dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
revent clearly unwarr~nted 
lnvasion of personal pnvac}' 
PlffiLlCCOPY 
l .s:. JkpallllU'lH or i!olHcLwd ~\Tt!fll' 
l .\ ('111;,'1:-.11'1' ,E id !1I1'11".'I<lII";1 ),'! 
,,\.111111)1',11,11:\\' \,'1',-:'. ()!!",',' \ \() 
2!l \-LI~~,I,hLi','il-- \\\ ,,\\ \IS _'li'!1 
\\.,;~Il~IE_'!;)!,_I)(' 'v:~) _'ill),) 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
APR 19 2011 LIN 09 105 :; 144 I 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Abil ity Pursuant to 
Section 2m(b)( I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.s.c. ~ 1153(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must he 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 fcc of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. * 103.5(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. 
~)jDeaJ1!1tL I Perry Rhew 
\ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
ww\\'.lIsd~.go, 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. * 1153(b)( I )(A). as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite cxtraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)( I )(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 tcn categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). Thc petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appcal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's 
decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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. Ms, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognizcd 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in thc arca 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectivel y 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. 723 101" Cong .. 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897. 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individnals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. I". 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. 
intcrnational recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following tcn categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members. 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the matcrial. 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 busincss­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles 111 the field. in 
profCssional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at m1istic 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 
-Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
reeei pts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USc/S, 596 F.3d IllS (9
th 
Cir. 2(10). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the eouIt took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria. 
those concems should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits deteImination." 'd. at 1121-22. 
The COllIt 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)." 'd. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3»). The court also explained the "final merits determination" ,b 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of thel irl field of cndeavor." 
8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2), and "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. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or intemational acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
1£1. at II 19-1120. 
Thus, Kaz{/rian 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 Spellcer EllIerprises. Inc. ". 
Uni/I'd Slates, 229 F. Supp. 2d1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afj'd, 345 F.3d 6fU (9
1h 
Cir. 20m): 
.1'1'1' also Soltan!' l'. DO}, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I Specifically. the court staled that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidcllliary requin.'!lll'llh 
beyond tho," 'c' 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 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition. filed on March 6, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research scientist. The petitioner received her Ph.D. in Biology from 
the School of Medicine at Tsinghua University, Beijing in 2005. At the time of filing. the 
petitioner was working as a postdoctoral fellow at the Gladstone Institute of Neurological 
San Francisco 'ision of_ 
The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories 
under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)2 
DoclImmtation ol the alien's membership in associations in the field jiJr which 
c/ussijiC(l/iOIl is sought, which require outstanding achievements or (heir 
memhers. (IS judged hy recognized national or international experls in their 
disciplines or.tields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion. a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field. minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average. 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues. do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in the Society for Neuroscience and 
general information about the organization, but there is no evidence (such as hylaws or rules of 
admission) showing that it requires outstanding achievements of it members, as judged hy 
recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 1 
The petitioner doc ... not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence nut di:-.cus ... ed in this 
deci:-.ion. 
, The website of the Society for Neuroscience lists the following requirements for "Regular Membership·· and 
"Regular Postd{K Membership": 
Regular Membership - $175 - Scientists living in the United States. Canada or Mexico who have done re ... earch 
relating to neuroscience are eligible for regular membership. 
Regular Postdoc Membership - $130 - The Regular Postdoc category is available to tho"ie who have obtained 
their doctoral degree and are currently working in a postdoctoral trainee program. 
St't' b.l.!l2.J/~\'\\'\\ ,sr!1.()n.:!il1dcx.aspx·?pagename~l1lember~hiR Aboutrvlcmbcrship Catc£"<'!.ri.~.~, accessed llll April o. 20 I I. 
copy incorporated into the record of proceedings. Neither of the preceding membership categorie .... reqtnres 
oUl:-.tanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petili(lIlCr'S field. 
Page 6 
[n response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an August 2 [,200') e­
mail informing her of the approval of her "nomination for election to associate membership in 
Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society." The petitioner's election to associate memhership 
in Sigma Xi post-dates the petition's March 6, 2009 filing date. A petitioner. however, TIlust 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ [03.2(b)(I), (12); Malia oj Kaligim/.;, 14 
[&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg!. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in 
this proceeding. Nevertheless, the submitted documentation does not estahlish that election to 
"associate" memhership in Sigma Xi requires outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field
4 
In light of above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Puhlished material ahout the alien in professional or major trade puhlicalirills or 
mila major media, relalinf!, to the alien's work in Ihefield.f{Jr which ciassi/IClltioll is 
sough I. Such evidence shall include the lille, dale, and author of the /lurlailli. III/(/ 
OilY necessary translation. 
[n 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 puhlications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
intemational distribution, Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominall y serve a 
pm1icular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers,s 
The petitioner suhmitted a December 15, 2008 article entitled "Building the Nervous System" in 
The Messel1ger, an institutional newsletter of the The 
author of the aI1icle was not provided as required by the plain language 
Further, the article does not even mention the petitioner. The at 8 C.F.R . 
.J Sigma Xi's website lists the following requirements for "associate" membership: 
An individual who has conducted independent investigation and written a repon concerning their rc~carch i~ 
eligible for election to Associate Membership, This initial research achievement can be in a field ur pure (11 
applied ~cience, The individual is expected to later achieve the requirements for Full Member~hip. N()11linat(\r~ 
an: allc~ting to the nominee's potential to be promoted to Full Membership in the futurc. A~~(lciate Member...,hip 
is offered to encourage young investigators with promise to continue careers in research . 
. )'ee l.lJ.1P~.:JL\Y_\._\.\\.c). .. i.gn.!..;r~.Ll}rgJmcmherJioillJgwtli lication.html, accessed on April 6. 2011. copy incorpmatcd intn the 
record of proceedings. Demonstrating potential. promise, or an aptitude for research does not constitute ollhtanding. 
achievements . 
. ~ E\'en with nationally'-circulated newspapers. consideration must be given to the placcmcllI of lhe article. h)1 
example. an article that appears in the Washington Post. but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax Ctlllllt\". 
V irginia. for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 7 
* 204.5(h)(3)(iii). however. requires that the published material be "about the alien."" Moreover. 
there is no circulation evidence showing that this institutional newsletter qualifies as professional 
or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of research articles which cite to her work. Articles which 
cite to the petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' own work. and are not ahout the 
petitioner or even her work. As previously discussed. the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien." With regard to 
this criterion. a footnoted reference to the alien's work without evaluation is of minimal prohative 
value. The suhmitted articles do not discuss the merits of the petitioner's work, her .standing in 
the field. any significant impact that her work has had on the field, or any other information so as 
to he considered published material about the petitioner as required by this criterion. Moreover. 
we note that the submitted articles citing to the petitioner'S work similarly referenced numerous 
other authors. The research articles citing to the petitioner's work are more relevant to the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will be addressed there. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an ~U1icle entitled 
"Micromanaging Development" in Focus (pages 4 - 8), a publication of the •••••••• 
Institutes at UCSF. The date and author of the article were not provided as required by the plain 
language of this regulatory criterion. The article highlights the findings of several researchers at the 
Gladstone Institutes and is about MicroRNAs playing a key role in regulating the development or 
organ systems. The five-page article only briefly mentions the petitioner on page 8 and includes her 
photograph. As previously discussed, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires that the 
published material be "about the alien." Further, there is no circulation evidence showing that this 
publication or the petitioner's employer qualifies as professional or major trade puhlication or 
some other fortn of major media. 
In light of above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
The 
1:'videl1cc o(the alien's original scientific. scholarly. artistic, athletic. or husilless­
rclated contrihutions o{major significance in the field. 
submitted letters of support from independent references discussing the 
HL'UU'50 she coauthored with her' . (such as _ 
The 
references' statements do not merely reiterate the regulatory language of this criterion. they 
clearly describe how the petitioner and her superiors' scientific contributions are both original 
and of major significance in the field. Moreover, in support of the independent experts' 
statements, the petitioner submitted evidence of more than two hundred citations to her published 
findings. This citation evidence corroborates the scientific experts' statements that the petitioner 
has made original contributions of major significance in her field. Thus. the petitioner has 
submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
(, See, C)J .. Accord NCRro-Plwnpe I'. Okin. 2:07-CV-X20-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8. 2(X)X) (upholding a finding that 
articles about a sho\\-' arc not about the actor). 
-Page 8 
Evidence or the alien '.I authorship of'scholarly articles in the field. ill protcssiO/wl or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented her authorship of fifteen joumal articles that were published as of 
the petition's filing date and. thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to H C.F.R. 
* 204.S(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the petitioner has established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peiformed in a leading or critical role.f{!r orgcl!li;atio!ls 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing her graduate research at Tsinghua 
University under the direction of_and her postdoctoral research at the GINO under. 
_ While the petitioner has performed admirably on the research projects to which she was 
assigned. there is no evidence showing that her subordinate roles were leading or critical for the 
preceding institutions. For example, there is no organizational ehm1 or other evidence 
documenting how the petitioner's positions fell within the general hierarchy of her research 
institutions. We note that the petitioner's role at Tsinghua University was that of a student. 
Moreover. the petitioner's current postdoctoral appointment at the GINO is designed to provide 
specialized research experience and training in her field of endeavor 7 The petitioner's evidence 
does not demonstrate how her temporary appointments differentiated her from the other research 
scientists employed by the preceding institutions, let alone their tenured faculty and principal 
investigators. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not estahlish that she was 
responsible for the preceding institutions' success or standing to a degree consistent with the 
meaning of "leading or critical role." Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets 
this criterion. 
Sumnwrv 
In this case. we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate her receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that she meets at least 
three or the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3). A 
final merits determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we will next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who havc 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 
"Biological ~cielltish with a Ph.D. often take temporary postdoctoral research positions that provide specialized 
rc~carch experience." See ht1p:/h~'w\v.bb.2.ov/()c()/Ddf/()cos047.pdr, accessed on April 6, 2011. copy incorporated into 
the record of proceedings. 
Page 9 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in 
the ficld of expertise." Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act; 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See iliso KiI;ilriilll. 
596 F.3d at 1119-1120. In the present matter, many of the deficiencies in thc documcntation 
submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 CF.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), and (viii). 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(vi), we acknowledge that the 
petitioner has documented her co-authorship of fifteen journal articles that were published as of the 
petition's filing date. Thc petitioner, however, has not established that her publication rccord scts 
her apart through a "career of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. 101 -723, 59 (Sept. 19. 1990). That 
page (59) also says that "an alien must (1) demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in 
the sciences. arts. education, business or athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) ... " 
Further. the Oepmtment of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook. 2010-11 Edition (accessed at 
vnv\V.hls.gov/oco on April 6, 2011 and incorporated into the record of proceedings). provides 
information about the nature of employment as a biological scientist and the requirements for such a 
position. The handbook expressly states that a "solid record of published research is essential in 
obtaining a permanent position involving basic research."s This information reveals that puhlished 
research does not necessarily set an individual apart from other biological scientists employed in 
that researcher's field. 
That said, we ackno~ositive response in the field to the petitioner's research articles that 
she coauthored with_ We are not persuaded, however, that the petitioner's contrihutions. 
presented in her well-received publications, rise to [he level of sustained national or international 
acclaim in the context of her field. Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish 
the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
At the time of filing. the petitioner was working at the GINO as a postdoctoral Idlow. The 
petitioner relies primarily on research attic1es she coauthored with her superiors at the GINO and 
Tsinghua University, her publication citation record, the praise of members of her field. and the 
affirmation of her colleagues that her work is important to the GINO where she works in an 
inherentl y temporary position. 
I am currently a tenured full Professor, leading a research group in tumor progression and 
metastasis research at the Dept. of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Ouke University 
Medical Center. ... My early original work on TGF-~ reccptors established the platform 
for studying cancer and immune disorders thereafter. I have published more than 90 
scientific research papers in peer-reviewed journals, including the most inf1ucnt ial ones 
such as Science, Natllre and Cell. I am also an Associate Editor of the .Iollr/wi of 
Bioiogicui Chemistry . ... 
s See l:!JJJ~j!'~~~'::.~~bJ2,.gl!_yJ.u~'n/[)Jtlo(os047nclf. acce~sed on April 6. 2011. copy incorporated into the record of 
proceedings. 
-Page 10 
and a Professor of Pathology 
vItae states a Fellow of the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, an elected member of the National Academy of 
Sciences. a Fellow of the American Heart Association, and a member of the American Academy 
of Arts & Sciences. He has also served on the Editorial Boards of jOllrnal or Lipid Rcscorch: 
JO/lnwl or Clinicol Investigation; jOllrnal of Biological Chemistrv; Lipid RCl'ic",: 
Artaiosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology; Journal o(Atherosclerosis (/Ilil Throm!?osis: 
jO/lrnal o( Lipid Research; Current Opinion in Lipidolog}'; and Nlitritioll, McwlwlislII olld 
Cardiovascular Diseases. Further,_ has authored 293 research publications. 
College of Medicine. states: 
I have published over 180 peer-reviewed papers in prestigious scientific journals. among 
which are some sixty review articles, I have served as an NIH [National Institutes of 
Health I Study Section ad hoc reviewer, member of NIH Special Emphasis Panels. 
Secretary of American Society of Human Genetics. I am also the recipient of lllany 
awards and honors including Huntington Disease Society of America-Leadership Award 
and National Fragile-X Foundation - William Rosen Award, ... I am currently leading a 
world-renowned laboratory focusing on human genetic disorders, including Fragile X 
synerome. myotonic dystrophy and Huntington's disease, 
Neuroscience, UCSF, states: 
I am the director of the Gladstone Institute of Neurological Disease at the University of 
California, San Francisco (UCSF), where Ithe petitioner I is conducting her poqdoctoral 
research. , .. I have published more than 80 scientific research papers in peer rcy'icwed 
journals. including the most influential ones such as Science and Naturc. I have also 
served as an ad hoc reviewer on the editorial board of several peer-reviewed journals and 
chaired the Neuroscience of Aging review panel of the National Institute on Aging. Most 
reccntl y, I was appointed to the National Advisory Council on Aging. 
I am a professor of School of Medicine, Tsinghua University which is considered as top I 
university in China by most national and international university rankings. I have .. 
published more than 50 papers in peer-reviewed journals. , " I was also the recipient of 
several awards from Chinese government. I was also invited reviewer of the international 
academic journals including Gene Therapy, Journal of Infectious Diseus('S. Nl/c1ear 
Acids Rescarch. I was invited to review a grant from Welcome Trust. I'm now an editor 
in the Journal of FEBS Letters, 
Finully. states: 
Page 11 
I was a Sloan Fellow in Neuroscience, a Klingenstein Fellow in Neuroscience. and a 
recipient of the McKnight Neuroscience of Brain disorders Award and the 
Pfizer/Pfizer/AFAR Innovations in Aging Research Award. I am currently the Principle 
Isicl Investigator of three grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and two 
grants from California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. I have served many times to 
review grants for the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. I 
am currently a regular member of the SYN study section at NIH (my tcrm will end in 
2(11). 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than herself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of her field of endeavor is far ahove 
the level shc has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that her achievements at the 
time of filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a research 
scientist, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to such an 
extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to he 
within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)( I )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requiremcnts of the law Illay hc 
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, fnc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. 
utl'd, 345 F.3d at 683; see a/so SO/lane v. DO}, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that thc 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 hasis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligihility for 
the henefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 USc:. * 1361. 
Here, that hurden has not heen met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.