dismissed EB-1A Case: Virology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly c?nwamanted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PuBLlC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 07 108 5285 1 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 1 9 2008 
IN RE: 
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. $ 1 1 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 fiuther 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. 3 103.5 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). 
U. 
John F. Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 07 108 5285 1 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(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 necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3). 
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, 
60898-99 (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. $ 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, filed on March 2, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a researcher and an Instructor in Pathology. The petitioner earned his Ph.D. in Virology 
LIN 07 108 52851 
Page 3 
from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in 2003. At the time of filing, 
the petitioner was working as an Instructor in Pathology in the Department of Pathology, Dana- 
Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. 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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria.' 
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 evidence showing that he received a United Nations Educational, Scientific 
and cultural Organization (UNESCO) short-~erm Fellowship (1997) to perform research for three 
months at the Max Planck Institute in Germany "under the supervision of '' In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted information from 
UNESCO's internet site stating that its fellowship program is intended for graduates and 
postgraduates seeking to pursue training, undertake advanced research, upgrade skills, or attend 
courses. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he received a Basic Research Fellowship from the 
American Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) to pursue research entitled "Sexual Transmission 
of HIV: 
 Dendritic Cells and HIV" from July 1, 2003 to May 30, 2005. 
 The petitioner also 
submitted information from amfAR's internet site stating that its fellowships "enable young 
researchers to conduct original studies under the guidance of experienced senior scientists. The 
funded projects were selected from among nearly 180 letters of intent submitted in response to 
amfAR's February 2003 request for proposals." On appeal, the petitioner submits a June 1 1, 2007 
letter from 
 Director of Grants Administration and Compliance, AMFAR, stating: 
amfAR's fellowship grants provide two years of support to outstanding postdoctoral 
investigators who are embarking on or redirecting a career in HIVIAIDS research. . . . In 
particular, evaluation of fellowship applications includes intensive assessment of the 
applicant's potential to make significant contributions to HIVIAIDS research, and of the 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
LIN 07 108 5285 1 
Page 4 
scientific merit of the studies proposed. The award of an arnfAR fellowship recognizes the 
applicant as an HIVIAIDS scientist of exceptional promise. 
We cannot conclude that "exceptional promise" is tantamount to "excellence in the field." The 
petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for aliens already at the top of their 
respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future 
time. 
With regard to the petitioner's UNESCO and arnfAR fellowships, we find that they represent his 
receipt of financial support for advanced research training rather than nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Such support funding is 
presented not to established researchers with active professional careers, but rather to "young 
researchers" in pursuit of further research training and experience. We cannot ignore that the 
petitioner's fellowships were under the guidance experienced senior scientists. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he was awarded his Ph.D. degree "with 
Departmental Honors" from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University. The 
petitioner also submitted a June 28, 1999 letter from, Chair of the Academic 
Affairs Committee, Sue Golding Graduate Division, Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva 
- - 
University, congratulating the petitioner for "outstanding performance" in his graduate courses. In 
respect to academic awards from universities and other learning institutions, USCIS views such 
awards as local or institutional honors rather than nationally or internationally recognized awards for 
the reason that they are limited to students who attend the school or institution presenting the 
awards. Further, university study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for future 
employment in a field of endeavor. The petitioner's receipt of academic honors, limited by their 
terms to students, is not 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. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
 Such honors do not measure the 
petitioner's standing or selection from among those already working in the field who have long since 
completed their educational training. Thus, they do not show his extraordinary ability under this 
regulatory 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 jeld for which 
classzfication 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 dues, do not satis@ this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
LIN 07 108 52851 
Page 5 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the New York Academy of Sciences 
(NYAS) since 2004. In res onse to the director's reGest for evidence, the 
 submitted a 
March 23, 2007 letter from w, Membership Office, NYAS, stating: "The Academy 
accepts only those individuals who are at the head of their chosen field." This brief statement is not 
sufficient to meet the plain language this regulatory criterion. The record does not include 
supporting evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that 
the NYAS requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. 
The petitioner submitted a February 12, 2007 letter From the 
 Membership 
Manager, American Society for Cell Biology, stating that the petitioner "has been a member . . . in 
good standing since 2000." further states: 
The purpose of the Society is to promote and develop the field of cell biology. According to 
the American Society for Cell Biology Constitution and Bylaws: 
Membership in the Society shall be open to scientists who share the stated purpose of 
the Society and who have educational or research experience in cell biology or an 
allied field. 
Qualifications for membership are that: 
The applicant must be sponsored by a regular or postdoctoral member in good 
standing and must hold a Ph.D., M.D. or an equivalent degree, or must have 
equivalent experience. Having applied for membership initially as a student, the 
qualifications were as follows: For student membership, the applicant must be a 
candidate in good standing for a graduate degree. The application must also be 
endorsed by the student's research advisor. 
We cannot conclude that the preceding membership requirements (such as holding an advanced 
degree) are tantamount to outstanding achievements. Further, there is no evidence showing that 
prospective members are evaluated by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's 
field or an allied one. 
In res onse to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted an April 4, 2007 letter 
from -, Executive Director, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, welcoming 
the petitioner as a "new member." This letter reflects that the petitioner's membership in Sigma Xi 
commenced subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility 
at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. 
Commr. 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this membership in this proceeding. 
Nevertheless, there is no evidence showing that Sigma Xi requires outstanding achievements of its 
LIN 07 108 52851 
Page 6 
members as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field or an 
allied one. 
In light of the above, 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 field for which classiJication 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. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level fiom a local publication. 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 
The petitioner submitted a September 1, 2001 article in Ciencia y Technologia, but it was not 
accompanied by a full English language translation. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), any 
document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Further, 
the article only mentions the petitioner's name in passing. The plain language of ths regulatory 
criterion, however, requires that the published material be "about the alien." Finally, there is no 
evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that Ciencia y Technologia qualifies as aprofessional 
or major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article from 2001 in Biological Research discussing a student symposium 
in which the he participated. This article only briefly mentions the petitioner and is not primarily about 
him. Further, there is no evidence showing that Biological Research qualifies as a professional or 
major trade publication or some other form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an August 21, 2005 article in the Star of Arica, an August 23, 2005 article 
posted at www.universia.cl, and a January 13,2007 article posted at www.chasquis.cl, but the author of 
these articles was not identified as required by the plainlanguage of hs regulatory criterion. The 
petitioner also submitted a discussion about him posted o s internet blog. There is no 
evidence showing that the preceding publication, scientific blog qualifjr as 
professional or major trade publications or some other form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
2 
 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. 
LIN 07 108 52851 
Page 7 
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 alliedjeld of spec$cation for which classiJcation is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends 
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 individualis one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner submitted a December 12, 2006 letter fro- Assistant Professor, 
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, stating: "I was 
[the petitioner's] thesis supervisor and in several occasions I have asked [the petitioner] to review 
papers I have received to review manuscripts [sic] fi-om internationally renowned journals such as 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the Journal of Virology." 
The petitioner also submitted a January 9, 2007 letter from 
 professor of 
~atholo~~ at Harvard Medical School, and Chief of the ~etrovirolo~y Division, Department of 
Cancer Immunology and AIDS, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, stating: "I am [the petitioner's] direct 
supervisor and, on several occasions, I have asked [the petitioner] to review papers (the work of 
others) that have been submitted to me for review from international journals such as the 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Virolo In a May 16,2007 letter submitted 
in response to the director's request for evidence, 4 states that the petitioner "reviewed 
five manuscripts, two of them were published, three were rejected." 
The record does not include documentary evidence to support and - 
assertions regarding the petitioner's participation as a reviewer. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). For example, there is no 
correspondence from the editorial staff of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 
acknowledging the petitioner's participation as a reviewer. Further, we cannot ignore that it was the 
petitioner's superiors who were requested to perform the reviews rather than the petitioner. The 
petitioner has not established that performing manuscript reviews delegated to him by his superiors 
is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Even if the petitioner were to submit substantive evidence of hs participation in the peer review process for 
the aforementioned journals, we note that peer review is a routine element of the process by which 
LIN 07 108 52851 
Page 8 
articles are selected for publication in scientific journals. Occasional participation in the peer review 
process does not automatically demonstrate that the petitioner has sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation 
of researchers who publish themselves in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will 
enlist the assistance of numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It 
is common for a publication to ask several reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. 
The publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining 
whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from 
others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, 
received independent requests from a substantial number of journals (rather than requests delegated 
to him by his su eriors), or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal in the same 
manner as h3 we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientz$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several recommendation letters in support of the petition. 
[The petitioner] joined my laboratory three years ago. [The petitioner] came 
highly recommended by 1, his doctoral thesis advisor. In 
laboratory, [the petitioner] made several important discoveries regarding the processes of 
avian leukosis virus (an HIV-like retrovirus) entry and induction of cytopathic effects. [The 
petitioner] showed that endocytosis is a critical element of the entry pathway for these 
retroviruses. In collaboration with - (Cambridge University, UK), [the 
petitioner] went on to demonstrate the role of clathrin in the cellular uptake of avian leukosis 
viruses. As the entry pathways for each group of retroviruses differ in requirements, these 
results helped establish conceptual models for entry by distinct retroviruses that utilize the 
endocytic pathway to gain access to the target cell. [The petitioner] also made important 
discoveries regarding the cytopathic effects induced by the avian leukosis virus. The 
cytopathic effect is the ability of viruses to kill cells during infection. An understanding of 
this process could shed light on new ways to prevent cell death from retroviral infection. The 
cytopathic consequences of infection by some subgroups of avian leukosis virus have been 
linked to the ability to utilize a receptor, TVB, that contains a death domain in its 
cytoplasmic tail. [The petitioner] has shown the importance of signaling through TVB for 
cytopathic effects and that most of this killing involves bystander effects, not infected cells. 
The pathways that [the petitioner] has worked out for cell killing represent a lasting 
contribution to our understanding of retrovirus-host cell interactions. As a result of his 
graduate studies, [the petitioner] attained an extraordinary level of expertise in virology, cell 
biology and molecular biology. 
s resume indicates that he serves on the editorial boards of multiple journals. 
LIN 07 108 5285 1 
Page 9 
Upon his arrival in my laboratory, [the petitioner] began working on an emerging area of 
retrovirology, the early restriction of viruses by host cell factors. We had recently identified a 
protein in the cells of Old World monkeys, TRIMSa, that potently blocks human 
immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection. TRIMSa is a member of a fairly large family of 
tripartite motif (TRIM) proteins, some of which may be involved in blocking virus infection. 
[The petitioner] found that TRIMSa, like several other TRIM proteins, forms cytoplasmic 
bodies of unknown composition and function. [The petitioner] showed that TRIM5 exhibited 
an unusually rapid turnover in the cell, depending upon a proteasome-mediated degradation. 
The rapid turnover was dependent on the RING and B-box 2 domains of TRIMS. By creating 
a long-lived chimera with TRIM21, [the petitioner] showed that rapid turnover is not 
absolutely essential for the antiviral activity of these proteins. Slowing down the degradation 
of TRIMSa by proteasome inhibition allowed [the petitioner] to demonstrate that TRIMS- 
associated cytoplasmic bodies are pre-aggresomal structures dependent on the relative levels 
of TRIMSa synthesis and decay. These insights provide some interesting possibilities for 
practically manipulating TRIMS-mediated retroviral restriction. They also clarified the nature 
of cytoplasmic bodies, a feature associated with many TRIM proteins. 
In [the petitioner's] recent work, he has nicely dissected the bctionally important domains 
of TRIMSa and TRIMCyp, a restriction factor in owl monkeys. [The petitioner] identified a 
key sequence predicted to be exposed on the surface of the TRIM B-box 2 domain that is 
critical for retroviral restriction. Alteration of this sequence does not appreciably affect 
TRIM5a localization, oligomerization or binding to the viral capsid. These data suggest that 
the B-box 2 contributes an effector function, and [the petitioner] is currently exploring the 
nature of this critical function. This knowledge may provide new opportunities for the 
development of therapies that can stop the spread and progression of HIV-1. 
[The petitioner] joined my laboratory as a Ph.D. student in 2000 . . . . He established that 
avian leukosis retroviruses ALV-B, an HIV-like retrovirus, require a low pH step for entry 
and endocytosis. His findings ended the ongoing controversy about the involvement of a low 
pH in ALV entry. In addition, [the petitioner's] findings drastically improved our 
understanding cell killing mediated by avian leucosis viruses. [The petitioner] found that 
ALV infections lead to killing of uninfected "bystander" cells, while the infected cell 
population survives. He also demonstrated that the ALV receptor plays a key role in cell 
killing and that repeated rounds of infections are not linked to cell killing by ALV as 
commonly believed. This work challenges the belief that superinfection is the cause for cell 
killing by ALV-B. He was able to very convincingly demonstrate that the cellular receptor 
for ALV-B plays a key role in cytopathic effects triggered by ALV-B. [The petitioner] 
established retroviral entry and killing assays, which greatly enhanced our ability to study 
retroviral uptake and cytopathic effects. [The petitioner's] work in my lab turned into four 
publications in world-renowned journals, and we are currently working on two additional 
manuscripts. [The petitioner] received his Ph.D. degree on December 2002, and all 6 
committee members agreed on giving him honors for his thesis. 
LIN 07 108 52851 
Page 10 
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 published research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication 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 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. While the petitioner's superiors discuss the value of his research, 
there is no evidence that his work constitutes original contributions 'of major significance in his field 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
, Associate Professor, Center for AIDS Health Disparities Research, Meharry 
Medical College, states: 
[The petitioner] established that the HIV-like retrovirus ALV needs an acidic environment 
step to enter and infect cells. These findings ended the ongoing scientific controversy about 
the involvement of a low pH in ALV entry. Furthermore, [the petitioner] in collaboration 
with the University of Cambridge in UK defined that the intracellular protein clathrin, one of 
the many endocytosis systems of the cell, was essential for transporting the virus to an acidic 
environment. 
Another important sphere of his work was to study the ability of the monkey protein TRIMS- 
alpha to inhibit HIV-1 infection. [The petitioner] under the supervision of an extraordinary 
mentor, embarked in an HIV-1 leading edge research. [The petitioner's] 
publications provided a deeper understanding on how TRIMS-alpha inhibits HIV infection. 
One of the most notable discoveries of [the petitioner] was to establish that binding of HIV-1 
capsid by TRIMS-alpha was not sufficient for restriction of viral infection, an important 
effector function was required. This is very deep result, since it gives shape and direction to 
the HIIV field. Understanding this precise mechanism will be instrumental for the 
development of new anti-AIDS therapies and prevention methods. It is relevant to mention 
here that [the petitioner] have [sic] been incredible productive publishing more than 12 peer- 
review articles in well-known international journals. 
Assistant Professor, Section of Microbial Pathogenesis, Boyer Center for 
Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, Yale University, states: 
Having worked on model systems to understand HIVIAIDS throughout his graduate work, it 
was the logical consequence for [the petitioner] to seek an HIV laboratory for his 
postdoctoral training. By joining s laboratory at Harvard Medical School, a 
highly productive young scientist, joined one of the most important HIV/AIDS research 
laboratories in the US. The results are remarkable. Within just two years, [the petitioner] has 
authored 8 publications with . Most importantly, his mechanistic insight into 
LIN 07 108 5285 1 
Page 11 
innate immunity against HIV represents a highly significant advance for the development of 
future AIDS therapies. [The petitioner] joined the Sodroski laboratory at a time when his 
group had just discovered a protein, designated TRIMS, that could potently protect cells 
against incoming HIV virions. How TRIMS exhibits its antiviral activity was unknown. It is 
in great part thanks to [the petitioner] that we are beginning to understand the biology of 
TRIMS. His work has taught us that TRIMS exists in two pools, a soluble form as well as a 
form that is concentrated in cytoplasmic bodies. 
[The petitioner's] research was presented at international meetings and published in 
renowned journals such as the Journal of Virology, Virology, Journal of Biological 
Chemistry and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 
The petitioner's published and presented work relates to the "authorship of scholarly articles" 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are 
separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly 
articles and original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as 
being interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien 
met another criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. 
We will fully address the material authored by the petitioner under the next criterion. 
Assistant Professor, Department of Infectious Diseases, Imperial College of 
Science and Technology, London, states: 
I met [the petitioner] in 2003, at the HIVIRetroviruses conference at the Cold Spring Harbor 
laboratory, where he gave a lecture on the mechanism by which retroviruses, like HIV-1, 
killed infected cells. Since then I have kept track of his research achievements. [The 
petitioner] has performed extensive research in the field of HIV, a virus that threatens 
society. [The petitioner's] expertise comes from studying a protein in monkeys that 
completely blocks HIV infection. His research described the mechanism by which this 
monkey protein, called TRIMS, potently blocks HIV infection when expressed in human 
cells. This research is likely to be a key for the development of a safe anti-HIV treatment, 
since the generation of a vaccine have [sic] already failed several times. 
During his Ph.D. research he performed extensive studies on how viruses like HIV-1 kill 
cells. The pathways that [the petitioner] has identified for cell killing by viruses represent a 
lasting contribution to our understanding of retrovirus-host cell interactions. As a result of his 
graduate studies, [the petitioner] attained a high level of expertise in virology, cell biology, 
biochemistry and molecular biology. 
LIN 07 108 52851 
Page 12 
- 
 Higgins Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Howard Hughes 
Medical Institute, Columbia University, states: 
[The petitioner's] initial contribution to the retroviral field under the supervision of Dr. 
was the discovery that an HIV-like retrovirus, Rous sarcoma virus, requires 
an acidic environment for entry. . . . Furthermore, [the petitioner], in collaboration with 
(University of Cambridge, UK), went on to show that endocytosis mediated 
by clathrin is essential for infection of these viruses. This research provides important basic 
knowledge about these viruses. After [the petitioner] published these findings, he went on to 
tackle the mechanism by which this HIV-like retrovirus killed cells during infection. The 
ability of this virus to kill infected cells was described 25 years ago by, a 
prominent retrovirologist. However, the mechanism by which this process occurred was 
unknown until [the petitioner] shed light on it. In very elegant work, [the petitioner] 
demonstrated that signaling by the viral receptor triggers cell death in uninfected and 
bystander cells. This is one of the few examples in which cell death cause by a retrovirus is 
known in detail. 
After obtaining his Ph.D. degree at the Albert Einstein college of Medicine in New York, 
[the petitioner] continue [sic] his academic career in the laboratory of - at 
the Harvard Medical School in Boston. [The petitioner's1 research involved work with the 
newly discovered monkey protein TRIMS. It was known for many years that some monkeys 
are resistant to HIV, but only recently did the Sodroski laboratory find the responsible 
protein for this restriction. The discovery of TRIMS is potentially very beneficial for the 
AIDS research field since understanding the mechanism of action of this protein will help in 
the development of new methods to prevent HIV transmission. Over the last couple of years 
[the petitioner] has worked out many of the functions of TRIMS. His initial work showed 
that TRIMS protein localized to cytoplasmic bodies but that these bodies have no implication 
in the ability of TRIMS to inhibit HIV-1 replication. Remarkably, [the petitioner] found a 
drug that can eliminate cytoplasmic bodies without affecting the ability of this protein to 
restrict HIV. This [sic] experiments are important since they showed that very small amounts 
of TRIMS are required to effectively block HIV. In addition, he described the unusual rapid 
turnover of TRIMS that might be involved in the ability of TRIMS to restrict HIVl. Finally, 
the most important contribution that [the petitioner] has achieved in this field is the proof that 
the interaction of TRIMS protein with the capsid of HIV is not sufficient for restriction and 
that an effector function is required. This will constitute a start toward revealing the 
molecular mechanism of this process. 
In addition to his contributions to the understanding of the molecular mechanisms of HIV 
restriction by TRIMS proteins, [the petitioner's] work should also have a positive impact in 
the development of microbicides (compound that could be applied in mucosal tissues for 
prevention of HIV transmission). 
We note 
 statements that the petitioner's findings represent "a start toward revealing the 
molecular mechanism" of HIV restriction and "should . . . have a positive impact in the development 
LIN 07 108 5285 1 
Page 13 
of mircrobicides." In the same manner as opines that the petitioner's "research 
is likely to be a key for the development of a safe anti-HIV treatment." With regard to the witnesses 
of record, many of them they discuss what may, might, or could one day result from the petitioner's 
work, rather than how his past research already qualifies as a contribution of major significance in 
the field. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of 
future eligibility. See Matter of ~iti~bak 14 I&N Dec. at 45, 49. 
 While the petitioner has 
performed admirably under the direction of 
 and the evidence of recorddoes 
not establish that he has made original scientific contributions of major significance in his field.4 
In this case, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner's professional contacts and their 
discussion of his contributions are not sufficient to meet this criterion. The opinions of experts in the 
field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability 
claim. 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 (Commr. 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 is 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. Thus, the content of the experts' statements 
and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. 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 of original contributions of major significance 
that one would expect of a researcher who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without 
evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed 
throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, we 
cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in profesional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his co-authorship of articles appearing in publications such as 
Journal of Virology, Virology, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The petitioner 
also submitted evidence of dozens of articles that cite to his work. These citations demonstrate the 
significance of the petitioner's articles to his field. As such, the petitioner has established that he 
meets this single criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner argues that presentation of his work at scientific conferences and symposia meets this 
regulatory criterion. The petitioner's field, however, is not in the arts. The plain language of this 
regulatory criterion indicates that it is intended for visual artists (such as sculptors and painters) 
4 A comparison of the petitioner's achievements with those of 
 and indicates that the very top of 
his field is a level above his present level of achievement. 
LIN 07 108 52851 
Page 14 
rather than for researchers such as the petitioner. 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 are more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a criterion that we find the evidence in this case already satisfies. Nevertheless, 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 dozens of 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 the venues where the petitioner spoke 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 to 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. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the petitioner meets only a single regulatory criterion, three of which are 
required to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
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 or to be within the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be approved. 
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.