dismissed EB-1A Case: Urology

U.S. Department of EIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
MAIL STOP 2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: NOV 2 0 2008 
LIN 06 232 53232 
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: 
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. 
\3 
ph F. Grissorn, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now 
before the AAO on motion. The motion will be granted, the previous decision of the AAO will be 
affirmed and the petition will be denied. 
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. § 1 153(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. Specifically, the director 
concluded that the petitioner had established that he meets only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of 
which an alien must meet at least three. 
On appeal, counsel submitted a brief challenging the director's adverse conclusions for three of the 
regulatory criteria. Counsel also submitted Internet confirmation of the previously submitted citations. 
The AAO withdrew the director's finding that the petitioner's publication record does not meet the 
scholarly articles criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(vi) but concluded that the petitioner had 
still not established that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria. Finally, the AAO considered 
the evidence in the aggregate, concluding such an analysis was consistent with a review of the evidence 
under each criterion. 
On motion, counsel challenges two of the AAO's findings. Specifically, counsel asserts that the AAO 
erred in concluding that the petitioner had not demonstrated contributions of major significance and 
that the petitioner had not played a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished 
reputation. See 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(v); (viii). For the reasons discussed below, counsel 
mischaracterizes the AAO's findings and the pertinent regulations and has failed to overcome our 
concerns, set forth in our detailed, 1 1 -page decision which carefully considered and addressed all of the 
evidence of record. While we will consider the new evidence submitted on motion, we reiterate that 
the petitioner must establish his eligibility as of the date the petition was filed. See 8 C.F.R. $8 
103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Cornrnr. 1971). 
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, 
Page 3 
(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. 
As stated in our previous decision, Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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, 60898-99 (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. § 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. 
We reemphasize that this petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a "postdoctoral scholar-employee." The petitioner's supervisor confirmed the petitioner's position at 
the time of filing was as a "postdoctoral fellow." While the pertinent statute and regulation do not 
preclude a postdoctoral researcher from establishing eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that his accomplishments compare with those at the very top of the field, 
including those who have long since completed their postdoctoral training. See 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Significantly, after considering all of the evidence under the criteria for whch it was submitted, we 
provided the following analysis of the evidence in the aggregate that counsel does not address on 
motion: 
The conclusion we reached above 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 
postdoctoral fellow as of the date of filing, relies on his publication record, service as an 
editor, electronic-mail correspondence that appears commensurate with his level of 
experience and letters from his colleagues in San Francisco and elsewhere, some of 
which do not even profess research experience in his field of urology. While this may 
distinguish him from other postdoctoral researchers, we will not narrow his field to 
others with his level of training and experience. [One of the petitioner's references] is a 
past president of the Society of Fetal Urology and founded the Center for the Treatment 
and Study of Hypospadias at UCSF. [Another reference] is the Medical Director of the 
Knuppe Molecular Urology Laboratory at UCSF and has authored or coauthored more 
than 380 publications and 12 books. [A third reference] led the team that discovered 
and developed the antibody Herceptin, now widely used in the treatment of breast 
cancer. [A fourth reference] is the Chair of the Department of Urology at UCSF. [A 
fifth reference] is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Thus, it appears that 
the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained. 
We reaffirm our conclusion that the record does not distinguish the petitioner from his peers at a 
comparable level with some of his references. 
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 qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. In ow previous decision, we accepted that the petitioner had 
demonstrated that he meets the criteria relating to judging the work of others and scholarly articles set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (vi). This decision will only consider the two criteria counsel 
discusses on motion. We reaffirm, however, our previous decision in its entirety. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signlJicance in thejeld. 
On motion, counsel asserts that the AAO's analysis of the evidence relating to this criterion was 
procedurally problematic because the AAO, according to counsel, requested evidence that was not 
previously requested. Counsel's examples include the AAO's observance that two of the petitioner's 
references attest to the application of the petitioner's work without identifying where the work has been 
applied and that the record lacks letters from practitioners who have applied the petitioner's treatment 
strategies. Counsel's assertion is not supported by his examples or any other language in the AAO's 
initial decision. The AAO did not request any evidence in this matter; rather it evaluated the evidence 
submitted and noted the deficiencies in that evidence. While the AAO's analysis was perhaps in more 
depth than the director's, the petitioner was already on notice of the deficiencies in the record to some 
degree. Significantly, the director advised the petitioner in his request for additional evidence that the 
witness letters must be corroborated. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N 
Dec. 158, 165 (Comrnr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. 
Commr. 1972)). The AAO's careful and detailed reflections on the deficiencies in the evidence do not 
constitute new requests for evidence. Thus, we find no procedural errors in the AAO's analysis. 
The AAO's initial decision included the following basis for evaluating evidence under this criterion: 
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. 
On motion, counsel asserts that the above statements demonstrate "a lack of understanding of science." 
- 
Counsel further asserts that top journals only print articles where the data has been reproduced and 
confirmed. While we acknowledge that journal articles are peer-reviewed, the record contains no 
evidence that these peer reviewers attempt to reproduce and confirm the results of every manuscript 
submitted to a top journal.' The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter 
of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 
1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Counsel concludes: "The mere 
fact of publishing in a top journal is proof that the data is accurate, AND that the finding is of major 
significance." This statement is contradicted by evidence submitted on appeal. Specifically, - 
, Director of the Editorial Board of the Chinese Journal of Andrology, asserts that 50 percent of 
journal articles "are never read by anyone other than their authors, referees and journal editors." It 
cannot be credibly argued that an kicle that has not been widely read can be considered a contribution 
of "major significance" as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) provides an entirely separate criterion for the 
authorship of scholarly articles. As stated above and in our previous decision, we do not contest that 
the petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion. The regulations, however, provide ten separate and 
discreet criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three. The only one-time achievement that can 
serve to establish eligibility by itself is a major internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). Publishing in a top journal is not a major internationally recognized award; it falls under 
one of the ten alternative criteria. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Therefore, publication cannot take the 
place of meeting at least three of regulatory criteria. While some of the criteria may be related, an alien 
could publish or receive an award for a major contribution, we will not presume that meeting one 
criterion is necessarily evidence sufficient to meet a related criterion. To hold otherwise would render 
meaningless the requirement that an alien who does not have a major internationally recognized award 
must meet at least three criteria. 
We reaffirm that in order to meet the contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(v), it is the 
petitioner's burden to demonstrate that his work has profoundly impacted the field. Anything less can 
1 As one well-known example, reports of cold fusion were published in 1989, Fleischmann, Martin; Pons, 
Stanley (1989), "Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium," Journal of Electroanalytical 
Chemistry 261 (2A): 301-308, but other scientists were unable to reproduce those results. See Cold Fusion 
Research: Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy, 
November 1989 (Online edition prepared by National Area Skeptics 1999) available at 
I~ttp://ww~~.ncas.orderab/intro.htm (accessed on November 19, 2008 and incorporated into the record of 
proceedings). 
hardly be considered a contribution of "major" significance as mandated by the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The petitioner did not submit his curriculum vitae chronicling his education and employment. While 
counsel notes on motion that his initial cover letter included much of the information that would be 
contained in a curriculum vitae, it remains that the AAO correctly concluded that the record lacked 
letters from the petitioner's employers and colleagues in China explaining his position, job duties and 
the significance of his work. As acknowledged in our previous decision, the petitioner has submitted 
numerous articles published in China between 1998 and 2005 as well as evidence that these articles 
have been cited. In 2004, the petitioner joined the laboratory of, Chief of 
Pediatric Urology and Director of the Center for the Treatment and Study of Hypospadias at the 
University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). 
Most of the petitioner's career prior to filing the petition was in China. The AAO acknowledged that 
the petitioner authored 58 articles published in China. The AAO concluded, however, that the record 
only contains evidence that two of the petitioner's articles had been cited by seven independent research 
teams and several other articles had been cited by no more than three independent research teams. As 
noted by the AAO, while the petitioner provided translations of the citations, the translation of the 
sentence for which the petitioner's work is cited does not appear to be an exact translation but a simple 
summary such as: "In this article, the author gave [the petitioner] a very high evaluation on the previous 
study that renal artery embolism before radical nephrectomy is an essential technique for a successfbl 
operation to achieve a long term survival for patients with renal cell carcinoma." The results from a 
search on the Internet site Google.Scholar, submitted on appeal, which searched for the last two 
characters of the petitioner's name in Chinese, did not suggest that there are significantly more citations 
of the petitioner's work than those submitted previously. Finally, as noted in the AAO's previous 
decision, the petitioner's work in China was recognized with two excellent paper awards. 
The record before the AAO contained only two letters from references in china, and 
-. In general, CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 
1988). However, CIS 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 is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. CIS may even give less weight to an 
opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. 
at 795. See also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
The AAO acknowledged letters from U.S. physicians outside of the field of urology and cancer 
advocates but noted that these individuals did not have first hand knowledge of the petitioner's impact 
in urology. Founder and Director of the Institute of Urology at Shanghai Medical College, 
merely confirmed that the petitioner was one of his cooperative fellows from 1999 through 2004 and 
played "a significant role and made remarkably [sic] contributions" on an award winning project. The 
AAO noted, however, that the petitioner is not a named recipient of this award. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a new letter from. Dr. reiterates that the petitioner 
contributed to the award winning project and asserts that he was "glad to share this honor" with the 
petitioner. It remains, however, that the petitioner was not a named recipient of the award. ~r= 
further asserts that the petitioner was co-principal investigator on a project demonstrating that one dose 
of Epirubicin was equal to multiple treatments for bladder cancer, which has had a major impact on the 
field of urology. 
, Past Director of the Institute of Urology at Pekin 
 was the only urologist in China 
to previously support the petition with a detailed letter. 
 that the petitioner's reputation 
in China could be inferred from the number of published articles in China, the finding the petitioner 
received which is "more difficult to get" than funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, his 
work on an award winning pro'ect and his invitation to be a visiting professor at the Andrology Center 
of Peking University. While Jksserted that the petitioner's work on bladder cancer "is leading 
peers to design their own studies," he did not identify any of these "peers" or affirm his own application 
of the petitioner's work. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a new letter from 
 asserts that the Chinese 
Urological Association has identified Epirubicin as a r 
 emotherapy agent for bladder cancer 
-. . 
and that the petitioner's treatment protocols are in wide use in China. 
The record before the AAO also contains a letter from h Assistant Director and 
Head of Biostatistics at the European Organization for Researc an Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) in 
Brussels, Belgium, explained that the organization "conducts, develops, coordinates and stimulates 
research in Europe on cancer through the conduct of multi-center cancer clinical trials." Dr. = 
asserted that he requested the petitioner's 2006 article on the use of epirubicin for superficial bladder 
carcinoma and its long-term outcomes. The AAO noted tha- did not assert that this article 
has prompted the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer to conduct, develop, 
coordinate or stimulate clinical trials on epirubicin or that the organization is promoting the petitioner's 
research as sufficiently definitive such that oncologists should adopt the use of Epirubicin. 
The petitioner submits a new letter from 
 on motion. ~r. notes that the 
petitioner published articles on the use of Epirubicin for bladder cancer from 2002 through 2006, 
during which period a German team and two Japanese teams were pursuing the same research. Dr. 
characterizes the petitioner as a "pioneer" in this area and asserts: "Trackin records shows 
that [the petitioner's] treatment regime has been and still is in wide use." Drd then notes that 
the EORTC conducts clinical research pro'ects with E irubicin and attaches a list of protocols with 
links to each project. The list provided by Jdoes not include any dates for these protocols, 
Page 8 
only six of which appear to involve bladder cancer. Thus, it is not clear that EORTC initiated any of 
these protocols in response to the petitioner's re~earch.~ 
In response to our concern that the record lacks evidence from independent urologists in China or 
elsewhere using the petitioner's treatment regimen for bladder cancer, the petitioner submits new letters 
on motion. , Chair of the Department of Urology at Tongji Hospital in Shanghai, asserts 
that the petitioner's use of a single dose intravesical instillation of Epirubicin has been successfully 
applied at that institution and that other teams "are also adopting it." Dr. 
 provides two examples. 
, Vice Chairman of the Andrology Center at Peking University First Hospital, asserts 
petitioner's study and a recommendation from the Chinese Medical Association, his 
institution has used the petitioner's treatment regimen "as one of [their] routine protocols for bladder 
cancer patients." The record does not contain the Chinese Medical Association recommendation citing 
to the petitioner's work as the basis for the recommendation. 
Both of the letters are dated in December 2007. The petition was tiled in 2006.   either 
 nor 
asserts that his institution was already using the petitioner's regimen in 2006. 
On motion, counsel also asserts that the AAO gave too much weight to the small number of citations. 
The petitioner submits the letter from asserting that the number of citations "is not always a 
reliable instrument for measuring the quality of articles." ~r.m suggests evaluating the impact of the 
petitioner's articles in China through the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database. 
notes that the CNIU database reflects that one of the petitioner's papers was cited by six journal 
articles, two Master's dissertations and one doctoral dissertation. ~r. further asserts that "there 
were 225 click download times through the website totally." This sentence is confusing, but-1 
seems to be suggesting that an unknown number of the petitioner's papers were downloaded 225 times. 
Finally, 
 asserts that two of the petitioner's articles were ranked fourth and fifth by peers. 
The petitioner submits materials downloaded from the CNKI database with a certified partial 
translation. It appears that these materials represent a search for results relating to the petitioner's 2000 
article. The search seems to have recovered two "serial articles," both by the petitioner. The search 
also produced a "citation report" listing six articles, one of which is a self-citation by the petitioner, two 
Master's dissertations and a doctoral dissertation that postdates the filing of the petition. The 
translation for page three of six states: "[Click download] 225 totally." Below that, the materials list 
10 articles from the China Academic Journals Full-text Database, one of which was published in 1995, 
2 
 The list of protocols is, according to the heading, the result from a search of the keyword "Epirubicin" in 
the protocol title. The list includes links for each protocol. Dr. r provides EORTC7s website address 
in his letter. We have accessed the links provided by at http://www.eortc.be/protoc/default.htm 
(accessed on November 14,2008 and incorporated into the record of proceedings). The protocols involving 
Epirubicin and bladder cancer, 30906, 3091 1, 30901, 16881, 30869 and 30863, all predate the petitioner's 
work in the field. Specifically, the most recent protocol, 30906, was activated in 1993 and closed in 1999. 
Thus, it is not clear how this list of protocols establishes the petitioner as a "pioneer" in this field. 
and 10 articles labeled as "English literatures," one of which dates from 1996. Finally, page five of six 
includes a list of 10 "Readers recommended articles." As the materials all seem to have been generated 
from a search of the petitioner's article, it would appear that the recommended articles are 
recommended for those interested in the article that is the subject of the search. Thus, it can be 
expected that two of the ten articles would be other articles by the petitioner. The record in no way 
suggests that the list of recommended articles represents the top ten articles for the field of bladder 
cancer treatment. Ultimately, the materials on appeal do not overcome the concerns expressed in our 
initial decision that the petitioner's articles are not widely and frequently cited. 
The petitioner did submit letters from researchers regarding the petitioner's work in the United States, 
including those from references who affirm their independence of the petitioner (the record does not 
contain their curriculum vitae). The AAO concluded, however, that the letters provided insufficient 
specifics and examples of the petitioner's work being utilized in the field. 
As of the date of filing, the petitioner was working in the laboratory of chief 
of Pediatric Urology and Director of the Center for the Treatment and Study of Hypospadias at the 
University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Dr. 
 asserts that the petitioner is currently 
studying the molecular mechanisms of one of the most common congenital anomalies, hypospadias. 
explains the importance of preventing this condition and, thus, determining its etiology. 
states: 
[The petitioner] checked gene status in tissue from patients and found over-expression 
of Activating Transcription Factor 3 (ATF3) gene is related to hypospadias. This 
interesting result had not been reported ever before. Also, he tried serial experimental 
methods to confirm this new discovery. In the two years he has been working in the 
lab, [the petitioner] has had three first-author papers, with two more submitted. In the 
course of completing these major studies, he has mastered several cutting-edge 
molecular techniques and mined a huge expression array database for genes that are 
candidate actors in the mechanism of hypospadias. His investigations have led us to 
genes that no one had even considered before in relation to the causes of this penile 
malformation, and his results are novel and make fruitful contributions to the field. 
concludes that his laboratory would not be making the progress they are making without 
the petitioner's contributions. The petitioner submitted other letters from researchers in California, 
some of whom worked in a different field, who speculate as to the future benefit of the petitioner's 
current research. Those letters were discussed in detail in our previous decision and that discussion 
need not be repeated here. 
The AAO acknowledged that the petitioner was respected by his colleagues and had made useful 
contributions in his field of endeavor, but concluded that the evidence fell short of establishing that 
the petitioner had already made contributions of major significance. 
Page 10 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from -, a professor at UCSF. Although a 
colleague at UCSF, asserts that he became familiar with the petitioner's work through his 
conference presentations and publications. Dr. asserts that the Karolinska Institutet in 
Sweden has adopted the petitioner's protocol for their Ph.D. training program. In support of this 
assertion, the petitioner submitted a doctoral thesis from the Karolinska Institutet that cites the 
petitioner's work with hypospadias. The dissertation postdates the filing of the petition and is not 
evidence of the petitioner's acclaim as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
, a Staff Scientist and Instructor at the Urological Diseases Research Center at 
Children's Hospital in Boston, Harvard Medical School, asserts that the petitioner has "utilized 
several cutting-edge molecular techniques" and that his investigations have led to genes no one had 
previously considered. Dr. praises the petitioner's contributions and asserts that the petitioner 
has been invited to collaborate with other experts. Dr does not specifically explain how the 
petitioner had impacted the field prior to the filing of the petition. 
While the new evidence submitted on motion is stronger than the evidence of record before the AAO 
previously, the petitioner has not sufficiently established that he meet this criterion, especially as of 
the date of filing. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The AAO acknowledged the claims by 
 and other references that the petitioner is 'playing a 
leading or critical role" in 6 lab. The AAO further acknowledged that after the date of 
filing, the petitioner became a principal investigator of a government-funded study. The AAO 
concluded, however, that selection for an entry-level position such as a postdoctoral fellow, cannot 
serve to meet this criterion. 
On motion, counsel asserts that the number of publications authored by the petitioner and the 
affirmations of his supervisors as to the importance of his role with them demonstrates that the 
petitioner, despite working in an entry-level 
 was able to play a leading or critical role for his 
employer. Counsel concludes that the AAO's conclusion suggests 
 lacks credibility. 
We do not question 
 sincere evaluation that the petitioner has performed at a high level in 
his position. Counsel, however, appears to confuse this criterion with the contributions criterion and 
the scholarly research criterion. At no point did the AAO imply that a postdoctoral fellow cannot make 
significant contributions to his laboratory or even the greater scientific community. The regulations, 
however, provide a different criterion for contributions by the alien, set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(h)(3)(v) and discussed above. The regulations also provide a different criterion, set forth at 8 
C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), for consideration of scholarly articles authored by the alien. Thus, clearly, if 
we are to ascribe any meaning to the regulatory mandate that an alien meet at least three criteria, we 
cannot presume that either contributions or the authorship of scholarly articles is sufficient to meet this 
separate criterion. 
As stated in our previous decision, at issue for this criterion are the reputation of the entity that employs 
the petitioner and the nature of the role that he was hired to fill. While the alien need not be so 
indispensable to the employer that the employer could not continue at all without the petitioner in that 
role, the nature of the role must be so leading and critical that the very selection for the role, in and of 
itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
As also stated in our previous decision, the petitioner must establish his eligibility as of the date of 
filing. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. As of that date, the petitioner 
was working as a postdoctoral fellow, a typically entry-level position in the sciences. While we do not 
question the national or international distinguished reputation of UCSF and, to a lesser extent, Dr. 
laboratory, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the role of postdoctoral fellow is, in and of 
itself, a leading or critical role for UCSF or s laboratory beyond the obvious need for 
research institutions to employ competent postdoctoral fellows. Counsel characterizes this statement as 
"utterly incredible" on motion. While we acknowledge that many postdoctoral fellows may be more 
than competent, we reiterate that the nature of a postdoctoral fellow position, without consideration of 
how the alien performed in that role, is not a leading or critical one for the laboratory. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion by holding this inherently entry-level position. 
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. 
As discussed above, review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself 
as a urology researcher to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a postdoctoral fellow, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the previous decision of 
the AAO will be affirmed, and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: 
 The AAO's decision of November 29,2007 is affirmed. The petition is denied.