dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
bMlsion of personal privacy 
PUBLJCCOPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Oflicc (AA()) 
20 Massachusetb Ave .. :\i.W .. MS 20lJO 
Washin!!ton. DC 20S29-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
MAR 1 1 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETlTlON: 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 advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(\)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
5erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 V.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary 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 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, 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 
ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. 
Specifically, we acknowledge that when we simply "count" the evidence submitted, the petitioner 
has submitted qualifying evidence under three of the categories of evidence as required. These 
criteria are judging the work of others, original contributions of major significance, and authorship 
of scholarly articles pursuant to 8 c.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi). As explained in our final 
merits determination, however, much of the evidence that technically qualifies under some of those 
criteria reflects routine duties or accomplishments in the field that do not compare with the 
accomplishments of the most experienced and renowned members of the field. l Thus, such 
evidence is not consistent with a finding that the petitioner enjoys sustained national or international 
acclaim. As will be discussed further in our final merits determination, while counsel notes the 
caliber of the references who support the petition, their accomplishments, appointments as a director 
or professor, editorial positions, and publication records only reinforce our conclusion that the top of 
the petitioner's field is far higher than the level he has achieved. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
I The legal authority tll[ this two-step analysis will be discussed at length below. 
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. 
U.S. Citizenship and lmmigration 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 Sl 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. Jd. 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 of the following ten 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 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 husiness­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles 111 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 perfonmed 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 perfonming 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) reviewcd the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0). 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.2 With respect to the criteria 
at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while uscrs may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits dctcrn1ination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, uscrs 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 thelirl field of endeavor," 
8 CF.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 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
, Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond thuse 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 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
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 Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), a/i'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9
th 
Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DO], 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 March 27, 2009, seeks to classify the pel1l1oner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research scientist. The petitioner received his PhD. in Biochemistry 
from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi in 2004. At the time of filing, the 
petitioner was working as a Center 
(DUMC) under the supervision of Department 
of Medicine, DUMC. The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to thc following 
categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationallv 
recognized prizes or awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor . 
The petitioner submitted a February 28, 2008 letter from the Co-Chair of the Society for 
Investigative Dermatology (SID) Travel Fellowship Committee to the petitioner stating: 
Thank you for your recent application to the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID) 
as it relates to Travel Fellowships and the upcoming International Investigative 
Dermatology (110) 2008 Meeting to be held in Kyoto, Japan. 
The SID received over 300 applications for the three different travel fellowships 
categories that were available and was able to award 100 travel grants. 
~ to inform you that your application was selected as a recipicnt of 
_Travel Fellowship, in the amount of$I,500. 
-~ The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
The petitioner also submitted information from the SID's website stating: 
A generous gift by 
provide Annual Meeting 
individuals are eligible to apply: 
• Residents in dermatology and other medical fields 
• Pre- and post-doctoral fellows 
• Medical and graduate students 
• Junior faculty who demonstrate extreme financial need 
Fifteen to twenty awards are made each year. Applicants must submit an abstract for 
consideration as an oral presentation and be the presenting author. 
The letter from 
grants were awarded for the IID 2008 Meeting alone. Moreover, 
_travel awards are given each year. Further, eligibility for the 
fellowship is limited to residents in dermatology and other medical fields, pre- and 
fellows, medical and graduate students, and junior faculty who demonstrate extreme financial 
need. The petitioner did not submit evidence of the national or international recognition of his 
travel fellowship, such as national or widespread local coverage of the award in professional or 
general media. The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
specifically requires that the petitioner'S awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the 
field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a December 19, 2008 e-mail from the American Society for 
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) informing him that he was "selected to receive a 
Graduate/Postdoctoral travel fellowship to attend the ASBMB 2009 Annual Meeting ... in New 
Orleans, LA, April 18-22, 2009." We note that eligibility for this travel fellowship is limited to 
graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. In response to the director's request for 
evidence, the petitioner submitted a certificate from the ASBMB "in recognition of I thc 
petitioner's I participation in the ASBMB Graduate/Postdoctoral Travel Award Program in New 
Orleans, LA April 17-18, 2009." The record does not include information specifying the 
evaluation criteria for the travel award or the number of recipients. Further. there is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the travel fellowship is recognized beyond the 
presenting organization and therefore commensurate with a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
Center for RNA Biology (CRB), DUMC, stating: 
The CRB would be happy to provide you with $500 to cover travel and/or registration 
expenses for the ASMB [American Society for Matrix Biologyl meeting in December. 
Page 7 
Please coordinate with_ regarding how it would be best to do this - I believe wc 
usually reimburse you after the meeting, but I will let Annette work this out with you. 
The CRB' s reimbursement of petitioner's travel and registration expenses for the biennial 
meeting of the ASMB in San Diego, California equates to travel cost compensation from his 
research institution rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field. 
The petitioner submitted information posted on the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center (DCCC) 
wcbsite listing "2008 Award Winners" from the DCCC Annual Meeting. The list of award 
recipients includes two $10,000 award winners, two $5,000 award winners, six $1,000 Young 
Investigator Awards for Poster Presentations, nineteen $250 prize winners for outstanding poster 
presentations, and twenty five for outstanding poster presentations. The 
and his were listed among the __ 
This small cas~ 
a nationally or internationally recognized 
The petitioner submitted an October _letter from Duke University congratulating him 
"on being nominated for th~utstanding Postdoc at Duke University award." [Emphasis 
added.] There is no evidence showing that the petitioner ultimately received the • 
Outstanding Postdoc at Duke University award. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires evidence of "the alien's receipt" of nationally or 
internationally recognized "prizes or awards" for excellence in the field of endeavor rather than 
simply a nomination. Earning a nomination does not equate to receipt of a prize or an award. 
Nevertheless, the Duke University Outstanding Postdoc award is an institutional honor limited to 
postdoctoral researchers at Duke University rather than a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a May 25, 1998 letter from the Controller of Examinations, Council of 
Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), Human Resource Development Group, Examination 
Unit, New Delhi stating that the petitioner "qualified in the above Examination for consideration 
for Award of Junior Research Fellowship in LIFE SCIENCES under the CSIR Fellowship 
Schemes." We cannot conclude that successfully passing a standardized examination and 
qualifying for a Junior Research Fellowship constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. Further, we note that eligibility for the 
preceding fellowship was limited to students pursuing graduate studies. Significantly, this office 
has held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser classification than the one sought in this matter, 
that academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, is not a specific 
prior achievement that establishes the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. Maller III 
New York State Dep't. (d' Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 219, n.6 (Comm'r. 1998). Thus, academic 
performance is certainly not comparable to the awards criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more exclusive 
classification. 
--Page 8 
The petitioner also submitted a November 27, 2002 memorandum from the CSIR Extra Mural 
Research Division, New Delhi stating: 
On the basis of satisfactory research progress of Ithe petitioner I as assessed and 
recommended by the Three Member Assessment Committee, the Head, Human Resource 
Development CSIR has been to accord his approval to the extension of 
fellowship , 0 1.l1.2002 to 31.1 0.2003 .... 
IEmphasis added. I 
The plain language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i) requires the 
petitioner's receipt of prizes or awards for "excellence" in the field of endeavor. Demonstrating 
research ." does not constitute excellence in the field. With regard to the 
petitioner' these fellowships represent 
financial support supervIsIon of an experienced faculty 
member or scientist rather than nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 4 With regard to these fellowships for which the petitioner 
applied and received funding, we note that a substantial amount of scientific research is funded 
by grants from a variety of public and private sources. Every successful scientist engaged in 
research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously 
the past achievements of the applicant are a factor in the fellowship application process. The 
funding institution has to be assured that the fellowship recipient is capable of performing the 
proposed research. Nevertheless, a fellowship grant is principally designed to fund temporary 
scientific training and future research, and not to recognize his past excellence in the research field. 
Accordingly, we cannot conclude that having one's scientific training and research funded in this 
manner equates to the petitioner's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field. 
In response to the director's for evidence, the petitioner submitted a July 18, 2009 e-mail 
sent to him from Dr. stating: "It is my pleasure to inform you that the 
selection committee for Boston 2009 ... has evaluated your 
application, and have I sic I decided to extend you an invite to attend the meeting on the 12'h and 
13th of September as an observer." The preceding invitation to attend_Boston 2009 post­
dates the petition's March 27, 2009 filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility 
at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katighak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg!. Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. 
Page 9 
Nevertheless, the preceding evidence constitutes an invitation to attend a meeting rather than a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstandinf{ achievements of their 
members, as judf{ed by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines orfields. 
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 a November 24, 2008 letter informing him of his acceptance to Regular 
membership in the ASBMB. The petitioner also submitted information from the ASBMB's 
website regarding its requirements for Regular membership stating: 
Regular Membership ($140) 
A vailable to any individual who holds a doctoral degree and who has published, since 
receipt of the doctoral degree, at least one paper in a refereed journal devoted to 
biochemistry and molecular biology. New regular members must be sponsored by one 
regular member of the society. Upon review and approval of the application by the 
executive officer, the applicant will be accepted as a member and be so notified. 
We cannot conclude that holding a doctoral degree and publishing a single paper in a refereed 
journal equate to outstanding achievements 5 In this instance, the submitted documentation does 
'i For "Biological Scientists," the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 20 I 0-11 Edition (accessed 
at http://www.bJs.go\'/ocof). states that a "solid record of published research is essential in ohtaining a permanent 
position involving basic research." See http://www.bls.i!.ov/oco/pdtiocos047.pdLaccessed on February 25, 2011. copy 
incorporated into the record of proceedings. The handbook also provides information about the nature of employment 
as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See http://\v\v\v.bls.gov! 
ocollli..IJ:ts>c(b06!i:.lliJJ, accessed on February 25, 201 L copy incorporated into the record of proceedings. The 
handbook expressly states that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the 
professor's research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover. the doctoral programs training. students for faculty 
positions require a dissertation, or \Vfitten report on original research. Id. This intormation reveals that publishing 
original research, whether arising from research at a university or private employer, is an expectation in the petitioner's 
field rather than evidence of "outstanding achievements." 
not establish that the ASBMB requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner submitted an internet printout from the ASMB stating that he is "registered as a 
postdoc2year member for the 2008, 2009 membership year," hut there is no evidence (such as 
hylaws or rules of admission) showing that the ASMB requires outstanding achievements of it 
memhers, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
In response to the director's for evidence, the petitioner submitted a July 18. 2009 e-mail 
sent to him from my pleasure to inform you that the 
selection committee Boston 2009 ... has evaluated your 
application, and have r, you an . attend the meeting on the 12th and 
~mher as an ohserver." [Emphasis added.] The preceding invitation to attend. 
_ post-dates the petition's March 27, 2009 filing date. As previously discussed, a 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(h)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this 
proceeding. Nevertheless, the preceding e-mail constitutes an invitation to attend __ 
"observer" rather than membership in an association in the petitioner's field. Furt~ 
documentary evidence showing that the organization requires outstanding achievements in the 
biological sciences, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's 
field. 
In light of above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in proFessional or mqjor trade puhlicatiolls or 
other mqjor media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldf(lr which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of'the material, and 
any nece.\'sary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must he ahout the petitioner and. 
as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. 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.6 
The petitioner submitted material from the "Faculty & Resident in the News" section of the 
Duke University School of Medicine, Division of Dermatology website. The three-sentence 
piece states: 
6 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 II 
[The petitioner!. Ph.D., a Research Associate in Duke Dermatology, has recently been 
awarded a Postdoctoral Travel Fellowship by the American Society for Biochemistry and 
Molecular Biology (ASBMB). [The was awarded this Travel 
nrC"",1t his latest data in 
IEmphasis added.] 
The petitioner submitted additional material posted on the Duke Univ~!.~J;,~:l:i~~ne. 
Division of Dermatology website briefly mentioning his receipt of a __ to 
attend the lID 2008 Meeting, The author of the two brief pieces posted on the preceding website 
was not identified as required by the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii). 
FUlther, the petitioner has not submitted internet readership statistics or other comparable evidence 
showing that the Duke University School of Medicine, Division of Dermatology website qualifies 
as a form of major media. 
"News Release" entitled 
prepared by the University of California, San 
Francisco (UCSF) News Office and posted on its website. The three-page article briefly lists the 
petitioner in the conclusion along with more than twenty other investigators. A news release is a 
written communication directed at the news media for the purpose of announcing information 
claimed as having news value rather than "published material, , , in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media." We cannot conclude that a news release, which is not the result 
of independent media reportage and which is sent to media outlets to encourage them to develop 
articles on a subject, meets the plain of this criterion. The also 
August 
content to the preceding UCSF 
News Release, states that it was "adapted by Medical News Today from original press release" 
by the UCSF. The three-page article briefly lists the petitioner in the conclusion with more 
than twenty other . The initial evidence included a two-
page article entitled at 
MedicalNewsToday,com. The two-page article briefly lists the petitioner at the conclusion along 
with eighteen other coauthors, With regard to the preceding articles, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "ahout the alien," Alticles that only hriefly 
mention the petitioner in passing do not meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion 7 
Further, there are no internet readership statistics or other comparable evidence showing that the 
preceding websites qualify as major media. 
7 See, e.g .. Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2(08) (upholding a linding that 
articles ahout a show are not about the actor). 
Page 12 
ULJ''''''<OU an article coauthored by DUMC professors_ 
petitioner, and sixteen others. In response to the 
director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an article reviewing the preceding article 
and another article appearing in the same September 2007 issue. The review at1icle in Nature 
Genetics does not mention the petitioner by name and is more akin to a promotion of the article by 
the publisher than independent journalistic coverage of the petitioner and his work. Appearing in 
the same issue as the petitioner's article, the review does not expose the petitioner to any readers 
who are not already in possession of his article. Moreover, the review article similarly references 
numerous other authors. 
The petitioner's response included additional review articles in The Lancet, immunotherapy, 
immunogenetics, Brain, Rheumatology, Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, and 
Human Molecular Genetics. The petitioner also submitted a book chapter citing to his work 
along with numerous other sources. On appeal, the petitioner submits further review articles in 
Archives of Neurology, Seminars in immunology, Drugs, and Journal of' Autoimmunity citing to 
his work and that of numerous others. None of these articles are "about" the petitioner or even 
mention him by name aside from in their "references" section. As previously discussed, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien" 
relating to his work rather than simply about the petitioner's work. Compare 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or professors pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(B) of the Act. It cannot be credibly asserted that the preceding review articles and 
book chapter which briefly reference the petitioner's article in Nature Genetics are "about" the 
petitioner. 
The other articles which cite to the petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' own work. 
and are not about the petitioner or even his work. With regard to this criterion, a footnoted 
reference to the alien's work without evaluation is of minimal probative valuc. As previously 
discussed, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be 
"about the alien." The submitted articles do 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 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 light of above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or 0/1 a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of' specification Fir which 
classification is sought. 
Page 13 
mail from the Editorial Office of Molecular Biology Reports thanking him for reviewing manuscript 
24, 2009 e-mail requesting that he review m,mulsclript 
response to the director's request for evidence, the fJt:l.lll'Ull'"l 
a e-mail from the of 
thanking him completed the review of 1l1il.IlU'Cl 
The petitioner submitted an October 15, 2008 letter Regional Editor of 
Advances in Medical and Dental Sciences, stating: "IThe petitioner 1 helping me by 
reviewing the submitted articles for publication in the above said Journal." The limited information 
provided in the letter fro~ does not identify the title of the m1icles reviewed by the 
petitioner, their dates of completion, or the names of the authors. Merely submitting a letter 
claiming that the petitioner helped review articles without specifying the work he judged is 
insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter oj Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft or California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Moreover, if testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter or Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). In this instance, there is 
no documentary evidence of the petitioner's participation in a formal judging capacity for 
Advances in Medical and Dental Sciences, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
SClleIlu'll'IC papers bearing a handwritten note at the top from his 
requesting "please could you review this manuscript." There is no 
ev luelJlX M:n;:;i1,] that the petitioner actually completed the preceding two 
manuscript reviews. The plain language of this criterion requires "I elvidence of the alien's 
participation ... as a judge of the work of others." Being asked to review a manuscript or proposal 
is not tantamount to evidence of one's actual "participation" as a reviewer. Moreover, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the petitioner has served as "a 
judge of the work of others." The phrase "a judge" 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). The 
regulation cannot be read to include every informal instance of a supervisor requesting input 
from her subordinate. 
In response to the director's request submitted a July 21, 2009 e-mail 
thanking him for reviewing Gene. The petitioner was first 
invited to revie:v the preceding manuscript on May IS, 200~r also submitted a May 
19, 2009 e-matl thankmg him for revlewmg manuscnpt __ for Molecular Biology 
Reports. The petitioner was requested to review the preceding manuscript on May 14,2009. The 
petitioner received and completed the preceding manuscript review requests subsequent to the 
petition's March 27, 2009 filing date. As previously discussed, a petitioner must establish 
Page 14 
eligibility at the time of filing, 8 C,ER. §§ 103,2(b)(1), (12); Matter of' Katighak, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. 
Thus, the record contains documentary evidence establishing that the petitioner participated in the 
review of one manuscript for Gene and two manuscripts for Molecular Biology Reports as of the 
petition's filing date. This documentation meets the plain language requirements of the regulation 
at 8 c'F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). However, certain deficiencies pertaining to this 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. 
Evidence of'the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or husiness­
related contrihutions ()f'major signif'icance in the field, 
The petitioner submitted letters of support from independent references discussing the 
s he coauthored with his at DUMC (such as 
The references' 
statements not clearly describe 
how the petitioner and his superiors' scientific contributions arc both original and of major 
significance in the field. Moreover, in support of the independent experts' statements, the 
petitioner submitted evidence of more than one hundred independent cites to his published 
findings and review articles that note the importance of the research. Thus, the petitioner has 
submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 c'F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence ()f'the alien's authorship o(scholarly articles in thefie/d, in professional or 
major trade puhlications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented his co-authorship of seven journal articles that were published as of 
the petition's filing date and, thus, he has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 c'F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence ()f'the display (!f' the alien '.1' work in the field at artistic exhihitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted documentation showing that he presented his work at various scientific 
meetings as evidence for this criterion. The petitioner's field, however, is in the sciences rather 
than the arts. The plain language of this regulatory criterion indicates that it applies to artists. 
The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every criterion will 
apply to every occupation. The petitioner's presentations at scientific meetings arc more relevant 
to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.ER. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion that the 
petitioner has already met. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Page 15 
Evidence that the alien has perfimned in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support at DUMC as a postdoctoral 
research associate under the direction of professors In response to 
the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a September 8, 2009 letter from Case 
Western Reserve University School of Medicine (CWRUSM) offering him a temporary position 
as a Senior Research Associate. The petitioner's position with CWRUSM post-dates the filing 
of the petition. As previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the 
AAO will not consider the petitioner's role for CWRUSM in this proceeding. While the 
petitioner has performed admirably on the research projects to which he was assigned, there is no 
evidence showing that his subordinate role was leading or critical for DUMC. For example, 
there is no organizational chart or other evidence documenting how the petitioner's position fell 
within the general hierarchy of DUMC. We note that the petitioner's temporary postdoctoral 
appointment at the DUMC was designed to provide specialized research experience and training 
in his field of endeavor 8 The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his temporary 
appointment differentiated him from the other research scientists employed by the DUMC, let alone 
Duke's tenured faculty and principal investigators. For instance, unlike professors 
there is no evidence that the petitioner has often served as a principal investigator 
and initiated research projects of his own. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not 
establish that he was responsible for DUMC's success or standing to a degree consistent with the 
meaning of "leading or critical role." Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion. 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted evidence that meets the plain language of the 
specific regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) - (vi) and therefore qualifies under three of the 
categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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 have risen to 
the very top of thcl irl 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 
x ··Biological scientists with a Ph.D. often take temporary postdoctoral research positions that provide specialized 
research experience." See http://dala.bls.gov/cgi-bin/prinLp!/n<.:o/oc()s()4).htm. accessed on February 25. 2011. copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 16 
the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarialt, 
596 F.3d at 1119-1120. In the present matter, many 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)(i) - (iv), (vii), and (viii). 
With regard to the evidence submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), we note that applicants for the 
travel fellowships and Junior and Senior Research Fellowships received by the petitioner were 
limited to graduate students, residents, pre- or post-doctoral fellows, medical students, or junior 
faculty who demonstrate extreme financial need. Experienced experts and tenured faculty do not 
compete for such fellowships. Thus, they cannot establish that the petitioner is one of the very 
few at the top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. 
Mal/ero.fPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899
9 
Likewise, it 
does not follow that receipt of an award which excludes veteran scientists in the field from 
consideration should necessarily qualify a researcher for an extraordinary ability employment-based 
immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted the results from a 
Japanese survey entitled "Investigative Survey on the Research Activities and Awareness of 
Postdoctoral Fellows." Counsel points to statistics on page ii of the survey report indicating more 
than 75% of Japanese postdoctoral researchers surveyed had "less than six years of experience." 
Counsel states: "It is likely most of these are postdoctoral fellows. If a prize is available to 75% of 
the people doing research, that prize is not insignificant . . . ." In fact, all of the respondents 
participating in the preceding survey were postdoctoral fellows. The results from this Japanese 
survey excluded tenured faculty or other scientists holding permanent research positions. 
Accordingly, the submitted survey results do not establish that postdoctoral researchers comprise 
75% of researchers in the petitioner's field. Nevertheless, the awards submitted by the petitioner do 
not meet the plain language requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and are not indicative of 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
SI While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding prel.:edent. we note that in Matter (~l Racint!. 
1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16. 1995), the court stated: 
[Tlhe plain reading of the statute 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" ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in 
this district, Grims()() v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. lll. September 9. 1993), aDd the definition of the term 
R C.FR § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the prescnt case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USClS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
Page 17 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(iv), the nature of the petitioner's 
judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of his 
recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. The 
petitioner's evidence included two scientific papers bearing a handwritten note at the top from his 
superviso_requesting that the petitioner review the manuscripts. Aside from the 
petitioner's failure to submit doc~dence showing that he actually completed the two 
manuscript reviews assigned by _ we cannot conclude that being requested to review 
a manuscript by one's own supervisor is evidence of national or international acclaim. Moreover, 
regarding the remaining documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), we cannot conclude 
that the petitioner's level and frequency of peer review is commensurate with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of the field of endeavor. As previously discussed, the 
petitioner submitted documentary evidence establishing that he participated in the review of one 
manuscript for Gene and two manuscripts for Molecular Biology Reports as of the petition's March 
27,2009 filing date. We note that peer review of manuscripts is a routine element of the process 
by which articles are selected for publication in scientific journals. 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 several 
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 that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence 
that he has received and completed independent requests for review from a substantial number of 
journals or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal as of the petition's filing 
date, we cannot conclude that his level and frequency of peer review is commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field of endeavor. For instance, 
states that he served on the editorial board of MolcCltlar and Cellular 
Biology. 
With regard to 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 
scientific meeting along with numerous other participants. Nothing in the record indicates that 
the presentation of one's work is unusual in the petitioner's field or that invitation to present at 
venues where the petitioner'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 
government agencies. Participation in such events, however, does not elevate the petitioner 
above almost all others in his field at the national or international level. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(vi), we acknowledge that the 
petitioner has documented his co-authorship of seven journal m1icles that were published as of the 
petition's filing date. The petitioner, however, has not established that his publication record sets 
him 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 sustaincd national or intemational acclaim in 
Page 18 
the sciences, arts, education, business or athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) ... " 
Further, as noted previously, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 201O~11 
Edition (accessed at www.bJs.gov/oco on February 25, 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." This information 
reveals that published research does not necessarily set an individual apart from other biological 
scientists employed in that researcher's field. 
That said, we acknowledge the positive response in the field to the np,iti"nF'r', 
he coauthored with his superiors at DUMC (such as professors 
_. We are not persuaded, however, that the petitioner's pres 
received publications, rise to the level of sustained national or international acclaim in the context of 
his 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 DUMC as a postdoctoral research associate. The petitioner relies 
primarily on his completion of three manuscript reviews in the widespread peer review process, his 
publications with his superiors at DUMC, his publication citation record, the praise of members of 
his field, and the affirmation of his colleagues that his work was imp0l1ant to DUMC where he 
worked in an inherently temporary position. 
n"I'itil~n"r', references' credentials are far more impressive than those of the petitioner. 
have pnblished extensively with a total of over lOa pnblications in peer~reviewed 
patents. . .. Accompanying my role as Professor in 
I am a member of the Cancer Comprehensive Center, 
the Faculty of the Center for RNA Biology, the Faculty of the Scleroderma Research 
Center and I am Senior Fellow of the Center for the Study of Aging and Human 
Development. I collaborate with researchers on a world~wide basis and have been on the 
Editorial Board for the Journal of Investiliative Dermatology and act as reviewer for 
journals including J Clin Invest, J Bioi Chem, Biochim Biophys Acta, Biochem Biophys 
Res Comm, J Bone and Mineral Research, Bone, Matrix Biology, Connective Tissue 
Research and J Cellular Physiology on a regular basis. Moreover, I act as a regular grant 
reviewer both in the U.S., as well as in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. 
states: 
* * * 
During my career I have published more than 105 peer-reviewed manuscripts, several 
book chapters and edited two volumes. From 1999 to 2008 I served in the editorial board 
of Molecular and Cellular and I currently serve in the editorial board 01_ the 
leading journal in In 2005 I was the Editor of a volume of Methods 
dedicated to the splicing. 
~ been Member and Chair of the Biochemistry Study Section at the NIH and since 
_I have served as a permanent member of for NIGMS. Additionally I served 
as a Member of the Board of Directors of the 
year will serve as Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board of 
which studies the disruption of alternative splicing in cancer. I am also 
Scientific Advisory Board 0_ the most important group of 
_ It should be noted that this board of seven scientists includes three members 
the National Academy of Sciences. . .. In the area of alternative splicing I have been 
asked to and institutions (e.g., Keynote Speaker the 
and I have organized some of the most imn,.."'t,,,t 
LUlllLLLlllg chair of 
I am currentl y an Assistant Professor at the Center for Human Genetics in the Department 
of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. . .. I am an active member of 
the Human Genome Organization (Editor), the American Society of Human Genetics, the 
American Association for Cancer Research, the Society of Neuro-Oncology and the 
American Heart Association. I have published 62 peer reviewed articles and have 
reviewed manuscripts for II scientific journals including Nature, Cancer Research and 
The European journal of Human Genetics. 
states: 
Currently, I am a professor in Department of Pathology at the Baylor College of 
I am also a 
more than sixty papers published in top ranking international journals, including several 
review articles on various aspects of RNA splicing and myotonic dystrophy. I am 
currently leading my research group in studying the roles of disrupted splicing regulation 
in myotonic dystrophy, the most common form of adult onset muscular dystrophy. My 
Finally, states: 
At present I am an Associate Professor an~at the University of 
Massachusetts Medical School in the Department of Cell Biology. . .. I have been an 
author on more than 260 peer reviewed and highly cited academic papers in prestigious 
journals. I have regularly reviewed scholarly papers for more than 60 journals and have 
served on -50 different NIH review panels. I also serve on the Editorial Boards of 
several journals .... I have mentored many students, post-doctoral associates and 
visiting professors. 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is far above 
the level he has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the 
time of filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a scientific 
researcher, 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 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 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 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, fne. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
({!J'd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 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. 
We note that the petitioner is the beneficiary of an approved petition classifying him as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act. This decision is without prejudice to the approval of that petition, filed under a lesser 
classification. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.