dismissed EB-1A Case: Synthetic Carbohydrate Chemistry

identifying dat~ delet~,d to .. 
prevent clearly unw~nted 
invasion of personal pnvac). 
, PUBLIC COpy 
.- { .. ' . 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals ()ffice (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
FEB 0 8 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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 decide~ your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your ~ase 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 motionlto reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days ofthe decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry 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 "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1 )(A). 
The director determined 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 )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's 
decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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 acclrum 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 
I (iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (UscrS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a- very high standard for 
I 
l 
Page 3 
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. ld. 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, relatirig 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 III the field, III 
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 
orgaruzations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
_ remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
\ 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
" 
-Page 4 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although' 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.l With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at i 121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper Understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
"-
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofthe[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" ar~ 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), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
According to the petitioner's initial statement, this petition, filed on July 31, 2007, seeks to 
classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a scientific researcher in the area 
of synthetic carbohydrate chemistry. The petitioner received his Ph.D. in Environmental Science 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) ~d 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
,r 
Page 5 
In July 2008, the petitioner began working at 
The petitioner has submitted doc:umentation pertaining to the following 
categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)? 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a January 6, 2003 Honor Certificate from the 
"Student [the petitioner] receives First of . s of 2 
submits a letter from 
InnovatIve were more III our resean;h 
institute in year of 2002 and only three of them obtained the first class award, while 15 
got the second class of the award, and around 30 obtained the third class award. The 
award winner received about half a year or three months extra income above their annual 
That was the that we awarded" excellence in research to the top 10% in the 
This student award from the _reflects institutional recognition rather than a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. Moreover, 
academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, 
academic scholarships and student awards cannot be considered prizes or awards in the 
petitioner\, field of endeavor. In this instance, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating 
that the petitioner's award was recognized beyond his educational institution and therefore 
commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in 
the field. 
The petitioner also submitted a September 2002 "Project approval Notificatiop" -from the 
"Graduate Study Department" of the "The student [the petitioner] as head 
of the project who apply for graduate student science and social 
practice special funding' (innovatIOn been approved." In response to the 
director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a list of 42 "graduate students" (including 
the petitioner) who received this funding grant from the On appeal,_ states:, 
[The petitioner], as 
Candidates from 
earned an Innovation Fund grant for Ph.D. 
to design and synthesize environmentally benign pesticide. Each 
, 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet qr submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
r 
Page 6 
year, only a few of students can have this honor in the In 
the year of 2002, it was even more difficult to be granted. Basically one research institute 
could only recommend one candidate for evaluation for the grant, while there are more 
than 100 research institutes in the around the whole of 
China. Only 42 persons were awarded this grant. 
We note that consideration for this funding grant from the" was limited to Ph.D. students. The 
submitted documentation reflects that 42 students received this Ph.D. grant and that the petitioner 
received his _ funding "to design and synthesize environmentally benign pesticide." Research 
grants of this kind simply fund an investigator's work. Every successful scientist engaged in 
research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously 
the past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The funding 
institution has to be assured that .the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. 
Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fund future research, and not to recognize 
past excellence in the field of endeavor. Further, the plain language of the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(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. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's funding award 
from the _ was recognized beyond the presenting organization and therefore commensurate 
with a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. Finally, 
even if the petitioner were to establish that his student grant from the_equates to a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field, which he has not, the statute 
requires the submission of "extensi~e documentation." Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires the alien's receipt of "nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards" in the plural. [Emphasis added.] A single qualifying award does 
not meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
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 outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of ~ues, 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 his membership card for the but 
there is no evidence (such as bylaws or rules of admls~ion)showing that the 
Page 7 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recogniz~d national or international 
experts inJhe petitioner's field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Published material about.the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the jield for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
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.3 
I 
The petitioner submitted copies of articles citing to his published work. Articles which cite to the 
. petitioner's work are primarily about the author's 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 value. 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 article~. 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 o(above, the petitioner has not establisheq that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence o/the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied jidd of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a June 2, 2005 e-mail 
from , to the petitioner and 
eight of his coworkers stating: "I have --decided that we should reinstate the paper review 
exercise. _is handling the primary review of the paper od your desk. Let's meet on June 
10th at 12 pm to go over th~ paper. ,,4 The petitioner also supmitted a June 12, 2005 e-mail from 
_ to the petitioner and eight of his coworkers stating: "Here's the review that I submitted 
3 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. 
4 The record reflects tha_ is the petitioner's supervisor at UCSD. 
" 
Page 8 
with a recommendation that Chemistry and Biology was not the right journal for this paper." The 
limited information provided in the preceding e-mails does not identify the title of the article 
reviewed by _ research team. Further, there is no documentary evidence of the petitioner's 
specific contribution to the review. 
The petitioner's response included additional e-mails from _ to the petitioner and eleven of 
his coworkers dated October 30, 2007; November 21, 2007; and December 13, 2007 relating to 
manuscripts that_ was requested to review. These manuscript reviews from Fall 2007 post­
date the petition's July 31, 2007 filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. 
Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in this proceeding. 
Nevertheless, with regard ~receding e-mails received by the petitioner while working in 
_ laboratory at __ there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner actually contributed to the preceding manuscript reviews. The plain language of this 
criterion, however, requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien's participation ... as a judge of the work of 
others." 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 his subordinates. The submitted documentation indicates that· 
the journal's editorial staff requeste~ to review the manuscripts. then assigned 
the duty to the petitioner and many of his coworkers .. The record contains no evidence that the 
petitioner served as part of a formal judging process (such as being specifically designated as a 
peerreviewer by a journal's editorial staff). 
This is to certify that [the petitioner] has positively participated, as a carbohydrate 
pioneer consultant, to guide a major project - HCV drug development targeting virus 
entry and releasing in As the leader of this project I 
appre~iate very much the and contribution from him. 
[The petitioner] who has rich experience in _ (the best carbohydrate research center 
in the world), took look at this project and proposed a key suggestion - adding a 
carbohydrate (Nea) to our compound. 
_does not state that the petitioner served as "ajudge" either on a panel or individually as 
specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). In this instance, the petitioner's work as a consultant for 
for HCV drug development project does not constitute his 
"partIcIpatlOn, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work o( others" in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
-' 
Page 9 
Evidence of the alien IS original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussi!lg his work. 
Dr. Esko states: 
[The petitioner] has worked in my laboratory since 2005. His work focuses on the 
synthesis of disaccharides, which consist of pairs . of sugars connected to a non­
carbohydrate moiety. These compounds block cancer metastasis, the spread of tumor 
cells through the blood stream and seeing of organs distant from the primary tumor. 
Specifically, the disaccharides are taken up by cancer cells and cause the cells to make 
less of another carbohydrate needed to survive in the blood. [The petitioner] has prepared 
novel derivatives of these agents to improve their efficacy. In these studies, he has 
contributed to difficult synthetic steps to obtain the desired derivatives. His work has 
been'written up for publication in prestigious, peer-reviewed journals. 
There is currently a great need for novel chemotherapeutic agents to enhance our 
diminishing arsenal of agents for treating cancer. Thus, [the petitioner] is poised to make 
contributions towards the development of novel drugs and his work should be viewed as 
an important contribution to. the nation. [The petitioner] possesses synthetic talents 
lacking in many American scientists. His permanent residency in the United States will 
ensure that an adequately trained (work force will be available to meet the challenges that 
lie ahead in carbohydrate chemistry and cancer biology. 
_asserts that the petitioner "possesses synthetic talents" and "is poised to make 
contributions towards the development of novel drugs;" but_ does n~e specific 
examples of how the petitioner's work has already impacted the field. While _ indicates 
that the petitioner's "work has been written up for publication," there is no evidence showing that 
th,ese findings which are expected to be published at some unspecified future date equate to 
original scientific contributions of major significance in the field~ As previously discussed, a 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time offiling. 8e.F.R. §§ I03.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of . , 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
states: 
I have known [the petitioner] since 2005, when he was recruited to work as a 
researcher with my colleague from the 
_ .. [The petitioner] started working in my laboratory on a collaborative project 
with the Esko laboratory, as part of his employment at the 
* * * 
Page 10 
During his two years at UCSD, r[the petitioner's] research has been focused on the 
synthesis of various carbohydrate derivatives. Specifically he has been pursuing the 
synthesis of modified disaccharides, molecules that have shown effective inhibition of 
tumor growth and metastasis. [The petitioner], an outstanding synthetic carbohydrate 
chemist, was successful in developing a' number of effective approaches to these 
important molecules and their derivatives. 
_ does not provide specific examples of how the approaches developed by the petitioner 
have influenced others in the field. While the petitioner's work at . . to his 
laboratory, there is no evidence demonstrating that his work with and • is 
recognized beyond the university such that his work constitutes original contributions of major 
significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
requires that the contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited to a 
single research institution or employer. ' . 
In 
2006. _states: 
I am impressed by [the petitioner's] research and his great achievements in the area of 
carbohydrate based cancer treatment, particularly his paper published in 
Letters in 2002. . .. [The petitioner's] study revealed the first synthetic carbohydrate of 
(l----+6)-P-D-linked glucosamine linked glucosamine hexasaccharide as a potential 
antitumor and immunostimulating agent .... CTX is a commonly used chemotherapeutic 
with severe side effects on patients, ,including weight loss, skin hair loss and inhibition of 
blood cells production in patients. In [the petitioner's] study, he found that his compound, 
the (l----+6)-P-D-linked glucosamine hexasaccharide, had an anticancer effect comparable 
to that of CTX but with greatly reduced side effects. His further studies revealed that his 
compound did not have an inhibitory effect on blood cell production, instead of 
improving anti -cancer immunity. In addition, an added potential value of the (l----+6)-P-D­
linked glucosamine hexasaccharide is that the compound could also inhibit tumor growth. 
Therefore, these studies clea,rly, demonstrated that the (1----+6)-/l-D-linked glucosamine 
hexasacchande is a promising antitumor agent. 
_ discusses the "promising" na~e of the petitioner's work stating that his studies 
yielded "a potential antitumor and immunostimulating agent" [emphasis added]. A petitioner, 
however, cannot file a petition under this classification based solely on the expectation of future 
eligibility. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The burden is on the petitioner to 
establish that his work has already significantly influenced the field as of the petition's filing date. 
To satisfy the criterion relating to original contributions of major significance, the petitioner must 
demonstrate riot only that iris work is, novel and useful, but also that it had a demonstrable impact on 
his field. The petitioner has not shown, for instance, how the field has significantly changed as a 
result of his work, beyond the incremental improvements iIi knowledge and understanding that are 
expected from valid original research. 
Page 11 
states that he was formerly a postdoctoral 
I met [the petitioner] in 2007 at the at San Diego ... , 
where he presented a poster titled as mimics for 
treatment of tumor metastasis." As a senor principle scientist working in to discovery 
novel anticancer chugs, I was fascinated by his innovative approach to address this 
difficult problem. 
does not indicate that he has applied the petitioner's findings in his own work. 
Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's ACS presentation entitled "Synthesis 
of the acetylated disaccharide mimics for treatment of tumor metastasis" is frequently cited or 
that his presented findings otherwise constitute original scientific contributions of major 
. significance in the field. 
indentifies himself as_ 
in San Diego._ states: 
Within the past ten years scientists have come to realize that the carbohydrate molecules 
that compose the cell wall play a key role in signaling viruses and bacteria that are 
attempting to enter the cell, and facilitating their becoming connected to receptor sites in 
the cell wall. [The petitioner] worked for a number of years in this field and wrote a 
nurriber of fine first-author papers on a new process of synthesizing bioactive 
oligo saccharides. Some of the compounds he made, ~-(1 ~6)-glucqsamine oligomers, 
might be used to develop therapies to interrupt the signaling and other intermediate 
processes that allow dangerous virus vectors from attaching to the cell wall at receptor 
Letters 2002, 43, 7561-7563, [the petitioner], 
2003, 338, 495-502, [the petitioner] 
carbohydrates might prevent these virus vectors from entering the cell and destroying it. 
_opinys that some of the petitioner's compounds "might be used to develop therapies" 
and that the carbohydrates he designed "might prevent these virus vectors from entering the cell 
and destroying it." With regard to the witnesses of record, many of them discuss what may, 
might, or could one day result from the petitioner's work, rather than how his past research 
achievements already qualify as original contributions of major significance in the field. As 
previously discussed, a petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based solely on '. 
the expectation of future eligibility. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
states: 
[The petitioner] worked for me for one year as a post-doctoral fellow in 
was supported as part of, the 
Carbohydrate SCIence, a provincially funded .initiative, and worked on a project focused 
on developing novel vaccines for' the treatment of invasive aspergillosis, a fungal lung 
disease that is nearly always lethal and attacks predominantly the elderly and individuals 
Page 12 
with weakened immune system. This is a joint and that of 
my colleague in the 
in less than one year, single-handedly . 
used in the generation of the vaccines. This was an incredible .achievement as I had 
anticipated that it would take him more than two years to complete this task. We are now 
investigating the potential of these compounds as vaccines and we are waiting on the 
biological work to be completed before we write up the work for publication, following 
any necessary patent applications. 
u ..... "' .... "'., that his research team is "investigating the potential" of the petitioner's 
compounds as vaccines 'and that they are "waiting on the biological work to be completed" 
before writing up the work for publication .. 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. The petitioner's initial evidence included a "Report of Invention" prepared by _ 
and the petitioner based on their work at the The petitioner also submitted " 
an international patent application filed entitled "Compositions and Methods 
for Treatment of Disease with Acetylated Disaccharides," but the document does not list the 
petItIOner as an inventor. The petitioner's documentation also included evidence of three 
Chinese patent applications that he coauthored. Even if the petitioner were to establish that these 
inventions received a patent, the grant of a patent demonstrates only that an invention is original. 
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, (Commr. 1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case­
by-case basis. Id. In this instance, there is no evidence indicating the extent to which the 
petitioner's inventions have been licensed)or successfully marketed in the industry. Thus, the 
impact of the petitioner's inventions is not documented in the record. 
In his initial letter 
_,and 
[The petitioner] began research in my group on March 1, 2003. 
I assigned an extremely difficult research project to [the petitioner], based on my high 
expectation of his abilities. I was not disappointed. 
[The petitioner] has completed within one year the solid-phase synthesis of a collection 
of 1,171 carbohydrate compounds that are just now undergoing evaluation as potential 
inhibitors of a cancer-associated enzyme: N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase-V. We hope 
to get a hit from this testing, which would be a lead compounds [sir:] for drug-
development. . 
In his letter submitted in response to the director's request for evidence, states: 
" 
, 
Page 13 
When [the petitioner] joined my group at the we were working on 
a very difficult project that tried to develop a method capable of synthesizing 1000 
compounds in one pot using a split, mix and split soliq phase synthesis approach. We had 
started that project 10 years earlier and a lot of excell~nt organic chemists, biologists and 
analytical chemists had worked on that project. We had developed a high throughput 
screening method (F ACIMS, front affinity chromatography coupled with mass 
spectrometric screening) that would allow us to screen for the biological activity of 
carbohydrates in mixtures and [the petitioner's] task was to figure out how to make such 
mixtures. [The petitioner] single-handedly developed a method to prepare up to 1000 
corppounds in a single mixture, a remarkable feat, in itself and discovered the, best 
inhibit~r to date of the clinically important enzyme N-Acetylglucosaminyltransferase-V. 
The record, however, does not include documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's 
method for preparing compounds is being widely applied by others in the field or, that his work 
otherwise equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
states: 
[The petitioner] is my former graduate student and he has [been] involved in many 
important projects: 1) Solid-acid catalyzed organic reactions using Montmorillonite clays 
as green catalyst; 2) Developed a practical method in oligo-GlcNAc-synthesis which 
shows good activity in tumor cell inhibition; 3) Synthesized complex oligosaccharide 
derivatives related to those from sanqi, a chinese herbal medicine from Panax 
notoginseng, presented good immune response in mice test; 4) Design and synthesized 
glycotransferase inhibitors using parallel and combinatorial synthesis, some of the active 
new molecules are thus obtained. The knowledge accurimlated along years of research by 
[the petitioner] has been very essential for the comprehension of such glycoscience. 
_does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has impacted others in 
'1:ITreTk 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. We must presume that the phrase "major 
significarice" is not superfluous ,and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a 
contribution of major significance in the field of science, it can be expected that the results 
would have already been reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their work.' 
Otherwise, it is 'difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
states that he received his 
[The petitioner's] contributions regarding bioactive oligosacchararide synthesis and 
application in the medical field and so on, like a,- and B-stereo,.selective glycosylations, 
reported in Carbohydrate Research 337 (2002) 485-491, 1165-1169, 1673-1678 etc. are 
quite significant and impressive. He ,established several concise and practical 
glycosylations methoqs for the synthesis of many bioactive oligosaccharides. It was [the 
petitioner] who discovered the unexpected a,-stereo-outcomes during neighboring group 
Page 14 
participation and later found· the proper methods to correct that against rule 
glycosaylation. His methods greatly enriched oligosaccharide library and efficiently 
reduced synthetic steps of some bioactive. oligosaccharides. He is definitely the pioneer 
of the synthetic carbohydrate chemistry. His observations give great influence on my 
research which published on Carbohydrate Research . .... 
* * * 
In general, [the petitioner's] research on the carbohydrate chemistry involves two aspects: 
first, he discovered a fair stereo-selective glycosylation method that can be followed and 
mastered by other researchers very easily. On the other hand, he synthesized many 
bioactive complex oligo saccharides with his newly-discovered selective method. Before 
[the petitioner's] extensive effort, synthesis of some oligosaccharides had been quite 
difficult, and even impossible. Undoubtedly his method of efficient stereo-selective 
glycosylation will benefit the research work of other researchers greatly, as it has already 
done so for our own research. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication, presentation or funding, must offer new and useful information to the 
pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that 
adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance 
to the field as a whole. 
states: 
in February 1997 when I was a 
At the beginning; he . my group as an 
undergraduate. After obtaining his B.Sc. in June 1997, he became a graduate student 
under my supervision. Although I moved to Canada in December 1998, I kept directing 
his research by telephone, mails and e-mails till he got his M.Sc. in Jurie 2000 ... 
* * * 
During worked with me [sic]; [the petitioner] focused his research on a .,. .. r"""'T 
••••••• clays" supported by 
had met these tasks admirably. He developed facile synthesis 
for triarylmethanes and coumarins and some new procedures for protection of hydroxyl 
and carbonyl groups. The most significant result of his work was the alkylation-addition 
reactions between active phenols and cholesterols. X-ray and spectroscopic methods, 
such as 2D-NMR, confirmed the structure and the stereochemistry of the products. By 
doing those work, [the petitioner] got a good training on practical synthetic skills such as 
chromatography and micro scale crystallization. He had also got valuable experience in 
elucidation structure of organic compounds by NMR eH, \3 C, and 2D), IR, UV and mass 
Page 15 
spectroscopic methods. As a result of his hard 
international . such as 
The petitioner submitted citation evidence showing that his published work is well cited. For 
example, the petitioner's most frequently cited article (published in ••••••••• 1 
has been cited to 45 times. On appeal, counsel argues that the director disregarded the extensive 
number of citations to the petitioner's work. We acknowJedgethat the petitioner's work is well 
cited, but there is no evidence showing that his published findings rise to the level of original 
scientific contributions of major significance in the field. With regard to the petitioner's 
publications, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly 
articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We 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 emphasiz~ed that the regulatory, criteria are separate and distinct from ,one 
another. Because separate criteria exist for authorsh~p of scholarly articles and original 
contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being 
interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a .petitioner meet at least three separate 
criteria. We ~ill fully address the petitioner's scholarly articles under the next criterion. 
states: 
[The petitioner] is _ employee and I know him very well. . .. His successfully 
design [sic] and synthesized a novel cancer drug delivery-carrier platfor.m with significant 
improvement in anticancer therapeutic index: dramatically reduced the cancer drug 
toxicity to the body and significantly increase the anticancer efficiency. 
The petitioner's work post-dates the petition's July 31, 2007 filing date. As 
previously discussed, a petItlOner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider the petitioner's work for the company in this proceeding. Nevertheless,_does not 
provide specific examples of how the petitioner's novel cancer drug delivery carrier platform is 
being implemented or otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the 
field. 
Counsel further argues that the director disregarded the information contained in the letters of 
support. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting 
the petition\s not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of v­
K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware 
Page 16 
of the petitioner's reputation are important consideration.s. Even when written by independent 
experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a researcher who has made original 
contributions of major significance. 
Although the record includes numerous predictions of the potential impact of the petitioner's 
work, the submitted evidence does not show how the petitioner's work has significantly impacted 
the field. While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented researcher with 
potential, it falls short of establishing that he has already made original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional journals and, 
thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
- Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his participation in scientific conferences and symposia 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 conference presentations were not displayed at artistic exhibitions 
and are more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 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. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leqding or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
discussing his work at 
the As previously discussed, the 
petitioner's employment with the petition's July 31, 2007 filing date. 
As previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F .R~ 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the-AAO will not 
consider the in ~ceeding. With .regard to . 
and _ there is no supporting evidence 
InstItutIOns a reputation. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proofin 
these proceedings. Matter of SojJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm: 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Further, while th~ 
u~ -. _. _. 
Page 17 
petitioner has performed admirably on the research projects to which he was assigned, there is no 
evidence showing that his subordinate roles were leading or critical for the preceding institutions. 
For example, there is no organizational chart or other evidence documenting where the petitioner's 
. hierarchy of his research institutions. We note that the petitioner's 
and the was that of a student. Moreover, the petitioner's 
postdoctoral appointments at the and_were designed to provide 
specialized research experience and training in his field of endeavor. 5 The petitioner's evidence 
does not demonstrate how his. temporary appointments differentiated him from the other research 
scientists employed by the preceding institutions, let alone their tenured faculty and principal 
investigators. For instance, unlike ; 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 the preceding institutions' 
success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." 
/ ! 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petItIOner has failed to 
I , 
demonstrate his receipt of it major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least 
three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 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· fmal merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the[ir] field 'of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has 
./ 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in 
the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(1)(A) Of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 
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 at8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (v), (vii), and (viii). / 
With regard to the evidence submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), we note that competition for 
the petitioner's awards from the _ and the .. was limited to other graduate students. 
Experienced experts in the fi~ld are not seeking such awards. Thus, they cannot establish that a 
petitioner is one,of the very few at the top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, 
we note thatthe petitioner's Innovation Fund Grant from the_ is received annually by 'dozens 
of Ph.D. students. For example, the evidence submitted by the petitioner indicates that 42 
5 "Biological scientists with a Ph.D. often take temporary postdoctoral research positions that provide specialized 
research experience." See http://data.bls.gov/cgi-binJprint.plJoco/ocos047.htm, accessed on February 1, 2011, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 18 
students rec,eived th~ award in 2002 alone. ' In this case, the submitted documentation does not 
establish that the petitioner's student awards from the_ and an indication that 
he ~'is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)C2). USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league 
level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953,954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.6 Likewise, it does not follow that receipt 
of an award restricted to graduate students should n~cessarily qualify a researcher for an 
extraordinary ability employment-baSed immigrant visa. To find otherwise would contravene the 
regulatory requirement at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) that this v;isa category be reserved for "that small 
percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." ' 
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. S~e Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. The 
submitted documentation indicates that the journals' editorial staff requested_to review 
the manuscripts who then assigned the duty to the petitioner and numerous coworkers. Being 
requested to review an article by one's own supervisor is not evidence of national or international 
acclaim. More9ver, peer review of manuscripts isa 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 thems¢lves in scientific journals. Normally a 
journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of numerous prpfessionals 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 detemiining 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 of peer, review is commensurate with sustained nation~l or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field of endeavor. For example, letter 
states that he serves as the 
With regard to the petitioner's original research work subri;lltted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), as 
, ' 
stated above, it does not appe1U" to rise to the level of contributions of "major significance" in the 
6 While we acknowledge that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Matter of Racine, 
1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16,1995), the cO,urt stated: 
[T]he 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's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in 
this district, Grimson v, INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the defmition of the tenn 
( 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed, Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and, circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) is reasonable. 
- .-. -. -·.-·------11 -.. ---
Page 19 
field. Demonstrating that the petitioner's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate 
prior research is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed work." 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an alien. must (1) 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or 
athletics (as shown through extensive documentatio~) .... " Research work that is unoriginal would 
be unlikely to secure the petitioner a master's degree, let alone classification ~ a scientific 
researcher of extraordinary ability: To argue that all original research is, by definition, ' 
"extraordinary" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unoriginal." 
Regarding the evidence suJJmitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), we acknowledge that the 
petitioner has published fifteen journal articles., The Department of Labor's Occupational 
Outlook Handbook (OOH), 2010-11 Edition (accessed at www.bls.gov/oco on February 1; 2011 
and incorporated into the record of proceedings), provides information about the natpre of 
employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See 
www.bls.gov/oc0/ocos066.htm. 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 written report on original research. ld 'This information reveals that original 
published research, whether arising from research at a univer~ity or private employer, does not set 
the researcher apart from faculty in that researcher's field. That said, we acknowledge the citation' 
evidence showing the ppsitive response in the field to the petitioI}-er's research. Weare not 
persuaded, however, that the petitioner's original contributions, presented in his well-received 
publications, rise to the level of "contributions of major significance" or sustained national or 
international acclaim in the context of his field. 
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 
conference or symposium 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. 
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 en,geavor. The petitioner, a post-doctoral 
researcher at the time of filing, relies on his ~waids which were limited to graduate students, his 
ACS membership, patent applications, his published and presented research, citation evidence 
showing that his work is well cited, and the praise of members of his field. 
We note that many of the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive than the 
petitioner's. For example,_states: 
.. 
Page 20 
I ... hold the .... V"'Hl~IU I was 
. In addition, serve as an 
international journal in the field of carbohydrate chemistry. 
_ letter indicates that he is a 
that he has authored 117 publications, and that he 
_ states that he is a and has "published more 
than 60 research papers in high reputed international journals." 
_states: 
. .. I have authored more than 110 peer-reviewed 
publications in top Journals. I have reviewed numerous manuscripts for top':.. 
ranked sci'entific journals, such as the Journal of the Afnerican Chemical Society, Nature, 
Angewandte Chemie, The Journal of Organic Chemistry, .. the Journal of Inorganic 
Chemistry, and Discovery Today among many others. I have reviewed 
proposals for the The 
Finally, states: 
I was elected 
(1995), received the 
\ 
Page 21 \. 
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 with 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 lever Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. ' 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the te~hnical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v, United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3dat ,145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis L 
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 petitiol\ler. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.