dismissed EB-1A Case: Veterinary Science

idmafj8ng data delefed to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
hvasig~ ofpemonal privac~ 
U.S. Department of Ilomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Oifce 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. $ 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. 4 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
F. Grisson, Acting Director 
Appeals Office 
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 on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1 1 53(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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 fieid through 
extensive docu~ventation, 
(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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 
 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "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. tj 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences, specifically 
as a veterinarian. The petitioner initially submitted supporting documents including four articles co-authored by 
the petitioner, articles citing the petitioners' co-authored articles, a copy of her PhD diploma, a letter describing 
the Veterinary Practitioners Association of the Philippines ("VPAP"), a picture of a VPAP award, a letter 
awarding the petitioner a research fellowship, an excerpt from the 2003 Philippine Veterinary Medical 
Association ("PVMA") convention brochure, a confirmation of presentation for the 2004 American College of 
Laboratory Animal Medicine ("ACLAM") conference, abstracts of papers presented at veterinary conferences, 
and a membership certificate for the Philippine College of Veterinary Public Health. In response to the Request 
Page 3 
for Evidence ("RFE") dated June 25, 2007, the petitioner submitted evidence of the selection criteria for her 
VPAP award, an invitation to speak at the 2003 PVMA convention, a letter accepting the petitioner's paper for 
presentation at the 2003 PVMA convention, a copy of a powerpoint presentation, a copy of the bylaws for the 
Philippine Society for Microbiology ("PSM"), a summary of the petitioner's dissertation, letter of admission to 
the PhD program and scholarship award, a European Communities directive, an invitation to give a seminar on 
her research with the German Federal Institute for Health Protection of Consumers and Veterinary Medicine 
("BgVV"), a University of Florida Animal Care Services newsletter, and her work review. She also re- 
submitted some of the same documents as were included in her original submission. We address the evidence 
submitted and the petitioner's contentions in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to her 
case. The petitioner does not claim eIigibiJity under any criteria not addressed below. 
(9 Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards 
for excellence in the$eld of endeavor. 
 , 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that she received a PhD from the Free University of Berlin, the 1999 
Most Outstanding Veterinarian in Veterinary Research Award from the VPAP, the Georg Forster Research 
Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, a 2003 Best Paper Presentation award at the PVMA 
convention, and a third place award for her poster presentation at the 2004 ACLAM convention. Ari 
educational degree does not amount to a prize or award, but is instead recognition that the student has met the 
prerequisites for attaining such a degree. Study is iiot a field of endeavor, but rather training for future 
employment in a field of endeavor. Even if an educational degree amounted to a prize or award, the petitioner 
presented no evidence that a PhD from the Free University of Berlin is nationally or internationally recognized 
as an award for excellence in the field. Similarly, the research fellowship does not amount to a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. We cannot ignore the fact that 
research funding through competitive grants is inherent to many fields within the basic and applied sciences. 
Although prestigious grants may indicate the recognized value of the recipient's research, they are not prizes or 
awards for documented achievements. Rather, they may recognize that the recipient's prior findings support the 
viability of the proposed research. The petitioner submitted neither information regarding the- 
undation nor information about the Research Fellowship to lead us to conclude that 
the petitioner's receipt of postdoctoral support funds constitutes national or international recognition for 
- 
excellence in the field. The petitioner's selection for the Fellowship represents her receipt of financial support 
for a research pro-ject rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. 
Although evidence appears in the record regarding the petitioner's receipt of the 1999 VPAP award and an e- 
mail from the "VPAP Secretariat," information about the significance of and national or international 
recognition of the award and issuing organization is notably absent. The petitioner did not submit secondary 
evidence, such as news articles or letters from sponsoring organizations, documenting the prestige associated 
with this award that would indicate national or international recognition as an award for excellence in her field. 
The e-mail does include criteria for the award, however, the criteria do not indicate that excellence in the field is 
required for the award as opposed to length of practice and service to veterinary organizations and the 
community as a whole. The petitioner submitted a page from the PVMA conference booklet indicating the 
criteria used to select the best paper submitted to the conference. She submitted no evidence to indicate that this 
award conveys national or international recognition or that the award recognizes excellence within the field. In 
her response to the RFE, the petitioner states that the competition was open to all PVMA members and that 33 
papers were accepted for the competition, however, she presents no evidence to support her statements. Going 
Page 4 
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. 1 5 8, 1 65 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Crafr of California, 14 1. & N. Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). The 2004 ACLAM poster presentation award 
indicates that the petitioner received third place out of twenty entries. Again, the petitioner presents no 
information concerning the significance of and national or international recognition of the award, the selection 
criteria, or information about ACLAM. For all of the above reasons, the petitioner fails to meet this criterion. 
fii) Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in the fteld for which classz~cation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in the Philippine College of Veterinary Public Health. On 
appeal, the petitioner submitted the membership criteria for this organization, which states that to become a 
diplomate member, an applicant must have presented a scientific review paper, be currently working in 
veterinary public health, have a veterinary degree, and pass an examination. The membership criteria do not 
require that applicants demonstrate an outstanding achievement and no evidence states that membership 
applications are judged by national or international experts in the field. The petitioner also asserted that she is a 
member of the Philippine Society for Microbiology and provides the bylaws concerning membership selection, 
but provides no objective evidence of her acceptance as a member of that organization. Even if she had 
provided evidence of membership, the bylaws state that anyone with training and experience in microbiology 
and i-ecomnlended by the membership committee may become a member. The bylaws do not indicate that 
outstanding achievement is a prerequisite for membership nor do they specify that members of the membership 
comtnittee are experts in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted evidence that she became board certified by ACLAM on July 24, 2008. A 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after 
the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I. & N. Dec. 
45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Even if the petitioner had been board certified at the time her petition was filed, the 
certification requirements do not state that successful applicants will have established that they have made an 
outstanding achievement, but instead requires that they have published an original article in the field and 
complete a training program or take an examination if they have six years experience in laboratory animal 
medicine. In addition, the ACLAM information submitted states that applications are judged by the 
credentials committee, but does not state that members of the committee are national or international experts 
in the field. For all of the above listed reasons, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which cluss~ftcation 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 regulation, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Citations of an alien's work by other scientists in their scholarly publications rarely meet this criterion because 
the citing articles are primarily about the authors' own research, not the work of the alien. The citations to the 
petitioner's articles do not discuss the petitioner or her work in depth and, instead, are cited to support the other 
authors' assertions. The petitioner submitted no other published material that she claims would qualie her 
under this criterion, accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Page 5 
(v) Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signzfcance in the field 
The petitioner claims that her published study on the use of the chemiluminescence test had a significant 
impact upon her field through use of the study's findings by the European Parliament and the European 
Council in their regulation of infectious disease and public safety. The petitioner enclosed a copy of a report 
"on the measures to be put in force for the control and prevention of zoonoses" and accompanying proposals. 
Neither the petitioner's name nor her articles appear in that report, and the petitioner presents no evidence 
that her work was actually used in preparation of that report. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Sof/ici7 22 1. & N. Dec. at 165. The petitioner also submitted a letter from the BgVV inviting her to 
give a seminar regarding the findings contained in her thesis as proof that her work had an impact upon her 
field. That letter appears in German and the translation accompanying the letter is not certified as required 
by 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(3). A letter from confirms that the petitioner presented her findings 
to the BgVV, however neither the letter from the BgVV nor letter provided any information 
about the BgVV as an organization, how a presentation of the petitioner's work would impact the 
or how a presentation for the BgVV showed significant impact upon the field as a whole. Dr. 
letter does state that the BgVV personnel are involved in the "European Commission salmonella 
control program," but he provides no details regarding this statement. The petitioner also argues that her 
paper on "Improving Murine Health" impacted the field through the use of the "same research methodology" 
at the University of Florida's Animal Care Services ("ACS"), the petitioner's current workplace. She submitted 
a copy of the ACS Newsletter highlighting the use of the methodology in support of her claim. The petitioner 
failed to show, however, how the use of her methodology in her current workplace constituted an impact upon 
her field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted two letters of recommendation on appeal supporting her claim of eligibility under 
this criterion. While letters such as these provide relevant information about an alien's experience and 
accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they 
do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in her field beyond the limited number of 
individuals with whom she has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of 
major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
Director of the Laboratory Animals Centre with the University of Singapore, listed the 
petitioner's publications and poster submissions to veterinary conferences as evidence that the petitioner 
operates above the field of her peers. also asserts that few veterinarians are both board certified 
and hold a PhD. He also states that the petitioner possesses "knowledge and expertise" necessary for her 
position at ACS and that the quality of veterinary services for laboratory animals increased under the 
petitioner's leadershi 
 submitted a similar letter praising the petitioner's skills and previous 
research. Although P and letters are complimentary of the petitioner's skills, they do 
not state that the petitioner made an original contribution of major significance to the field. 
Accordingly, she does not meet this criterion. 
Page 6 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does not 
necessarily indicate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent experts 
or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in her field. The petitioner submitted 
evidence that four articles that she co-authored have been published. Those articles are entitled: "Improving 
Murine Health Surveillance Programs with the Help of On-Site Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay," 
published in the Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Sciences; "Chemiluminescent 
Immunoassay as a Microtiter System for the Detection of Salmonella Antibodies in the Meat Juice of Slaughter 
Pigs," published in the Journal of Veterinary Medicine and a second German journal; "Detection of Antibodies 
to S. enteritidis in Broilers by Means of Indirect ELISA and Chemiluminescent Immunoassay (CLIA)," 
published in the Journal of Veterinary Medicine; and "Simplified Preparation of a Specific S. enteritidis Antigen 
for ELISA and Other Immunological Techniques," printed in the Journal of Veterinary Medicine. We note that 
the "Detection of Antibodies" publication was the petitioner's thesis, written in pursuit of her PhD. The 
petitioner's publication of her thesis supports our observation that publication of research findings is inherent to 
success as a researcher and does not necessarily indicate the requisite sustained acclaim. The petitioner 
presented no evidence regarding the standing of any of the journals in which her articles appeared such as, for 
example, by providing the rankings of those journals. Even if information had been submitted about these 
journals, the petitioner submitted in for ma ti or^ that only three of her articles have been cited in veterinary articles 
by ten independent groups of authors (one of her articles was not cited in the evidence provided). The 
petitioner's citation record does not indicate that her publications have had a significant impact upon her field. 
Accordingly, she does not meet this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
This criterion generally applies to the visual arts, however, because the petitioner claims that she meets this 
criterion, we have considered the relevant materials as comparable evidence of the petitioner's eligibility 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). The petitioner claims that she meets this criterion by virtue 
of her poster presentations at three separate veterinary conferences. The petitioner failed to demonstrate how 
participating in these conferences conveyed the necessary national or international acclaim as no information 
was submitted about the size of the conferences, the attendees, the selection criteria for presentations, or the 
acclaim due to those whose works were presented. Also, the petitioner submitted no evidence that her work was 
specially recognized at any of these conferences. Accordingly, she does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claimed to meet this criterion through her work at the ACS. The petitioner submitted no 
objective evidence to show that the ACS has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner did submit a letter from 
yirector and attending veterinarian of ACS, stating that ACS has full accreditation and complies 
with all relevant laws and regulations; the letter also describes the function of the ACS. The letter does not 
establish, however, that the ACS has a distinguished reputation in the petitioner's field. 
Page 7 
In addition, the petitioner did not provide evidence that she played a leading or critical role in the ACS. The 
letter fromd- that the petitioner manages the ACS diagnostic laboratory, overseeing the 
"assess[ment] of the health of laboratory animals and monitor[ing] the hygienic status of the different animal 
research equipment and facilities." The letter from tates that the petitioner has helped expand the 
capacity of the diagnostic laboratory and assists with veterinary duties in other departments. A performance 
review signed by the petitioner's supervisor, indicates that the petitioner "exceeds expectations" 
in the diagnostic laboratory. The two letters demonstrate that the petitioner is employed by the ACS, but do not 
explain how the ACS is organized, how many laboratories or departments make up the ACS, or state how the 
diagnostic laboratory run by the petitioner impacts the ACS as a whole. Without knowing how the diagnostic 
laboratory relates to the ACS as a whole, we are unable to determine whether the petitioner, as head of that 
laboratory, performed in a leading or critical role for the ACS. As the petitioner failed to show that the ACS 
has a distinguished reputation or that she performed a leading or critical role for the laboratory. she does not 
meet this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzficantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field 
Although the petitioner did not specifically claim eligibility under this criterion, she submitted information 
indicating that she receives an annual salary of $76,145.60 for her work with the ACS. The petitioner fails to 
provide any evidence as to the average earnings of veterinarians, veterinary researchers, or heads of diagnostic 
laboratories to show that she commands a higher salary than others in her field. Accordingly, she does not meet 
this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of her field. The record in this case 
does not establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a veterinarian 
placing her at the very top of her field at the time of filing. She is thus ineligible for classification as an alien 
with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 53(b)(l)(A), and her 
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. 5 136 1. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.