dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac), 
pUBLlCCOPY 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiaty: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Irrnnigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N. W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: JNI07 ZOll 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinaty Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(l)(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 inquity 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 fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.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, 
Perty Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a university. It seeks classification of the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1 1 53(b)(1)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director 
determined that the petitioner had not established the beneficiary's 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 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 for the alien under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence 
to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner contends that the director erred by failing to request further evidence before 
denying the petition. The regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(8)(ii) provides: 
If all required initial evidence is not submitted with the application or petition or does not 
demonstrate eligibility, USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] in its discretion 
may deny the application or petition for lack of initial evidence or for ineligibility or request 
that the missing initial evidence be submitted within a specified period of time as determined 
by USCIS. 
The director is not required to issue a request for further information in every potentially deniable 
case. If the director determines that the record lacks initial evidence or does not demonstrate 
eligibility, the cited regulation does not require solicitation offurther documentation. With regard to 
counsel's concern, it is not clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process itself. 
The petitioner has in fact supplemented the record on appeal, and therefore it would serve no useful 
purpose to remand the case simply to afford the petitioner the opportunity to supplement the record 
with new evidence. 
The petitioner also argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's 
decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
Page 3 
(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. 
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 lOIS! 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 ofthe 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; 
Page 4 
(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 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 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.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." Jd. 
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)." Jd. 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 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[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). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
Id. at 1119-1120. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer EnteTrises, Inc. v. United States, 229 
F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afJ'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9' Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo 
basis). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on June 18, 2008, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extTaclrdinru'y 
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 asserts that the beneficiary is a member of 
and submits a copy of the Society'S bylaws. The petitioner, however, did not submit evidence 
documenting the beneficiary's membership in the SGP. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972». A petition must be filed with any initial 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Article II of the SGP bylaws submitted 
by the petitioner states, in part: "Regular membership in the Society shall be open to any individual 
actively interested in the field of general physiology and who has made significant contributions to 
knowledge in that field." The bylaws do not specifically define what constitutes "significant 
contributions." In this instance, the submitted documentation does not establish that the beneficiary 
holds membership in the SGP or that the Society requires outstanding achievements of its members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in his field or an allied one. 
The petitioner submitted an identification card indicating that the beneficiary is a member of the 
Biophysical Society and a copy of the Society's constitution and bylaws. Article iii of the 
Biophysical Society'S constitution states: "Membership in the Biophysical Society shall be open to 
scientists who share the stated purpose of the Society and who have educational, research, or 
practical experience in biophysics or in an allied scientific field." We cannot conclude that 
possessing the required "educational, research, or practical experience in biophysics" equates to 
outstanding achievements. In this instance, the submitted documentation does not establish that the 
Biophysical Society requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the beneficiary'S field or an allied one. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 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 the field for 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 
beneficiary 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 
The petitioner initially submitted internet search results from Google Scholar showing dozens of 
cites to the beneficiary'S published articles. On appeal, the petitioner submits a citation index from 
lSI Web of Knowledge documenting an aggregate of 120 independent cites to the beneficiary'S body 
of work. Regarding the scientific articles that merely reference the beneficiary'S published work, we 
note that the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about 
the alien." In this case, the articles citing to the beneficiary'S work are primarily about the authors' 
work, not the footnoted material identifying the beneficiary. With regard to this criterion, a footnoted 
reference to the alien's work without evaluation is of minimal probative value. Further, we note that 
J 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 scientific articles citing to the beneficiary's work similarly referenced numerous other authors. 
The submitted search results from Google Scholar and lSI Web of Knowledge do not discuss the 
merits of his work, his standing in the field, any significant impact that his work has had on the field, 
or any other aspects of his work so as to be considered published material about the beneficiary as 
required by this criterion. Instead, these citations are more relevant to the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v) and will be addressed there. 
In January 2003, the beneficiary an~ published an article in Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) entitled "Na+/K+-pump ligands modulate gating of palytoxin-
induced ion channels." On appeal, . .. showing that the same issue of 
PNAS also included a review article by a pump to a pore: How 
palytoxin opens the gates" mentioning article along with numerous 
others. Less than ten sentences in the three-page review article are specifically about the beneficiary's 
work. Nevertheless, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires that the 
published material be "about the alien" relating to his work rather than simply about his work. 
Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or professo~ 
section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Act. It cannot be credibly asserted that the review article by __ 
citing to more than fifty other articles is "about" the beneficiary relating to his work. Instead, the article 
includes only a few brief passages about the beneficiary's work. Moreover, the January 2003 review in 
PNAS is more akin to a promotional introduction of the beneficiary's article by the publisher rather than 
independent journalistic coverage about the beneficiary relating to his work. 
"VI'''''''''' submission also included three additional review articles 
The twenty-page article cites to III articles, two of which 
were coauthored the beneficiary With regard to the ten-page article in ___ 
••• _, it cites to 41 articles, two of which were coauthored by the benefici~ 
Regarding the nine-pa~ _ it cites to 46 articles, two of which were 
co,mthOlred by the beneficiary and_ ~ing articles devote less than ten sentences to 
the beneficiary's findings and are about recent developments and advancements in the research field 
rather than the beneficiary. 
In light of the above, while the evidence discussed above is relevant as to the significance of the 
beneficiary's scholarly articles and original contributions, it does not meet the plain language 
requirements for qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii). Accordingly, the petitioner 
has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
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 specification for which classification is 
sought. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a January 21, 2009 e-mail asking the beneficiary to review a 
manuscript for Journal of General Physiology. The petitioner also submits a May 19, 2009 letter 
requesting the beneficiary's assistance in reviewing a candidate for "an appointment as a 
Page 8 
date. 
the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. 
Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the January 2009 and May 2009 review 
requests from Journal of General Physiology and UCD in this proceeding. 
The petitioner's 2006 e-mail asking the beneficiary to 
review a manuscript for an August 2006 e-mail asking him to 
review a manuscript an October 2006 e-mail asking him to 
review a manuscript for and a May 2008 e-mail asking him to 
review an article for There is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the beneficiary actually completed the preceding manuscript reviews. The plain 
language of this criterion, however, requires "[e]vidence of the alien's participation ... as a judge of 
the work of others." Evidence of having been asked to review a manuscript is not tantamount to 
evidence of one's actual "participation" as a reviewer. Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted 
qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additional deficiencies pertaining to the preceding evidence will be addressed 
below in our final merits determination regarding whether the submitted evidence is commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field 
The petitioner submitted letters of support from independent experts discussing the significance of 
the beneficiary's original research contributions. The experts' statements do not merely reiterate the 
regulatory language of this criterion, they clearly describe how the beneficiary's scientific 
contributions are both original and of major significance in the field. Moreover, in support of the 
experts' statements, the petitioner submitted review articles mentioning the beneficiary's work and 
documentation of numerous independent cites to his published findings. The review articles and 
citation history are solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by his work and are 
familiar with it. This evidence corroborates the independent experts' statements that the beneficiary 
has made original contributions of major significance in his field. The record reflects that the 
beneficiary's contributions are important not only to the institutions where he has worked, but 
throughout the greater field as wei!. Leading scientists from throughout the biophysics field have 
acknowledged the value of the beneficiary's work and its major significance in the research field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
Page 9 
The petitioner has documented the beneficiary's authorship of scholarly articles in professional 
journals and, thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's participation in scientific conferences and 
seminars as evidence for this criterion. In addressing this criterion, the director's decision stated: 
"This element applies to aliens in the visual arts. It does not apply to the instant petition." On 
appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the director's finding and we affirm that finding. The 
beneficiary's field is not in the arts. The plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it 
applies to visual artists (such as sculptors and painters) rather than biology researchers. The ten 
criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will apply to every 
occupation. The beneficiary's conference presentations are more relevant to the "authorship of 
scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion that the beneficiary has already 
met. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
the beneficiary's 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). 
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. § 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)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 FJd at 
1119-1120. In the present matter, several of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the 
petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (iv), and (vii). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), even if the petitioner were to 
have submitted evidence of beneficiary's actual participation as a manuscript reviewer as of the 
petition's filing date, we cannot conclude that the beneficiary's occasional participation in the peer 
review process (an aggregate of four requests in the decade preceding the petition's filing date) 
demonstrates his sustained national or international acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he 
Page 10 
is among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3). We 
note that peer review is a routine element ofthe process by which articles are selected for publication 
in scientific journals or for presentation at professional conferences. Reviewing manuscripts is 
recognized as a professional obligation of researchers who publish themselves 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 multiple 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 pre-dating the filing of the petition that sets the beneficiary apart from others in his field, 
such as evidence that he served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal or completed 
numerous manuscript reviews for a substantial number of journals, we cannot conclude that his level 
of peer review is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(vii), in the fields of science and 
medicine, acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a 
conference or symposium along with dozens of other participants. Nothing in the record indicates 
that the presentation of one's work is unusual in the beneficiary'S field or that invitation to present at 
venues where the beneficiary'S work appeared was a privilege extended to only a few top 
researchers. Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to present new work, 
discuss new findings, and network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and 
sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and govemment 
agencies. Participation in such events, however, does not elevate the beneficiary above almost all 
others in his field at the national or international level. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the beneficiary as one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner relies primarily upon 
the beneficiary'S undocumented membership in the SGP and his membership in the Biophysical 
Society (neither of which have been shown to require outstanding achievements of their members), 
documentation of only four requests for manuscript review as of the ., s filing date, less than a 
dozen journal articles published with his research supervisors as of the date of 
filing, citation evidence showing that those articles have been well cited, his participation in scientific 
conferences and seminars, and the praise of members of his field. 
We note that many of the beneficiary's references' credentials are impressive. For example,_ 
Recently I served for 8 years as director of the graduate program. I have also served on 
many grant review panels at the national, regional, and university level, so overall I have a 
great deal of experience in evaluating the performance of young investigators. I have 
received the Gottschalk Award of the Renal Division of the American Physiological Society, 
and authored over 50 peer-reviewed publications. I chaired numerous scientific meetings 
and symposia .... 
Page 11 
~her comments that the beneficiary "has a masterful command of the field that is quite 
exceptional for ajunior investigator." [Emphasis added.] 
At the present time I 
••••••••••••• as well as 
__ In addition, I serve on the 
committees of the National Board of Medical Examiners .... 
I have been awarded 
to membrane biophysics. 
ChLIC<lgO . . .. I have received 
for my contributions 
and I was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. I am serving and 
have served in the Editorial Board of several scientific publications .... My research includes 
more than 150 original papers and it has been published in leading scientific journals. 
Finally 
I have been on the faculty here at _ where I was promoted 
in 200 I. My research ... has resulted in over fifty original articles in sci<entific JU'llu,al'. 
~1IIiI~~~~~~~~~~III~IIIII!.~~~ and I am on 
on 
numerous committees responsible for review of scientific projects, including various study 
sections of the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health. 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than the beneficiary 
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 the beneficiary's achievements 
at the time of filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a biology 
researcher, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Page 12 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary 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 
beneficiary's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(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, ajJ'd, 345 
F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate 
review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.