coauthor, Two 
0_ coauthors authored the second article. The final article appears to be an independent use 
of the term. 
There is a finite number of elements and the majority of them are not named after individuals. The 
petitioner has not documented that the single independent use of the petitioner's last name in the 
literature to describe a conformer or conformation he reported is remotely similar to having a scientific 
body name an element after an individual. Significantly, _, asserts that the International 
Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) has not adopted the petitioner's name for this 
conformer or conformation. The record suggests there are three classes (including the petitioner's) of 
conformations for ferrocene peptides. The record does not, however, contain evidence regarding the 
total number of conformers or conformations overall. The record also lacks evidence of the frequency 
and significance of referencing conformers or conformations by the name of the researcher who 
reported the conformer. 
The record contains no evidence suggesting that reference to a conformer or conformation by the 
petitioner's last name in the literature is a prize or award for excellence in the field of chemistry. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
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. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in Sigma Xi and the American Chemical Society 
(ACS). In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence 
that ACS requires only an earned baccalaureate or higher degree in a chemical field or relevant 
experience. These are not outstanding achievements. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that Sigma Xi is open to those who demonstrate a "noteworthy 
achievement." The petitioner did not submit evidence regarding how Sigma Xi defines a "noteworthy 
achievement." Achievements that an honor society might consider "noteworthy," for example primary 
authorship of two published papers, are not outstanding achievements in the sciences.3 Moreover, the 
petitioner did not submit evidence that recognized national or international experts judge the 
achievements of prospective members. 
Even if the AAO were to conclude that Sigma Xi is a qualifYing membership, and the AAO does not 
make such a finding, it is only one membership. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires 
evidence of membership in qualifYing associations in the plural, consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive documentation. 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. § 204.5(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 in a regulation. 4 
On appeal, the petitioner merely asserts that he included the above memberships because he is aware of 
"many successful EBla applicants claimed" these memberships. Those petitions are not before the 
AAO and could also have included qualifYing evidence under three other criteria. Each petition is 
evaluated based on the evidence of record. The evidence of record in this matter does not establish that 
the petitioner is a member of associations that requires outstanding achievements of their members as 
judged by recognized national or international experts. 
3 These are, in fact, the only requirements for Sigma Xi membership. See 
www.sigmaxi.org/member/join/quaiification.htmi. 
4 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com 
Inc. v. ChertofJ, 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). 
Page 7 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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. 
On appeal, the petitioner singles out two articles that he asserts constitute published material about him. 
While he acknow~ named in the second article, he notes that the articles reference 
the colleagues of ____ with whom the petitioner worked. The petitioner notes that" 
~rovided a letter confirming the petitioner's contribution to the project discussed in the second 
article. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material 
be "about" the petitioner relating to his work. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) (requiring 
published material about the alien's work). 
The first article presents "a rigorous nomenclature" for ferrocene 
summarizes and categorizes the structures. It discusses both 
and contains 35 footnotes, of which the petitioner's article is merely one. This article 
cannot be considered to be published material about the petitioner relating to his work. 
The second article, while about a project on which _confirms the petitioner worked, does not 
mention the petitioner by name and cannot be considered to be about him and relating to his work. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field 
The director, relying in part on the number of citations in the aggregate, concluded that the petitioner 
meets this criterion. As an experienced researcher is likely to have published several articles, however, 
the number of citations per article is typically more informative than the total number of citations in the 
aggregate. Nevertheless, based on the letters supported by a pattern of moderate to frequent citation 
and the use of the petitioner's last name in the trade literature to reference a conformation he reported, 
the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion. 
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. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, has some meaning. 
To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of science, it can be expected that 
the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their 
work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
The petitioner submitted several published articles in professional journals. The regulations contain a 
separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). If the 
regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views 
contributions as a separate evidentiary fequirement from scholarly articles.5 The petitioner also 
submitted evidence of a pattern of moderate to frequent citation. This citation level is at least 
consistent with contributions of major significance to the field. As discussed above, at least one 
independent research team has referenced the conformer or conformation the petitioner reported by the 
petitioner's last name. 
_ formerly a professor at the Univers~Saskatchewan, asserts that the petitioner joined. 
_group as a postdoctoral researcher in _'and was instrumental in developing our research 
program o~" _ontinues: 
In his research, [the petitioner] focused on the synthesis of electrochemical biosensors 
that enable the facile detection of diseases, monitoring air quality, and detection of 
bacterial contamination in foods. In addition to their versatility, such technology offers 
the benefit of being fast, easy to use, and inexpensive. 
Based on our group's previous research, we designed disubstituted ferrocenes as new 
biosensors aiming to detect a range of proteins involved in the viral cycle of the HIV-l 
virus. [The petitioner] designed a new structural type of unsymmetrically substituted 
ferrocene peptide conjugates. Since no synthetic strategy existed that enabled their 
synthesis, [the petitioner] developed a feasible method that allowed him to introduce 
peptide substituents selectively into individual positions. [The petitioner's] excellent 
synthetic skills and outstanding research abilities were essential for the success of this 
project and he quickly developed the necessary methodology and obtained a sizable 
quantity of this biosensor material. 
_ notes that the petitioner published this work and asserts that _ and "many around 
the world" are using the petitioner's methodologies. The petitioner's two articles coauthored with Dr. 
_ both published in 2001 had each garnered a notable number of citations as of the date of filing 
and continue to garner citations. 
5 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. USCIS, 580 FJd 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 
596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffinned its holding that the AAO did not abuse 
its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 FJd at 
1122. 
Page 9 
a professor at the University of the petitioner 
served as a postdoctoral researcher in states that the 
petitioner "made important contributions to synthesis of isotopically labeled metabolites and 
~ methodologies than [sic] were essential to the success of those chemical transformations." _ 
~otes that the petitioner published two articles reporting this work. One of those articles has 
garnered moderate citation. 
explains that he has known the petitioner 
since 2008 when he joined asserts ~etitioner is working on synthesis of 
compounds with position specific stable isotope labels. _ states that the petitioner "successfully 
synthesized a serial of compounds which are stable isotope labeled analogs of lamine" and that because 
of these products, "trace detection of melamine in milk and diary [sic] products became practical in 
NIH and FDA laboratories." 
The above evidence adequately supports the director's conclusion that the petitioner has submitted 
qualifYing evidence that meets the plain language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted several published articles in professional publications. Thus, the petitioner 
has submitted qualifYing evidence that meets the plain language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Initially and in response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner claimed to have 
performed in a leading or critical role for The petitioner reiterates this claim on 
appeal. The petitioner has never claimed to have performed in a leading or critical role for a second 
organization or establishment. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), however, requires 
evidence of a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments in the plural, consistent with 
the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. Section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) ofthe Act. 
of Scientific Affairs at 
was "a critical member of the 
scientific excellence." USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 6 Moreover, merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfY the petitioner's burden of proof. 7 
6 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States. 745 F. Supp. 9.15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
7 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Page 10 
More specifically, _asserts that Research provides chemical reference standards 
related industries and has a reputation "known 
that the petitioner made significant contributions to that 
and synthesis services to the 
through the .. 'J .uu~.u 
reputation. 
As a research scientist in the R&D Department, [the petitioner] was responsible for 
developing new methods and synthesizing new products. Most projects were multi­
step syntheses of isotopically labeled pharmaceuticals. Isotopically labeled 
pharmaceuticals and metabolites are important compounds used as internal reference 
standards in bioana[l]ytical studies on pharmaceutical drugs. 
~xplains that the petitioner successfully co~n 40 new synthesis projects, 
resulting in his promotion to Research Manager ofthe _ Laboratory. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted two new letters 
from _ Research employees: Chief Operating Officer, and 
Mana~Analytic Service. Both letters affirm that the petitioner played a critical role at the 
company. As stated above, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions and letters that 
merely repeat the language of the statute or regulations do not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. 8 The letters discuss the petitioner's supervision of young chemists, solutions for chemical 
problems and suggestions for achieving project targets. 
As evidence o_Research's distinguished reputation, the petitioner submitted materials from 
the company's own website and an advertisement posted on These 
self-promotional materials cannot establish how the 
Research's reputation.9 
The petitioner failed to provide an organizational chart demonstrating how the petitioner's role as a 
manager at_esearch fits within the overall hierarchy of the company. Thus, he has not 
established that he played a leading role for~esearch. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires that the petitioner 
demonstrate a leading or critical role rather than just employment for a qualifying employer. If the 
word "critical" is to have any meaning, it must go beyond the fact that the petitioner performed 
services that were important to the employer. Specifically, an employer would not bother to hire 
someone to perform services that the employer does not require. 
8 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 1; Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F. 2d at 41; Avyr 
Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 188942 at *5. 
9 See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th 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 11 
While_ asserts that the petitioner contributed to_ Research's reputation, the record 
does not contain annual reports confirming an increase in business coincident with the petitioner's 
discoveries at that company. The record also lacks corroboration in the trade media, such as news 
coverage of notable accomplishments at_Research to which his colleagues have confirmed 
his contribution. Finally, the record lacks any similar evidence confirming the petitioner's critical 
role with ~esearch and its reputation in the industry. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which is worded in the plural. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
While the petitioner has never claimed to meet this the AAO notes that the record contains 
evidence that the petitioner's current offered the petitioner a starting salary of 
$70,000. The petitioner also submitted pay statements reflecting a biweekly gross salary of $2,692.31, 
which annualizes to $70,000. The record, however, contains no evidence that this salary is high in 
relation to others in the field. 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, the AAO will 
review the evidence in the aggregate as part of the final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is 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. § 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." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
As stated above, the petitioner has authored scholarly articles. Pursuant to the reasoning in Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122, however, the field's response to these articles may be and will be considered in the 
final merits determination. The petitioner has documented a pattern of notable citation. Only a 
major nationally or internationally recognized award, however, can serve as the sole evidence of 
eligibility. Thus, while the petitioner's citation record is notable and indicative of both a notable 
publication record and contributions, it is not, by itself, sufficient evidence to establish national or 
international acclaim. 
Due to the petitioner's citation record and the references to the petitioner's conformer or conformation 
by his last name in at least one independent article, the AAO did not withdraw the director's finding 
that the petitioner has made contributions of major significance. That said, it is notable that the 
petitioner failed to provide any letters from researchers who have not worked with the petitioner and are 
aware of his work through his reputation alone. Acclaim requires recognition beyond the petitioner's 
immediate circle of colleagues. 
The remaining evidence, in addition to not meeting the plain language requirements of the 
regulations quoted above, is not indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim or 
status among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field. The associations of 
which the petitioner is a member require only education, experience or publication for membership. 
These accomplishments do not set the petitioner apart from the vast majority of scientists. 
The petitioner's own supervisor authored the review that discusses the petitioner's conformer at 
length and the single article that discusses the petitioner's work on an HIV biosensor does not 
mention him by name. This published material is simply not indicative of or consistent with national 
or international acclaim. Specifically, acclaim requires recognition beyond one's supervisor and 
name recognition. 
The petitioner clearly progressed in his career, moving from a research position to a manager 
position at_Research. While this progression demonstrates increasing responsibilities at this 
company, it is not indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim or status among 
the small percentage who have risen to 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. While the petitioner did not submit 
the curriculum vitae of his references, some of them list their in their letters. _ 
_ has authored 150 articles and serves on two editorial boards. of the 
petitioner's references who discusses his wor-.k in China serves on 
more than 90 articles and holds two patents. is 
and Agricultural Chemistry and has publishe over 130 articles chapters. 
that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained. 
III. Conclusion 
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. 
Page 13 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
chemist to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as a chemist and progression in his career, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203 (b)(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.