dismissed EB-1A Case: Synthetic Organic Chemistry

identify in?; :.,;I kleted to 
prevent c iear iy ;warranted 
invasion of persocai privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
I LIN 08 065 50494 
 OCT 15m 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which 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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief asserting that the director failed to address specific evidence and 
even entire criteria claimed by the petitioner. We will discuss all of the evidence and criteria claimed 
below. For the reasons discussed in the body of this decision, while we find that the petitioner has 
established the significance of his contributions and published articles, we uphold the director's ultimate 
conclusion that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification sought. We reach 
this decision by considering the evidence under the regulatory criteria and in the aggregate. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has 
been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 
1989). 
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 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 Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a synthetic organic 
chemist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten 
criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary 
to qualifj as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, 
meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which classiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in Sigma Xi and the American Chemical 
Society (ACS). The petitioner submitted evidence that Sigma Xi requires a "noteworthy" achievement 
and boasts 200 Nobel Laureates. The materials also indicate that Sigma Xi accepts 5,000 new 
members annually. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel conceded that 
ACS does not have rigorous membership requirements but asserted that Sigma Xi is a qualifjing 
membership. Counsel relied in part on the dictionary definition of "noteworthy." The petitioner also 
submitted evidence that, according to Sigma Xi materials, a "noteworthy" achievement may be 
evidenced by publication as a first author on two articles published in a refereed journal, patents, 
written reports or a thesis or dissertation." 
The director concluded that Sigma Xi only requires one "noteworthy" achievement whereas the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires membership based on outstanding achievements in the 
plural. The director then compared the dictionary definitions of "noteworthy" and "outstanding" and 
concluded that they were not equivalent. 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that noteworthy achievement references a body of achievement and argues 
that two first authored articles are required. Counsel further asserts that the dictionary definitions of 
"noteworthytt and "outstanding" are equivalent. 
While the director's analysis is incomplete, counsel is not persuasive that Sigma Xi membership can 
serve to meet this criterion. We do not find the singular versus plural achievements discussion or the 
comparison of the dictionary definitions of "noteworthy" and "outstanding" to be useful. At issue is not 
how Sigma Xi characterizes its requirements but what those requirements actually are. Ultimately, 
Sigma Xi membership can be earned through two first authored articles, patents, written reports or a 
thesis or dissertation. The petitioner has not demonstrated that any of these accomplishments are 
outstanding in his field. It would appear that publication of one's results is inherent within every area of 
scientific research. Moreover, this office has previously stated that a patent is not necessarily evidence 
of even 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. 21 5,221 n. 7, (Comm'r. 1998). A thesis or dissertation 
is a graduation requirement for most advanced degrees. Thus, regardless of the word used by Sigma Xi 
to characterize its membership requirements, we are not persuaded that Sigma Xi requires outstanding 
achievements. 
Our conclusion is consistent with the information provided by the petitioner that Sigma Xi invites 
5,000 new members every year.2 While Sigma Xi may boast Nobel Laureate members, that 
information is not persuasive. The prestige of the Nobel Prize is not in dispute. It remains, however, 
that the petitioner is not a recipient of the Nobel Prize. Thus, its significance is irrelevant. That Sigma 
Xi includes members who have won the Nobel Prize does not impart that distinction to the vast 
majority of its members who have not been so recognized. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated 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 field for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In his initial cover letter, counsel stated that he was submitting "Evidence that [the petitioner's] work 
has been written about and cited in the journal articles of other scientists." This language, however, 
does not track the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which requires published material about the 
petitioner relating to his work. The petitioner submitted evidence that his work has been cited in 
subsequent research articles and in review articles. In addition, the petitioner submitted a February 
2005 issue of Chemical and Engineering News reporting that a group of chemists led by - 
the petitioner's supervisor, developed a method to introduce indoles and pyrroles into complex 
structures using carbonyl compounds, dramatically shortening the route to commercially relevant 
2 
 In comparison, the National Academy of Sciences has only approximately 2,100 members total. See 
httv://www.nasonline.org/site/Pag;eSer?va~ename=ABOUT main page accessed October 8, 2009 and 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
compounds. The article starts by reviewing a 2004 article by and a graduate student who is 
not the petitioner. The petitioner is named at the end of the article as the postdoctoral associate with the 
team that produced an "accompanying paper" in this area. Finally, the petitioner submitted a 
"highlight" column by comparing synthesis methods with those of 
another research team. The petitioner is the coauthor of one of 
 articles discussed in the 
"highlight." 
In the request for additional evidence, the director noted that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires published material about the petitioner and concluded that footnoted references would not 
suffice. In response, counsel quotes from several of the citing articles, noting that some of the citing 
articles are review articles. Counsel also reiterated that the petitioner had submitted the "highlight" 
column and article in Chemical and Engineering News. Finally, counsel noted that the petitioner's 
work was summarized in Synfacts, a monthly publication providing summaries of "the current most 
significant results from the primary literature in whole or in part." 
As noted by counsel on appeal, the director did not specifically address this criterion in the final 
decision. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires published material about the 
petitioner relating to his work. Compare 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C), requiring evidence of published 
material about the alien's work. The articles citing the petitioner's work are about the authors' own 
results or, in the case of review articles, about recent trends in the field. They cannot be credibly 
asserted to be "about" the petitioner or his work. The highlight column and the article in Chemical and 
Engineering News are about the overall research being conducted by only some of which 
was in collaboration with the petitioner. Finally, the reprint of the petitioner's abstract in Synfacts does 
not convert that work from an article by the petitioner to an article about the petitioner or his work. 
The above discussion in no way implies that the citations and other evidence submitted under this 
criterion have no evidentiary value. As will be discussed below, this evidence supports the assertions 
regarding the significance of the petitioner's contributions and scholarly articles. This evidence does 
not, however, meet the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedJield of speciJication for which classlJication is sought. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a request to review a manuscript for Organic Process Research and 
Development. In addition, the petitioner submitted the preface of Laughing Gas, Viagra and Lipitor: 
the Human Stories Behind the Drugs we Use thanking for reading the manuscript and 
providing countless invaluable comments and suggestions and listing the petitioner as one of the 
Page 6 
"friends and colleagues who also proofread portions of the manuscript." Similarly, the same author 
thanks - and his "students," including the petitioner, for proofreading another manuscript. 
The director's request for additional evidence stated that the petitioner was claiming peer review but the 
record lacked evidence "to substantiate this claim." In response, counsel reiterated the previously 
submitted evidence. In addition, counsel asserted that the petitioner's co-authorshi of a review article 
also serves to meet this criterion. The petitioner submitted a letter from 
 Editor-in- 
Chief of Organic Process Research and Development. 
 explains that the petitioner is an 
active and expert reviewer for the journal and that, as a reviewer, he has recommended whether or not 
to publish a manuscript and, thus, significantly contributed to the success of the journal. 
The director concluded that peer review is routine in the field and did not set the petitioner apart from 
others in the field. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director went beyond the plain language of the 
criterion, set forth at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Counsel then reviews the evidence submitted, which 
counsel asserts that the director ignored. 
We are not persuaded that the limited language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(iv) prevents 
us from evaluating the evidence submitted in the context of the petitioner's field. The evidence 
submitted to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 (S.D. Tex. March 24, 
2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2005). 
We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review 
submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field and, by itself, is not indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner 
apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that 
credits a small, elite group of referees, received independent requests from a substantial number of 
journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
The petitioner's service as a proofreader for portions of two books is not persuasive evidence of 
sustained national or international acclaim. It is clear from the acknowledgements that the books' 
author sought the review of, who delegated some proofreading responsibilities to his 
subordinates. Such delegated proofreading duties by one's own supervisor are no more indicative of 
national or international acclaim than internal review of student work, which cannot serve to meet this 
criterion. See Kazarian v. USCIS, - F. 3d -, 2009 WL 2836453, *5 (9th Cir. 2009). 
Finally, the petitioner has not established that his co-authorship of a review article constitutes judging 
the work of others. Counsel asserts on appeal that a review author describes the most important 
contemporary research being done in the field. Describing recent trends, however, does not involve 
judging the work reported. The record contains no evidence that in selecting the articles to describe the 
reviewer chooses those articles based on a subjective evaluation of recent work rather than simply 
utilizing a test of significance such as counting citations. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in thejeld. 
The petitioner submitted reference letters, published articles, evidence of widespread citation in the 
aggregate and coverage of his supervisor's efforts, some of which were coauthored by the petitioner. 
The director concluded that the statements in the petitioner's reference letters are amenable to 
verification through documentary evidence and that the record did not establish that the petitioner's 
work has influenced or been recognized by others to such a degree that it could be considered to 
constitute contributions of major significance. On appeal, counsel asserts that the letters were 
submitted as expert opinion, which does not lend itself to documentary support. Counsel concludes 
that expert opinion is, in fact, "the most persuasive and convincing kind of evidence" of the 
petitioner's contributions to the field. Counsel questions "who else" would have the qualifications to 
assess the petitioner's credentials. The director's concern, however, was not the qualifications of the 
references but the reliance on necessarily subjective opinions in lieu of objective evidence. That 
said, we find that the director did not sufficiently consider the documentary evidence submitted in 
this matter. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" 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. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(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. 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. See also Kazarian v. USCIS, - F. 3d -, 2009 WL 
2836453, *6 (9" Cir. 2009) (publications and presentations are insufficient absent evidence that they 
constitute contributions of major significance). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify contributions 
or how those contributions have influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, ,_ F. 3d -, 
2009 WL 2836453, *5 (9' Cir. 2009). In this matter, however, the record contains specific letters, 
including letters from a Nobel Laureate and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, supported 
by docurnentay evidence. 
In 2003, the petitioner received his Ph.D. in Or anic Chemistry fiom Emory University in Atlanta, 
Georgia under the direction of d The petitioner then worked as a postdoctoral 
associate in laboratory at the Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) in La Jolla, California 
through 2006. As of the date of filing, the petitioner was working as a Scientist I at Vertex 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in San Diego, California. 
asserts that, at Emory University, the petitioner developed a novel reaction to produced beta- 
amino acid derivatives such as Taxol, expanding the scope of these reactions and "dramatically" 
improving the efficiency of these processes. 
 asserts that this work was published and we 
note that this work has been moderately cited. 
In addition, 
 explains that he asked the etitioner to assess the viability of enolizable imines 
with C-N double bond systems. According to 
 the petitioner discovered a reaction proven to 
- 
be general and work well, using this phenomenon to invent "a practical yet unprecedented solution for 
converting the resulting aminoazetines to their corresponding beta-amino acids." continues 
that the netitioner then ruled out several "reasonable lookinn mechanisms." one of which was favored 
V 
by -'and was "homing in on an unequivocal demonstration of the operative process prior to 
his departure. 
sserts that while at TSRI, he and the petitioner "completed outstanding work resulting in the 
pioneering total synthesis of the stephcidins A, B and avrainvillamide," classified as prenylated indole 
alkaloids. Such alkaloids have been targeted by chemists for 50 years and have a strong potential for 
use as a novel cancer therapy. The synthesis method relies on the petitioner's method for synthesizing 
substituted tryptophans. notes that this body of work has been covered in the trade media 
and asserts that the administration at TSRI included the team's research in the educational curriculum. 
the Sheldon Emery Research Professor at Harvard University and a Nobel Laureate, 
asserts that he has not met the vetitioner but characterizes the vetitioner as one who has gained 
international recognition for outstanding work. while letter provides no specifics as 
 how 
the petitioner has impacted the field, we take note of the support of a Nobel Laureate. 
Chairman of the Chemistry Department at TSRI and a member of the National 
Academy of Sciences, notes that the petitioner's work was featured on the cover of Angewandte Chemie 
International Edition, highlighted ii Chemical and Engineering News and cited by the editors of the 
Journal of American Chemical Society as one the most accessed papers of 2006. who 
authored the highlight column, confirms that the selection of the petitioner's work to feature in a 
highlight demonstrates its quality and significance. We concur that this attention, in addition to the 
widespread citation of the petitioner's work adequately supports the letters in the record. 
In light of the above, we are satisfied that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the $el4 in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director did not explicitly address this criterion. The petitioner has authored several articles and 
documented that his work is widely cited in the aggregate, with some of his work having accrued a 
number of citations individually. Thus, we are persuaded that the petitioner meets this second, 
somewhat related criterion. For the reasons discussed above, however, the evidence falls far short of 
meeting a third criterion. 
Finally, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is 
consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The petitioner, a Scientist I at a private pharmaceutical company, relies on his membership 
in an honor society that accepts approximately 5,000 new members every year, his volunteer services as 
a manuscript reviewer, his publication and citation record, and the praise of his immediate circle of 
peers. While this may distinguish him from other recent postdoctoral associates, we will not narrow his 
field to others with his level of training and experience. is a fellow of the Alfred P. Sloan 
Foundation and has served on the Scientific Advisory Boards of several prominent biopharmaceutical 
companies. is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a member of 
the National Academy of Sciences. is a Nobel Laureate and, according to another reference, 
is "the most cited author in the history of chemistry." Thus, it appears that the highest level of the 
petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
synthetic organic chemist to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set hlm 
significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.