dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifyin? ,l~t<1~~Ip,ted to 
prevent ci.;,.:) .. ::vlalTanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
1'lmUCCOPY 
DATE: 
JAN 17 20r 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland SCl'urit) 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ScrV]Cl':-. 
Administrative Appeals Oilier (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2()90 
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)( 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 advisedt"at 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appea\. 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. § I 153(b)(I)(A). The 
director detennined the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to 
submit extensive documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the 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); see also H.R. 723 101" Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990). The implemcnting 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can establish sustained national or intcmational 
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 brief with supporting documentation. For the reasons discussed 
below, the AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established his 
eligibility for the classification sought. 
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): 
(Al Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if --
0) 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. 723 101 st 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.; 
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) Docurnentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members. as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
Page 4 
(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.] 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 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)." /d. 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). 
Id. 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. On appeal, counsel focuses on the first "antecedent 
procedural question" of counting evidence, id at 1121, without acknowledging that the Kazarian court 
expressly provided for an evaluation of the counted evidence in a final merits deternlination. 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); Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143,145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises. 
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.S(h)(:J)(iv) and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aiTd, 345 F.3d 683 (9
th 
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 
awardsFJr excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be 
abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Aft'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 20(5); Hris[()v I'. 
Roark, No. 09-CV-273120ll, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court 
found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which c/assificalio/l is 
sought. which require outstanding achievements (Jf" their members, as judged by rec()g/li~ed 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be 
abandoned. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thefield .for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of" the material, and any necessary translation. 
In order to meet the requirements of this criterion, the published material must primarily be about the 
petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner's work in the field under which he seeks 
classification as an immigrant. The published material must also appear in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media (in the plural). Professional or major trade publications arc 
intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the publication should 
have significant national distribution and be published in a predominant national language. The final 
requirement is that the petitioner provide each published item's title, date, and author and if the 
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 
published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must provide a translation that complies with 
the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The petitioner submits numerous articles that cite to the petitioner or his work and two articles 
published in SYNFACTS. The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements 
of this criterion. 
The editors of SYNFACTS reprinted two articles authored by the petitioner with brief commentary. 
The petitioner provides the abstracts of these articles. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
provides a separate criterion for articles by the petitioner. Consistent with the statutory requirement 
for extensive evidence, USCIS will not also consider articles by the petitioner to fall under this 
criterion as well. This evidence is insufficient to establish the petitioner meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
The director properly addressed the numerous articles that cite to the petitioner's work within his 
decision by stating, "While the attorney of record may be referring to publications authored hy the 
petitioner and citations to the petitioner's articles, these are not published materials about the 
petitioner." On appeal, counsel asserts that the director's interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) 
will produce the absurd result that articles about the petitioner but unrelated to his work will qualify 
while citations within the field will not. Counsel ignores that the regnlation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires both that the articles be about the petitioner and that they rclate to 
his work in the field. Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) (relating to outstanding professors and 
researchers pursuant to seetion 203(b)(l)(B) of the Aet and requiring only that the published material 
be about the alien's work in the academic field).' The inclusion of the phrase "about the alien" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it must have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor FIIIld. 
L.P., 51 F. 3d 28,31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2,,,1 Cir. Sep 15. 
2003). According to the plain language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the relevant criterion in this 
matter, the published material must be hoth ahout the petitioner and relate to his work in the field. 
A review of the citing articles reveals that the petitioner is not a primary topic within the text. 
Instead, the first reference to him consistently falls within one of dozens of footnotes in the article. 
Passing references within a footnote hardly establishes the articles are about the petitioner relating to 
his work in the field. Instead, articles which cite the petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' 
own work or, in the case of review articles, recent trends in the field. They are not about the petitioner 
or even about his work. 
As stated above, 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." A footnoted reference to the alien's work without evaluation 
does not meet the plain language requirements set forth in that criterion. The submitted documentation 
does not discuss the merits of the petitioner's work, his standing in the field, any significant impact that 
his work has had on the field, or any other information so as to be considered published material about 
.1 Even under this standard, the material must still be "about" the alien's work in the academic field. 
Page 7 
the petitioner as required by this criterion. Moreover, the AAO notes that the articles citing to the 
petitioner's work similarly referenced numerous other authors, and the AAO is not persuaded that all 
the authors cited may claim the article is about them. The research articles citing to the petitioner's 
work are more relevant to the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will be 
addressed there. As such, they cannot serve as qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation. either individually or on a panel, as a judge olthe work of' 
others in the same or an allied field of specijication.f(Jr which classification is sought. 
This criterion requires not only that the petitioner was selected to serve as a judge, but also that the 
petitioner is able to produce evidence that he actually participated as a judge. The phrase "a judgc" 
implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties must have been directly judging the work of 
others in the same field in which the petitioner seeks an immigrant classification within the present 
petition. 
The petitioner submits four emails from representatives of two scientific journals as evidence under 
this criterion. The director determined the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
IS III response to the petitioner's request to 
referee articles for this publication and informs the petitioner of the steps he must take to be able to 
use the journal's database. _ states, "Once we have recorded your information from the 
survey, the Editors will be able to ask you to review manuscripts in your areas of interest and 
expertise." This email contains no evidence that the petitioner has participated as a judge for this 
publication and it is apparent from_ statement that the petitioner has not yet even gained 
access to the journal's database to perform any refereeing duties. The second email from this journal 
merely informs the petitioner that his account has been updated and provides the petitioner with his 
user ID and his email address. The petitioner fails to provide any additional evidcncc 
related to which establishes that he was invited to serve as a 
judge or that he has participated as a judge for this publication. 
The first email from informs the petitioner that the 
publication has created an account for him on their database. It fails to indicate that the petitioner 
nerffllfITlect the duties as a referee on behalf of this publication. The second email from_ 
indicates the petitioner is a "member of l the journal's J referee 
database" and requests that he update his expertise information. While this email does indicate that 
the petitioner's name is included in the journal's database, the record lacks evidence that the 
Page 8 
petitioner was invited to serve as a judge or that he has participated as a judge or as a referee for this 
publication as opposed to simply holding the title or the position of a referee. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets this criterion's plain 
language requirements. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Counsel's brief in response to the RFE indicates that under this criterion the petitioner is submitting 
his 16 authored articles in the field, ten presentations, "almost 300 citations," nine expert letters. 
"and considerable ancillary material some already referred to above and some not." Counsel fails to 
specify the "ancillary material some already referred to above and some not," and as a result. the 
AAO is unable to identify this potential evidence within this decision. Within the appellate hrief, 
counsel also identifies the petitioner's pending patent as applicable to this criterion. The director 
determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner'S field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be littlc 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 AAO must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous 
and, thus, that it has some meaning. Silverman, 51 F. 3d at 31 quoted in APWU, 343 F.3d at 626. 
To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of science, it can be expected that 
the results of the petitioner's research would have already been reproduced and confirmed hy othcr 
experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the pctitioner's 
work. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will not presume that evidence relating to, or even meeting the 
scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. Here 
it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. 
Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of major 
significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. 4 To hold otherwise 
would render the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a 
petitioner meet at least three separate criteria meaningless. Thus, there is no presumption that cvery 
published article or presentation is a contribution of major significance in the field; rather. the 
petitioner must document the actual impact of his article or presentation. 
4 Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 lev) ahsent evidence 
that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd il1 pan 
596 F.3d IllS (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its 
discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Page 9 
Counsel claims "almost 300 citations" to the petitioner's work within the appeal brief. Within the 
response to the RFE, counsel claims 267 citations, excluding those related to the petitioner's 
presentations. The petitioner relies on three forms of evidence to establish his scholarly articles have 
garnered 267 citations. The first form of evidence is a list of the petitioner's scholarly articles 
accompanied by a statement that appears to represent his citation record for each articlc using the 
phrase: "Citing paper number." At the conclusion of this self-serving list of the petitioner's 
published articles, the petitioner tallies his citations using the phrase, "Total Citing paper number: 
267 (until Feb 18th, 2010)." The petitioner has not provided an explanation of this phrase and fails to 
establish that this "Citing paper number" is the actual number of citations to each of the petitioner's 
own works. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter {)f'S{)fjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158. 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matterqf'Treasure Cr{1fiof'California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' I Comm'r 
1972)). Further, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of'Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 
1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
The director identified this evidentiary shortcoming in his decision, which counsel's appeal brief 
fails to sufficiently address. Specifically, within his decision, the director stated: 
Again it has not been established that this "Citing paper number" represents the 
number of times each of the petitioner's publication [sic] has been cited. There is no 
independent list of citations which corroborates the number of citations to the 
petitioner's publications and the difference between the "Citing paper number" and 
the actual citation be considerable. For the article 
46 as the "Citing paper number" but www.googlc.scholar only indicates 18 citations 
to the mticle ... While independent research has confirmed approximately 68 citations 
to the petitioner's publications, 68 citations does not establish the petitioner's work 
has sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner has not provided 
sufficient evidence to establish the number of independent citations to the petitioner's 
publications is above 68. 
On appeal, counsel states, "Here the examiner stated that we had provided only evidence of 68 
citations ... the examiner's claim as to what evidence was presented is not even true." Thc director 
utilized the number of 68 citations based on his own independent research, rather than claiming that 
the petitioner only provided 68 citations. The AAO acknowledges that GoogleScholar may not 
always include every citation to a given article. That said, it remains the petitioner's burden to 
document his claims, including, in this case, his claim of a high level of citation in the aggregate. 
Counsel continues: "Copies of some of the citing articles were in fact sent in along with search 
engine lists, which have been accepted in other cases in the past." The self-serving list of purported 
-Page 10 
citations, however, bears no indicia of being downloaded or photocopied from a "search engine" or 
citation index. Counsel's implication that self-serving lists purportedly derived from an unidentified 
"search engine" have been accepted in past cases is not persuasive that this form of evidence is 
sufficient. The AAO is not required to approve petitions where eligibility has not heen 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g .. Malter or 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r. 1988). It would be ahsurd to 
suggest that USCIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
The director identified a deficiency within the record and counsel failed to rectify the deficiency. 
even on appeal. 
Following this list, the petitioner provides the second form of evidence, copies 
articles, which are each accompanied by at least one document 
and the date of 201 in the header. According to 
is a research discovery tool that allows 
the user to explore the CAS databases that contain literature from many scientific disciplines 
including biomedical sciences, chemistry, engineering, materials science, agricultural science, and 
more.,,5 Each document purported to be a Irintout provides separate entries reflecting the 
number of "answers" that ap~rrespond with citations of an unidentified article. This 
evidence, purported to be from _ bears no Internet address that the AAO may verify, and of 
the utmost importance, none of the purported SciFinder documents state the name of the article for 
which "answers" or citations are listed. The petitioner provides no evidence which might connect 
each of the purported SciFinder documents to a specific scholarly article. 
The director articulated concerns about the evidence of citations to the petitioner's published uI1icles 
within the RFE as well as within his final decision. In response to the RFE, counsel provides an 
unresponsive reply, acknowledging the director's concern with the previously submitted evidence hut 
providing purportedly updated information from Sci Finder with the same deficiencies identified above. 
Even on appeal, the petitioner fails to provide an alternative form of evidence to establish the numher of 
citations to his scholarly articles. He merely provides the same purported SciFinder documents with a 
different date in the page header. Consequently, these purported SciFinder documents are insufficient 
to establish that the number of citations is equal to the petitioner's figure of 267. It remains the 
petitioner's burden to document the actual impact of his articles. 
The third form of evidence includes copies of the citing articles themselves. This evidence reflects that 
two of the petitioner's articles have received a moderate amount of citations. While a moderate amount 
of citations may demonstrate an awareness of the petitioner's work and its value, not every researcher 
who performs moderately valuable research has inherently made a contribution of major significance to 
the field as a whole. Viewed individually, the petitioner's articles have not garnered widespread 
citation. It remains the petitioner's burden to document the actual impact of his articles. While the 
5 See http://www.cas.orgiproducts/scifindrisfwebi, [accessed on November 15, 2011, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding.] 
Page II 
AAO takes into consideration the citations and ranking of the journals in which the petitioner's articles 
appear, it is not persuasive that the moderate citations of the petitioner'S articles are indicative of a 
contribution of major significance in his field. The petitioner failed to demonstrate how those findings 
or citations of his work have significantly contributed to his field as required by this regulatory criterion. 
At the time of the initial filing, counsel referenced the petitioner's pending patent and on ap~)eal 
counsel references in the plural. The petitioner submits an email from 
states: "This is to confirm that you are a named inventor on the U.S. " 
This evidence is insufficient to establish the petitioner has a patent granted by the U.S. Patent and 
Trade Office. Furthermore, patent applications and grants do not by themselves serve as the 
measure of an individual's ability to qualify for this classification. Even a patent grant merely 
provides the patentee "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the 
invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States, and, if the 
invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling 
throughout the United States, or importing into the United States, products made by that process." 
See 35 U.S.C. § 154. The AAO has previously stated that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a 
track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New 
York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, (Comm'r 1998). Rather, the significance 
of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. The petitioner failed to provide 
evidence to indicate that the patent has been licensed, marketed, or that it has affected the field of 
chemistry research. Therefore, the AAO cannot conclude that the patent application has produced 
any measureable impact on the petitioner's field. As the petitioner has failed to demonstrate he has a 
patent application pending or that this alleged patent has had a significant influence on his field, the 
final merits determination will not include a discussion of this evidence. 
at two ~11l~11l;'111 
and was subsequently highlighted in 
contends that not every publis~ill be commented in [sic] such a 
prestigious and internationally circulated forum" like __ also lists the petitioner's 
pending patent as an original contribution to his field. As noted above, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he has a patent granted, nor that any alleged patent has had a measurable impact 
on his field. Therefore, _ claim of the petitioner's pending patent is insufficient as a 
contribution of major significance. 
It is readily apparent that _ research accomplishments and expertise will 
have a significant impact on medical chemistry research. He is currently carrying out 
research that will likely enhance vaccine potency and efficacy against foreign 
pathogens. 
Page 12 
These are speculative benefits of a futuristic nature; the classification the petitioner seeks, however, 
requires the achievements that have already come to fruition. A petitioner must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. See Malter of Katighak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Therefore, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an 
effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Maller of 
Izummi, 22I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). letter fails to explain how the 
petitioner's achievements have already impacted the field as a whole, as of the petition's priority 
date. 
discusses the ~ork at the 
_ provides 
focused on synthesizing new drugs to treat drug-resistant strains of malaria. 
the petitioner's preparation of 10 alkaloids was a "tremendous accomplishment for a graduate 
student." An accomplishment does not become a contribution of major significance to the field 
simply by being impressive for the stage of the innovator's education and training. 
According to_ the petitioner's methodology and can be applied to the synthesis 
of other elements "that exhibit antitumor activities." identifies a potential benefit 
from the petitioner's work at the he fails to specify that the petitioner's 
work has already come to fruition. A petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the 
petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12). A petition may not be approved if the 
beneficiary was not qualified at the priority date, but to become eligible at a subsequent 
time. See Matter of Katighak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. identifies three of the petitioncr's 
successes in the professor's own laboratory. The first being that the petitioner was able to resolve a 
problem within his laboratory that other researchers were not able to resolve. _ states: 
The approach of combining a change in ligand has succeeded, and Jthe petitioner's\ 
~is topic has just been accepted to the 
__ the premier journal in the field of chemistry. These results were 
also a key feature of my recent NIH renewal that received outstanding reviews. 
claims that he uses the petitioner's results in his own work, he fails to identify the 
title of the petitioner's manuscript that he references. _ does not identify any independent 
laboratory that has utilized the petitioner's work as would be expected of a contribution of major 
significance. 
_ lists two of the petitioner'S additional achievements in his laboratory, using innovative 
techniques resulting in either a more useful end result or as a possible future benefit to the field of 
chemistry. Again, _ claims the petitioner's results were published or that he anticipates 
the results will be published. The petitioner's listed accomplishments may further the work of his 
-Page 13 
collaborators; however, fails to identify how these accomplishments have already 
impacted the petitioner's field as a whole. Given that descriptions are in terms of a 
future benefit to the petitioner's field, it appears that the petitioner's research, while original, is still 
ongoing and that the findings he has made are not currently being implemented in his field. A 
petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of future 
eligibility. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1). (12): Muller 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169,175 (Comm'r 1998). 
affirms that he is 
primarily aware of the petitioner through his published works. fails to describe any original 
contributions that can be attributed to the petitioner. Instead, he focuses on the difficulty of the 
n"ltitionpr's field and the apparent abilities and potential based on being a member or 
research groups. This letter fails to pinpoint any specific 
contributions the petitioner has made to his field. uscrs will not infer the nature of the petitioner's 
contributions from the status of the petitioner's collaborators. 
uel;"",e familiar with the petitioner from the findings 
articles. lists three of the petitioner's accomplishments in his letter as examples of the 
significant impact the petitioner has had on his field. Each example lists a procedure the petitioner 
developed that a chemistry journal subsequently published. One journal published the itioner's 
work and highlighted his work on the publication's cover in 2006. However, fails to 
provide a sufficient explanation of how these procedures have . the or that 
his findings are being used within the field. For example, does not identify any 
independent research laboratories using the petitioner's procedures. Instead, he refers to the 
"potentials" ofthe petitioner's findings. 
The remaining letters generally describe the petitioner's research and reference his education. his 
abilities, published work, and citations to his published work and how his findings will affect his 
field in the future. However, each letter lacks any specific description of how his achievcments have 
already impacted the field as a whole. 
It is important to note that none of the letters establishes how the author relies on the petitioncr's 
findings within their own work, nor do they explain how the petitioner's work is being utilized and 
applied in the field. Most identify how the petitioner's findings can or will affect the field, but all 
lack examples of how his findings have already had an effect on the field. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USClS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Mutter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 7<)1, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USClS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
-Page 14 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence o/" 
eligibility; USCIS may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Maller of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500, n.2 (BrA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 
"fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Maller of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craji of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significa/1ce 
in the field." (emphasis added). Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's 
work has been unusually influential, widely applied by the field, or has otherwise risen to the level 
of contributions of major significance, the petitioner eannot establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or mojor lrode 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner provides 16 articles in which he is either the primary or a secondary author and he claims 
ten presentations as evidence under this criterion. The director determined that the petitioner failed to 
meet the requirements of this criterion. The AAO will withdraw the director's determination related to 
this regulatory criterion. 
The AAO recognizes the petitioner's 16 articles as scholarly in nature, which also appear in qualifying 
publications. The petitioner's articles establish that he submitted qualifying evidence that meets the 
plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe(formed in a leading or critical role for orgolli;({liOI1S or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its posItIon 111 the overall 
organizational hierarchy and that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role 
should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. 
The petitioner's performance in this role should establish whether the role was critical for 
organizations or establishments as a whole. As evidence under this criterion, the petitioner suhmits 
several letters from experts in the field. The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the 
requirements of this criterion. 
With the exception of the letter from _ counsel's brief fails to specifically identify which 
evidence the petitioner wishes to be considered under this criterion. It is not the director's nor the 
AAO's responsibility to infer or second-guess which evidence the petitioner submits to meet this 
criterion, or how such evidence establishes eligibility for this criterion. The petitioner's response to 
the director's request for evidence (RFE) merely states, "[A]gain, ample material was submitted 
Page 15 
including a letter from the petltlonerS [sic] PI [Principal Investigator]. Additionally we are 
submitting another letter from his PI with this RFE." It is ~t to note that counsel's initial 
filing brief lists all the letters from experts in the field, and_is not listed as a contribu!.!.!lli. 
party. Additionally, the evidence accompanying the initial filing did not contain a letter from _ 
_ as counsel's quote asserts. The only letter from_ within the record was suhmitted in 
response to the RFE. 
_ states, "[The petitioner] is an expert in many 
areas of organic and make him a highly qualified 
investigator at where he plays a 
leading role in his project." Simply repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not 
satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 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.). Similarly, USC IS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756. 
Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dis!. 1990). 
Additionally, the plain language of the regulatio~es the petitioner to perform in a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments. _ states the petitioner plays a leading role '"in 
his project" rather than for_ as a whole. Consequently,_has not demonstrated that 
the petitioner has performed in a leading role for an organization or establishment. 
asserts the petitioner has played a vital role in his organization through his research into immunity 
pathogens. However, _ can only state that the petitioner and the team on which thc 
petitioner works, "are making excellent progress." _ fails to identify what impact the 
~s had on the organization or the establishment's activities as a Research Investigator I. 
_ does not establish the petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the 
to a degree that is consistent with the 
meaning of a leading or critical role. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration Fir 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner provides a letter from 
the petitioner's current employer and an Internet-based salary assessment. The director determined 
the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner's letter from his employer states that the petitioner is a Research Investigator I, his annual 
salary is $92,000, he received a bonus of $14,298 on March 15,2010, and he is eligible to paI1icipate in 
the company's stock option plan. The Internet-based salary assessment is from Indeed.com and 
provides that the average salary for area on April 23, 
2010 was $65,000 and $76,000 for a Ph.D. Chemist. An average, local salary provided by Indeed.com 
is not a proper basis for comparison. The petitioner must submit evidence showing that he has eamed a 
high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in his field (chemistry 
research), not simply a salary that is above the average level for research chemists or limited to the San 
Diego area. The petitioner's attempt to use average, local salary levels does not allow for an 
appropriate basis for comparison in determining a high salary "in relation to others in the field." See 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's 
eamings versus those of the top eamers in the United States Professional Golfers' Association Tour). 
As others in the petitioner's field are not limited to working in the San Diego area, the petitioner must 
submit documentary evidence of the eamings of those in his occupation performing similar work at the 
national level and at the top level of the field.7 In this instance, the record is void of information 
regarding the top salaries for Research Investigators that perform similar work. 
The letter from the petitioner's employer also identifies a bonus he received in the amount of $14,298. 
The regulation requires that remuneration outside of the petitioner's salary must be significantly high in 
relation to others in his field. The petitioner failed to provide evidence of other bonuses of those in his 
occupation performing similar work at the top of the field in which to compare. As a result, the 
petitioner's bonus cannot contribute to establishing that he has commanded a significantly high 
remuneration. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
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 our 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 
7 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Motter of' 
Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. III. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated, "[T]he plain reading of the statutc 
suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the 
hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the 
NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Crimson v. INS, No. 93 C 
3354, (N.D. III. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the disclI"ioll 
set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99." 
Page 17 
thelir] 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. 
The sole award the petitioner submits is an American Chemical Society Graduate Student Travel 
Award. This does not rise to the level of a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence. This travel award is also not indicative of or consistent with sustained acclaim or a level of 
expertise indicating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
their field of endeavor. A travel award limited to graduate students does not compare fhe petitioner with 
the most experienced and renowned members of his field. 
The petitioner initially submitted membership in Sigma Xi as evidence under the membership criterion. 
The record contains no evidence to establish membership in Sigma Xi requires outstanding 
achievements of their members. Additionally, the record lacks evidence that establishes admittance to 
Sigma Xi is judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. These 
shortcomings reveal that this membership is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim or the status as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their 
field of endeavor. By contrast,_ is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences. 
Published material that, while making brief reference to the petitioner, clearly is not about the petitioner 
and his work in the field suffers from a fundamental inadequacy as it relates to achieving sustained 
acclaim or being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
The record reflects that fhe petitioner has been invited to referee articles for and has been m·",ntc·,j 
access to the online databases of 
Of additional importance is that the evidence on record indicates the petitioner 
requested to perform refereeing duties for the the record is 
absent of evidence that made an independent request for the 
petitioner to referee fheir articles. The nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a relevant 
consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of the beneficiary's national or intemational 
acclaim. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. As the petitioner has provided no evidence that he has 
actually participated as a judge, he cannot establish this invitation is indicative of or consistent wifh 
sustained acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
Moreover, scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted 
articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field and not every peer reviewer enjoys recognition on 
the national or international level. First, the petitioner must establish he has participated as a judge 
or referee. Subsequent to establishing this participation, without evidence that sets the petitioner 
apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that 
credits a small, elite group of referees, received independent requests from a substantial number of 
journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, the petitioner cannot estahlish 
that his judging experience is indicative of or consistent with national or international recognition. 
Page 18 
Regarding the petitioner's original contributions to his field, he has authored 16 scholarly articles, 
two of which appeared with commentary in he has made three presentations at 
scientific conferences. In a quantifiable several of the those who submit supporting 
expert letters on the petitioner's behalf have published between 100 or more scientific papers, one 
reports his position on the editorial advisory board of nine scientific journals, one has received up to 
30 awards, two report 80 or more patents awarded, and one has given 370 presentations. This 
information is only gleaned from the letters themselves. The petitioner failed to provide the 
curriculum vitae for each of the experts, even though one expert refers users to his ev [curriculum 
vitae 1 for additional achievements. However, this decision has also discussed how these same 
experts in the field are unable to identify any of the petitioner's achievements that have already had 
an impact on his field. Most of these experts outlined some future benefit that will occur due to the 
petitioner's work. The above listed achievements are not commensurate with sustained acclaim or a 
level of expertise indicating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of their field of endeavor. 
, ••• i ••• a.rticles in leading scientific journals such 
as. and 
Organic letters. Simply publishing in established scientific journals, however, is an insufficient 
indication of the petitioner's acclaim. Pursuant to the reasoning in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122, the 
field's response to these articles may be and will be considered in the final merits determination. 
The petitioner's documented citations, as opposed to the number claimed in self-serving lists or 
SciFinder lists that fail to identify the cited article, are not indicative of sustained acclaim. Only two 
of the petitioner's published articles have garnered a moderate amount of citations as of the priority 
date. Amassing a moderate amount of citations for two articles, and a minimal amount of citations 
dispersed among his remaining 14 articles does not support the finding that the petitioner is among 
the small percent who have risen to the top of the field. The petitioner's field has not responded to 
his work in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim or status as one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
Although the petitioner demonstrates selected achievements on various projects in which he worked, 
he failed to demonstrate he performed in a leading or critical role for any organization or 
establishment. The petitioner's performance on individual projects is not indicative of or consistent 
with the status as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of 
endeavor. 
The petitioner failed to establish that he has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. Average salary information for an 
occupation is not a proper basis for comparison. The petitioner must demonstrate the high-end 
earnings nationally of those in his occupation performing similar work at the top level of the field. 
Without such evidence, he cannot establish that his remuneration confirms that he enjoys the status 
as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top oftheir field of endeavor. 
Page 19 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner, a Research 
Investigator I, relies on (1) a single award limited to students. membership in a single organization, (2) 
two reprinted articles with commentary in inclusion in two databases as a potential 
article reviewer, (4) a moderate number of published articles with a modest citation record each. and (5) 
performing in a leading or critical role on projects rather than for organizations. The petitioner seeks a 
highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals at the top of their respective fields, rather 
than for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. In this case, the 
petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing the petition were commensurate 
with sustained national or international acclaim, or that he was among that small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
Ill. 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. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
researcher 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 and promise as a researcher, 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)(l )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. 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.