sustained EB-1A Case: Life And Environmental Science

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. citizenship 
jdentifying data deleted to 
Prevent clearly unwananted 
invasion ofp ersonal pFivacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
9 7 
C/ 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
MAY 2 0 2009 
SRC 07 800 15601 
PETITION: 
 Imxnigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203@)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(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 further inquiry must be made to that office. 
John F. ~rissbd 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
sustained and the petition will be approved. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifjr for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Specifically, the director 
concluded that the petitioner met only one of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at 
least three. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and new evidence. For the reasons discussed below, 
while many of the director's concerns are valid and not all of the evidence carries the weight imputed 
by the petitioner, we find that the petitioner has submitted evidence of judging the work of others that 
goes beyond what is inherent to the field, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(3)(iv), and objective evidence 
that hs contributions have impacted the field pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $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. 8 204.5@)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a life and 
environmental scientist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. The director concluded that the 
petitioner has established that he meets the scholarly articles criterion set forth in the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@)(3)(vi). While we strongly reject the petitioner's assertions regarding his inclusion 
in "Who's Who" publications as they relate to the published materials criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5@)(3)(iii), we find that the record adequately demonstrates that the petitioner meets two criteria 
in addition to the criterion found to be met by the director. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in theJield for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his selection for inclusion in Marquis' "Who's Who in America." 
The edition includes 110,000 biographies; 21 biographies appear on the petitioner's page alone. The 
petitioner was also selected to appear in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering," which includes 
50,000 biographes. While the letters inviting the petitioner to submit his biography state that no 
payment is required, they heavily promote the purchase of the volume. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that the International Atherosclerosis Society's Internet 
newsletter featured one of the petitioner's articles on a list of recommended literature articles in the 
field. In addition, the Duke University Medical Center's newsletter, Inside, included a brief mention of 
the petitioner's selection for "Who's Who in America." The accompanying materials reveal that it is 
distributed b'throughout the Health System and Medical Center." 
Finally, the petitioner submitted an article on the American Physiological Society's website about the 
petitioner's Ph.D. collaborator, and the work he will present at an upcoming 
conference. The article does not mention the petitioner by name. 
The director concluded that the materials did not constitute published materials about the petitioner in 
professional or major trade journals or other major media. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "Who's 
Who in America" is the leading biographical reference publisher of the nation's highest achievers and 
should be considered major media. The petitioner asserts that while Marquis' selection standards are 
not available to the general public, they utilize "more than 80 proprietary standards." 
Page 4 
The petitioner is not persuasive. The petitioner is relying primarily on Marquis' own promotional 
materials regarding their prestige. As stated above, the petitioner's one-paragraph biography appeared 
along with 110,000 and 50,000 other brief biographies in these volumes. The company heavily 
promotes the sale of volumes to those invited to submit biographies, demonstrating that each volume is 
similar to a vanity press. Appearing as one of tens of thousands of other successfbl individuals in a 
frequently published directory is not indicative of or even consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
The petitioner also submits an article posted on www.medicalnewstoday.com about one of the 
petitioner's articles published after the date of filing, Evolution of a Sperm Activator. In addition, the 
petitioner submits evidence that an Internet search on the website www.noo~1e.com for the phrase 
"evolution of a sperm activator" produced 1,100 results. While the petitioner submitted the first page 
of results, the petitioner has not established that all or even the majority of these results represent 
discussion of the petitioner's article rather than simple links. Moreover, a search for a phrase does not 
establish that eve& result relates to the petitioner's &icle rather than an unrelated discussion that uses 
that particular phrase. ~e~ardlesi, the petitioner's article and the article posted on 
www.medicalnewstoda~.com postdate the filing of the petition. The petitioner must establish eligibility 
as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. 
Comrn'r. 1971). Thus, we cannot consider evidence of achievements after the petition was filed. 
The petitioner does not contest the director's conclusion that the remaining materials submitted initially 
are either not about the petitioner or did not appear in a professional or major trade journal or other 
major media. We concur with the director. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specification for which classiJication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he has reviewed articles for the Medical Science Monitor, the 
Journal of Cellular Physiology, Future Cardiology, Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy and 
Molecular Biology and Evolution. In addition, the petitioner submitted evidence that he was the sole 
author of one review article and a coauthor of another review article. Finally, the petitioner submitted a 
letter from - a professor at Northwestern University and Chair of the American 
Society for Cell Biology (ASCB), who asserts that the petitioner was a member of the Peer Screening 
Panel for ASCB and helped identifl 12 of 1,277 abstracts as "novel and noteworthy" picks for a 
conference press book. The petitioner also submitted the table of contents for the press book 
identifjmg the petitioner as a Public Information Committee associate and one of 15 members of the 
screening panel. 
The director concluded that peer review was routine in the field and that the review articles, while 
informative, did not involve judging the work of the cited authors. The director then stated that the 
evidence "does establish that the [petitioner] functioned as a judge of other researcher's work." Given 
the director's 111 analysis, the final sentence appears to be a typographical error. On appeal, the 
petitioner asserts that the director found that the petitioner meets this criterion. This conclusion is not 
supported by the director's analysis. The petitioner, however, does address the director's analysis, 
asserting that he was invited to review articles because of his recognition in the field, that he evaluated 
abstracts submitted for a symposium and that his review articles did evaluation the work being 
reviewed, including identifjmg some of the articles as "of interest" and "of considerable interest." 
We concur with some of the director's concerns. We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer 
reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the 
field; not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. Moreover, review 
articles would appear to fall under the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. $204.5@)(3)(vi). Review 
articles are primarily a compilation of other work in the field. Of all the refaences cited in the 
petitioner's sole author review article, only one is identified as "of interest" and all of the articles 
identified as "of considerable interest" are other review articles. Without evidence of the standards for 
identifjmg an article as "of interest" or "of considerable interest," we cannot determine whether the 
inclusion of these designations suggests that the petitioner was truly judging the work of the references 
cited. For example, if the number of citations is a factor, merely determining the number of times each 
reference has been cited is not judging the work of that reference. 
While we concur with the director regarding the above concerns, the director does not appear to have 
considered the petitioner's participation on the review panel for ASCB. While serving as a peer 
reviewer and authoring review articles cannot serve to meet this criterion alone, when considered in the 
aggregate with the petitioner's participation on the ASCB review panel, which involved evaluating 
1,277 abstracts to rank the top 12, we are satisfied that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Thus, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner received his medical degree fiom Hunan Medical University and then worked as a 
physician in China, focusing on clinical cardiology. The petitioner then obtained a Ph.D. fkom the 
University of Calgary and currently works at the Duke University Medical Center. 
The petitioner submitted several letters detailing his research contributions to the field of cardiology. 
-1 a professor at the University of Manchester School of Medicine, asserts that the 
petitioner identified the molecular identity of K+ -dependent N~+/cA~+ exchange (NCKX) activity 
outside eye and brain tissues (non-neuronal tissue). explains that this was "the first 
demonstration in the world that these exchanges, named NCKX3, is rich in many tissues and cell types 
that are previously unappreciated, for instance, vascular smooth muscles." notes that this 
study was widely cited, a fact amply supported in the record. 
Page 6 
continues that the petitioner performed "groundbreaking research into characterizing a novel 
family of cation/Ca2+ exchangers, which changed the long-held classification of the cationl~a~' 
exchanger superfamily by scientists in the field." wncludes that these "discoveries received 
widespread acclaim in the field and [are] cited frequently as in [sic] prestigious journals such as 
Science, Circulation Research, and ~hysoio~ical ~eviews." Once agaii, the assertion that this work is 
widely cited is amply supported in the record. 
The remaining letters, from both the petitioner's close colleagues and more independent sources, 
provide similar information. Given the letters in combination with the remaining evidence in the 
record, including the petitioner's citation record, we are persuaded that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
In review, while not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by the petitioner, 
the petitioner has established that he has been recognized as an alien of extraordinary ability who has 
acheved sustained national acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in his field of 
expertise. The petitioner has established that he seeks to continue working in the same field in the 
United States. The petitioner has established that his entry into the United States will substantially 
benefit prospectively the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has established eligibility for the 
benefits sought under section 203 of the Act. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden. 
ORDER: 
 The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is 
approved.