dismissed EB-1B Case: Molecular Biology

US. Department of Homehnd Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
&and Irnmigrahon 
Services 
SRC 08 232 5 1779 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as Outstanding Professor or Researcher Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(B) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 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. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Vrry N-Ew 
hief, 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 
dismissed. 
The petitioner is a nonprofit medical center. It seeks to classifl the beneficiary as an outstanding 
researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 153(b)(l)(B). The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a 
research associate. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary 
had attained the outstanding level of achievement required for classification as an outstanding 
researcher. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. While we withdraw the director's finding 
that the beneficiary does not meet the scholarly articles criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F), 
we uphold the director's adverse findings regarding the remaining regulatory criteria, of which an alien 
must meet at least two. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(i)(3)(i). Ultimately, the petitioner has not established that the 
beneficiary's academic awards, fellowships, job appointments and research grants constitute "major" 
awards or prizes pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A); the citations do not meet the plain language of 
8 C.F.R. $204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) because the articles are not "about" the beneficiary's work; the significance 
of the beneficiary's review responsibilities for young investigator proposals has not been demonstrated 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(D); and the reference letters, while numerous, provide only broad 
assertions of contributions and international recognition without providing concrete examples of the 
beneficiary's work being used in the field beyond her collaborators as would be expected of 
contributions meeting the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(i)(3)(E). Notably, the beneficiary's own 
supervisor repeatedly states that he is working to help the beneficiary become a fully independent 
researcher. 
At the outset, we acknowledge counsel's concern that the director's decision did not address all of the 
evidence submitted. Our decision will address this evidence in detail. The AAO maintains plenary 
power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On appeal from or review of the 
initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision 
except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., 
NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long recognized 
by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(B) Outstanding professors and researchers. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 
if -- 
(i) the alien is recognized internationally as outstanding in a specific 
academic area, 
(ii) the alien has at least 3 years of experience in teaching or research in the 
academic area, and 
(iii) the alien seeks to enter the United States -- 
(I) for a tenured position (or tenure-track position) within a 
university or institution of higher education to teach in the 
academic area, 
(11) for a comparable position with a university or institution of 
higher education to conduct research in the area, or 
(111) for a comparable position to conduct research in the area 
with a department, division, or institute of a private employer, if 
the department, division, or institute employs at least 3 persons 
full-time in research activities and has achieved documented 
accomplishments in an academic field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or researcher 
must be accompanied by: 
(ii) Evidence that the alien has at least three years of experience in teaching andlor 
research in the academic field. Experience in teaching or research while working on an 
advanced degree will only be acceptable if the alien has acquired the degree, and if the 
teaching duties were such that he or she had full responsibility for the class taught or if 
the research conducted toward the degree has been recognized within the academic field 
as outstanding. Evidence of teaching andlor research experience shall be in the form of 
letter(s) from current or former employer(s) and shall include the name, address, and 
title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien. 
This petition was filed on July 24, 2008 to classifl the beneficiary as an outstanding researcher in the 
field of molecular biology. Therefore, the petitioner must establish that the beneficiary had at least 
three years of research experience in the field as of that date, and that the beneficiary's work has been 
recognized internationally within the field as outstanding. The beneficiary received her Ph.D. in 
January 2002 and has been working for the petitioner since July 2002. Thus, she clearly had at least 
three years of research experience in her field as of the date the petition was filed. 
Page 4 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i) states that a petition for an outstanding professor or 
researcher must be accompanied by "[elvidence that the professor or researcher is recognized 
internationally as outstanding in the academic field specified in the petition." The regulation lists six 
criteria, of which the beneficiary must satisfl at least two. It is important to note here that the 
controlling purpose of the regulation is to establish international recognition, and any evidence 
submitted to meet these criteria must therefore be to some extent indicative of international recognition. 
More specifically, outstanding professors and researchers should stand apart in the academic 
community through eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at 
issue provides criteria to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed 
outstanding. Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30705 (proposed July 5, 1991) 
(enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). The petitioner claims to have satisfied the following 
criteria. ' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of major prizes or awards for outstanding achievement in 
the academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary was one of 198 students, resident physicians and 
postdoctoral fellows to receive a travel grant from the fi 2002. 
In 2005, according to the record, the beneficiary was one of at least 115 students, resident physicians 
and postdoctoral fellows to receive a travel grant from the same society. The petitioner also-submitted 
- 
an list of eight ne 
of which is the beneficiaw. The ~etitioner also relies on the beneficiarv's two-vear fellowshir, from the 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
advising that the institute was established as a result of a class action suit 
tablished to sponsor 
cure of diseases and 
rates that the grant 
petitioner submitted a 
In his letter, serts that 
IASLC provides "fellowship and young investigator awards" that are "highly competitive." - 
concludes that the beneficiary's receipt of such a grant "indicates that she is among the top young 
investigators in the US and the World." (Emphasis added.) 
' The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets any criteria not discussed in this decision and the 
record contains no evidence relating to the omitted criteria. 
The director concluded that academic awards and competitive postdoctoral appointments are limited to 
students and novices in the field and, thus, cannot serve to meet this criterion as they are not indicative 
of international recognition. The director further noted that grants are intended to fund future research 
rather than recognize past achievements and, thus, are not awards for outstanding achievement. 
On appeal, counsel notes that the director used the phrase "lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized award or prize," which is the language found at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) pertaining to aliens 
of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, rather than the correct standard set 
forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(A). As discussed below, the commentary to the final regulation makes 
clear that a qualiqing award or prize under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i) must be at least national. 56 Fed. 
Reg. 60897-01,60899 (Nov. 29, 1991). For this reason and because the beneficiary's honors clearly do 
not qualify under the correct regulatory standard, the director's quotation of the wrong language did not 
prejudice the beneficiary. 
Regarding the awards themselves, counsel asserts that they were awarded for post-academic research. 
Counsel further asserts that because the beneficiary's research is "ongoing," the research grants are not 
issued based on a mere "hope that a 'future' project will produce results." Counsel concludes that the 
director's conclusion that grants are designed to fund future research and, thus, not indicative of 
international recognition, is "over-broad." Counsel notes that past accomplishments are a consideration 
in awarding grant money. Counsel then asserts that the beneficiary was one of 16 recipients of the 
m!m 
Counsel relies on a 1995 non-precedent decision by the AAO for the proposition that 
to 10 individuals is a "major prize." While 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c) provides that AAO 
precedent decisions are binding on all U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Counsel 
further asserts that the beneficiary's selection for a job with the petitioning institution serves to meet this 
criterion based on the petitioner's prestige. Counsel asserts that the director provided no support for the 
proposition that experienced experts do not compete for postdoctoral appointments, asserting that the 
beneficiary sought these positions after completing her "academic training." 
Counsel also references awards from 1996 and 1997 purportedly issued to the beneficiary in Italy. 
Those awards are not part of the record. These awards include a "Merit Award" to participate in a 
course, recognition for a top score on a Ph.D. exam and two fellowships. Counsel concludes: "A 
national prize or fellowship to the leading medical school in the United States and an award granted by 
the leading national institute of health in Italy differ dramatically in scope from a regional or local 
award given by an institution without standing as an institution of renown." 
It is significant that the proposed regulation relating to this classification would have required evidence 
of a major international award. The final rule removed the requirement that the award be 
"international," but left the word "major." The commentary states: "The word "international" has been 
removed in order to accommodate the possibility that an alien might be recognized internationally as 
outstanding for having received a major award that is not international." (Emphasis added.) 56 Fed. 
Reg. 60897-0 1,60899 (Nov. 29, 199 1 .) 
Page 6 
Thus, the standard for this criterion is very high. The rule recognizes only the "possibility" that a major 
award that is not international would qualify. Significantly, even lesser international awards cannot 
serve to meet this criterion given the continued use of the word "major" in the final rule. CJ: 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i) (allowing for "lesser" nationally or internationally recognized awards for a separate 
classification than the one sought in this matter). 
Student fellowships, as the ones purportedly received in Italy, are generally based on past academic 
achievement, not for accomplishments in a field of endeavor. While 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(A) 
references outstanding achievements in one's academic field, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(2) defines "academic 
field" as "a body of specialized knowledge offered for study." The definition does not include typical 
bases for scholarships, such as grade point average and class standing. It remains, academic study is 
not a field of endeavor, academic or otherwise. Rather, academic study is training for a future career in 
an academic field. As such, scholarships in recognition of academic achievement, such as exam scores, 
are insufficient. In addition, while the beneficiary may have received a student fellowship from a 
national entity, it remains that the beneficiary only competed against other students. Such fellowships 
and awards are simply not evidence of international recognition in the field. Rather, they represent high 
academic achievements in comparison with her fellow students. 
A job offer, even a competitive job offer at a prestigious institution, is not an award or prize. 
Moreover, as with student awards, we concur with the director that experienced experts do not 
compete for post-academic fellowships and competitive postdoctoral appointments. The Department 
of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) provides that postdoctoral positions are 
temporary training positions that allow a biological scientist to accrue the publication record required 
for a permanent position. See http://www.bls.~ov/oco/ocos047.htm#training (accessed November 30, 
2009 and incorporated into the record of proceeding). Significantly, this information is supported in the 
record. Dr. Daniel G. Tenen, the beneficiary's supervisor for the past several years, states that his goal 
is to allow the beneficiary "to become a completely independent researcher" and that he will "continue 
to support her pathway to independence." Thus, the beneficiary's fellowships and postdoctoral 
appointments cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Regarding the beneficiary's research grants, the - grants are limited to young 
investigators just beginning their research careers. Regardless, we concur with the director that 
research grants simply fund a scientist's work. Every successful scientist engaged in research, of which 
there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously, as noted by counsel on 
appeal, the past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals and the 
progress of the recipient's research is considered in grant extensions. The funding institution has to be 
assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, we concur 
with the director that a research grant is principally designed to fund future research (including future 
research as part of an ongoing project), and not to honor or recognize past achievement. The money 
must be used for the proposed research (including as part of an ongoing project) and is not awarded 
unconditionally to the investigator for her personal use. 
Page 7 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published material in professional publications written by others about the alien's work in the 
academic$eld. Such material shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a news article about the location of a blood marrow donor that 
mentions the beneficiary as a person "familiar with" the case who suggested that the patient's parents 
seek a donor from a Mediterranean country. This article is not "about the alien's work in the academic 
field" as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). Initially, the petitioner also 
submitted a list of articles that purport to cite the beneficiary's work. While the list is the result of a 
database search, the search values are not listed. Thus, it cannot be determined whether the results 
represent a list of articles that actually cite the beneficiary's work. In response to the director's request 
for additional evidence, however, the petitioner submitted a list of articles that cite the beneficiary's 
work. The director concluded that the articles are about the authors' own work and not the work of 
each of the many research teams cited in the articles. 
On appeal, counsel cites a July 30, 1992 correspondence memorandum from 
Assistant Commissioner, to the then Director of the 
issued his correspondence memorandum in response to an inquiry from and makes 
clear that he is discussing his personal inclinations. Moreover, in contrast to official policy memoranda 
issued to the field, correspondence memoranda issued to a single individual do not constitute official 
USCIS policy and will not be considered as such in the adjudication of petitions or applications. 
Although the correspondence may be useful as an aid in interpreting the law, such letters are not 
binding on any USCIS officer as they merely indicate the writer's analysis of an issue. See 
- 
Memorandum from 
Signzficance of Letters Drafted by the Office ofAdjudications (December 7,2000)." 
In his letter to raised concerns about more than one criterion. Specifically, he 
noted that "it is almost a job requirement at many universities that professors and researchers publish 
papers." Separately, - questioned whether citations were published material about the cited 
author. In his response, unequivocally states that "a footnoted reference to the alien's work 
without evaluation . . . would be of little or no value." goes on to state that "entries 
(particularly a goodly number) in a field . . . would more than likely be solid pieces of evidence." Mr. 
does not, however, identify the criterion to which this evidence would relate. 
We concur with that a "goodly number" of citations is solid evidence worth consideration 
We find, however, that this evidence is of significance to one of the other criteria for which 
expressed concern; namely, authorship of scholarly articles. We cannot ignore the plain 
2 
 Although this memorandum principally addresses letters from the Office of Adjudications to the public, the 
memorandum specifies that letters written by any USCIS employee do not constitute official USCIS policy. 
Page 8 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C), which requires published material "about the alien's work." 
We concur with the director that articles which cite the beneficiary's work are primarily about the 
authors' own work or,. in the case of review articles, recent work in the field in general. As such, it 
cannot be credibly asserted to be published material about the beneficiary's work in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied academic field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary served as one of seven chairs and an unknown 
number of "invited external Judges" for a poster evaluation panel at a 2007 - 
for -ymposium in Boston. The petitioner submitted no 
evidence regarding her duties as a "chair." Given that there were invited external judges, it is not clear 
that the chairs were involved in the judging process. 
The petitioner also submitted an electronic mail message from fi 
anking the petitioner for her participation in review process. 
ices the petitioner provided. The petitioner also 
a senior scientist with the 
rts that in her ca acity of an ABIS peer review 
committee organizer, she saw the reviews of the beneficiary's ~oposal. It is clear from this 
assertion that ontracts with AIBS for peer review services. -er asserts that 
based on the petitioner's high impact articles, the petitioner was "recently invited to join the peer review 
advisory board of o serveas a reviewer for lung cancer related AS AIBS peer 
review services for oes not appear to be referencing any review duties other 
than the eer review referenced by- 
The director requested "evidence to establish the significance of the work judged by the beneficiary and 
the criteria used to select the beneficiary as a judge." In response, counsel references the previous letter 
from In addition, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary has reviewed 
manuscripts submitted to journals for possible publication after the date of filing. The petitioner must 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Cornm'r. 1971). Thus, we will not consider any 
accomplishments after that date. 
The director stated that judging duties must be reflective of national or international acclaim and 
concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the beneficiary's judging responsibilities set her 
apart from others in the field. On appeal, the petitioner submits a new letter fro& and a 
letter from - in Transfusion Medicine and a 
professor at the medical school affiliated with the petitioner, who asserts that journals and funding 
agencies are "very selective in their choice of scientists invited to participate in the review process" and 
Page 9 
concludes that the beneficiary's "recognition" as an "important reviewer in itself, demonstrates her 
reputation as an up-and-coming leader in her field of research." The statutory standard in this matter, 
however, is not "up-and-coming leader," but international recognition as outstanding. 
In her new letter, asserts that because of the high quality of the beneficiary's research, 
AIBS invited her to join the peer review advisory board where she has reviewed an average of 60 
proposals per year since 2006. explains that the beneficiary's evaluations "are used to 
guide the decisions about the distribution of funds to the most qualified researchers with the highest 
potential for success." 
First, we withdraw the director's use of the phrase "national or international acclaim," a standard 
appropriate to the extraordinary ability classification set forth at section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The 
appropriate standard for the classification sought in this matter, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the 
Act, is international recognition as outstanding. Thus, we will evaluate the evidence submitted under 
this criterion as to whether it is consistent with the beneficiary's international recognition as 
outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. at 30705; see Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9' Cir. 2009) 
(evidence of judging the work of others may be considered in the context of the statutory standard for 
the classification sought). 
As stated above, the beneficiary's service as a chair at the IABMR symposium in Boston where she 
works rather than as one of the external judges has not been documented to involve judging the work of 
others. Thus, this position cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
The beneficiary's review of proposals through AIBS een shown to be indicative of or 
consistent with international recognition. The beneficiary is a grant recipient. Her evaluations 
of other FAMRI proposals, which are limited to young researchers just beginning their careers, are 
completed for AIBS and forwarded to FAMRI which presumably makes the ultimate decision of which 
proposals to fund. affirmation that the beneficiary was invited to serve on a panel 
based on the quality of her work is not supported by official AIBS materials explaining how their 
reviewers are selected. A policy of using peer reviewers solicited through various media is not 
indicative of the international recognition of the  reviewer^.^ The record contains no evidence that 
AIBS boasts a group of internationally recognized reviewers in its official materials. 
The beneficiary's peer review of manuscripts postdates the filing of the petition and cannot be 
considered. See 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Regardless, 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 international 
recognition. 
The AIBS website, http://www.aibs.or~~eer-review/become-a-reviewer.html (accessed November 30, 
2009), solicits applications from anyone interested in performing reviews for AIBS. 
Page 10 
Without evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has 
reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of referees, received independent 
requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished 
journal, we cannot conclude that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific or scholarly research contributions to the academic 
field. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the beneficiary had significantly 
impacted the field beyond her immediate circle of colleagues. On appeal, counsel notes that the 
beneficiary's work is well cited in the aggregate and relies on non-precedent decisions by this office for 
the proposition that citation can demonstrate an alien's impact. First, while 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3(c) 
provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of 
the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Nevertheless, we do not contest the value 
of citations in support of letters explaining how the beneficiary's work has impacted the field. In the 
matter before us, however, the letters, while numerous, provide only general praise without 
providing examples of the beneficiary's work being used in the field. The record also lacks letters 
from independent references who have been influenced by the beneficiary's work, such as 
independent references utilizing the beneficiary's mouse model. The petitioner did not provide 
search results that reflect the citation level for individual articles. The petitioner also failed to 
provide a small sample of citations from authors relying on the beneficiary's work as the foundation 
of their own research rather than simply citing the beneficiary's work as previous work in a similar 
area. 
Counsel further notes that the petitioner submitted letters from references around the world. While 
true, the international references have all worked with the beneficiary or were previously affiliated with 
the petitioning institution. We cannot conclude that Congress intended that international recognition 
could be demonstrated simply by having worked in more than one country or with colleagues who 
move on to work in other countries. We acknowledge the submission of a few letters from independent 
references. While these letters will be considered in detail below, we note at the outset that these 
independent references do not claim to have been influenced by the beneficiary's work. 
Obviously, the petitioner cannot satisfl this criterion simply by listing the beneficiary's past projects 
and demonstrating that the beneficiary's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate prior 
research. Research work that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the beneficiary a master's 
degree, let alone classification as an outstanding researcher. Because the goal of the regulatory criteria 
is to demonstrate that the beneficiary has won international recognition as an outstanding researcher, it 
stands to reason that the beneficiary's research contributions have won comparable recognition. To 
argue that all original research is, by definition, "outstanding" is to weaken that adjective beyond any 
useful meaning, and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." 
Page 11 
As stated above, outstanding researchers should stand apart in the academic community through 
eminence and distinction based on international recognition. The regulation at issue provides criteria 
to be used in evaluating whether a professor or researcher is deemed outstanding. 56 Fed. Reg. at 
30705. Any Ph.D. thesis, postdoctoral or other research, in order to be accepted for graduation, 
publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. To 
conclude that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of 
knowledge meets this criterion would render this criterion meaningless. 
Furthermore, the regulations include a separate criterion for scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(i)(3)(i)(F). Thus, the mere authorship of scholarly articles cannot serve as presumptive 
evidence to meet this criterion. To hold otherwise would render the regulatory requirement that a 
beneficiary meet at least two criteria meaningless. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036 (publications 
and presentations are insufficient absent evidence that they constitute qualifying contributions). 
The petitioner relies on several reference letters. The opinions ofeexperts in the field, while not 
without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of international recognition. 
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 (Comm'r. 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. USCIS 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 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 1 90 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
recognition and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically 
identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the 
field. In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner 
through her reputation and who have applied her work are the most persuasive. Ultimately, evidence 
in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared 
especially for submission with the petition. An individual with international recognition should be 
able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that recognition. Vague, solicited letters from local 
colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify contributions or how those contributions have 
influenced the field are insufficient. See Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036. 
n Pisa, Italy, asserts that she mentored the beneficiary's Ph.D. research, 
which also included a year in the laboratory of t the 
serts that the beneficiary's Ph.D. research focused on the role of the brain gene Otxl in 
hematopoiesis. -lains that their "data demonstrated that Otxl is expressed in 
Page 12 
hemato oietic cells and that mice in whch the gene was removed suffered fiom anemia." According to 
db they cured the red blood cell deficiency by strongly activating the SCL stem cell gene in these mice, "demonstrating that Otxl and SCL are important genes to drive red blood cell production." 
asserts that the beneficiary's "input was essential to the success of the work," which was 
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. also discusses the 
beneficiary's collaboration with a researcher at the University of Milan, investigating the role of Sox2 in 
neural stem cells and blood and on a project involving the 
asserts that this work was accepted for presentation and publication, she does not identify the 
results or explain their significance. Ultimately, she does not explain how any of the beneficiary's 
Ph.D. research has been utilized in the field outside of the laboratories with which she has worked. 
- 
 at the University of Montreal, 
explains that the beneficiary spent one year of her Ph.D. studies working in his laboratory, obtaining 
a grant from the to fund the fellowship. 
investigated the role of Otxl and SCL genes in regulating bloo ce production. While 
beneficiary 
 d that the 
sserts that this work was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences, he does not explain how this work has impacted the field. We will not presume the impact 
of an article from the journal in which it appeared. Rather, it is the petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate the significance of the individual article. 
an assistant professor with the medical school affiliated with the petitioning 
institution, asserts that the beneficiary showed that the Otxl 
 ene plays a pivotal role in 
hematopoietic, pluripotent and erythroid progenitor cells. her explains that mice in 
which this gene is removed suffer from anemia and low red blood cell numbers. which can be cured 
beneficiary's work "thus contributes important new information to the our [sic] current understanding 
of the mechanisms that regulate blood cell production." As stated above, all research must be 
original and contribute to the general pool of knowledge to be accepted for publication. We are not 
persuaded that every published research article constitutes a contribution sufficient to meet this 
criterion, which is designed to demonstrate the alien's international recognition as outstanding. 56 
Fed. Reg. 30705. 
The beneficiary's supervisor at the petitioning institution, xplains that the beneficiary 
joined his laboratory in July 2002, where she has been working on multiple projects related to stem 
cell biology. Specifically, asserts that the beneficiary collaborated in characterizing the 
involvement of the transcription factors in hematopoietic stem cells. further asserts that 
the beneficiary coauthored an article "exploring the role of transcription factors in the lung, which 
has also been published." also explains that the beneficiary located a crucial regulatory 
element directing expression in blood stem cells using the human hematopoietic stem cell, CD34. 
asserts that this work, which was presented at a conference, is important for gene therapy 
and general transcriptional regulation and "will be of interest to others outside of the field of 
hematology and stem cell biology." then discusses the beneficiary's current projects and 
Page 13 
their future potential. emphasis on the beneficiary's ability to secure funding and publish 
her work is not persuasive. To conclude that the beneficiary's funding and publication record is 
significant evidence that her work constitutes internationally recognized contributions would require 
a presumption that most scientific work is unfunded and unfit for publication. 
Most significantly, 
 states that his goal is to provide the beneficiary "with the environment 
and instruction to allow her to become a completely independent researcher." He explains that he 
will "continue to support her pathway to independence." He concludes that the beneficiary "is an 
outstanding candidate with exceptional potential." None of this language is consistent with a 
researcher who already enjoys international recognition as an outstanding researcher. 
In his second letter, sserts that the beneficiary "took over our efforts on human CD34 
gene regulation several years ago" and is the "driving force" behind the project. He further asserts 
that she is "responsible also for directing another main project aimed at studying the function of the 
gene CIEBP alpha in lung tumorigenesis." As part of this project, explains that the 
beneficiary "generated a novel murine model that mimics human lung adenocarcinoma," which is 
useful in identifying drugs that can restore or activate the CIEBP alpha gene. notes that 
the beneficiary's work in this area, relating to the "Sonic Hedgehog Pathway," was selected for 
presentation. This work, however, was not disseminated in the field prior to the date of filing. 
Significantly, however, concludes only that the beneficiary "compares very favorably to 
others in her peer group" and continues to affirm his plans to assist the beneficiary becoming a 
"completely independent researcher." 
On appeal, 
 addresses several of the beneficiary's projects, some of which postdate the 
filing of the petition. He concludes that he expects the beneficiary "to be one of the leading 
researcher[s] to lead the U.S. medical community toward effective, safe cures for numerous deadly 
diseases, including lung cancers and leukemia." He does not explain how the beneficiary's work has 
already won her international recognition as outstanding. While discusses the 
beneficiary's importance to his laboratory and the United States, the issue in this proceeding is 
whether the beneficiary enjoys international recognition. 
an assistant professor at and a former 
colleague of the beneficiary, discusses the beneficiary's work at the petitioning institution. 
Specifically, 
 asserts that the beneficiary discovered a novel critical regulatory element of 
the human CD34 stem cell gene. 
- 
characterizes this work as "seminal" and notes that it 
was presented at a conference. 
 oes not, however, explain how this work has already 
impacted the field. firther asserts that the beneficiary "identified a critical gene linked to 
human lung cancer formation and generated the first murine model able to mimic the human 
condition." This model consisted of mice with a low amount of the CIEBP alpha protein. - 
asserts that this model is invaluable for studying human pulmonary tumorigenesis, but provides no 
examples of independent laboratories now using this model. Finally, discusses the 
beneficiary's "pivotal research" to develop a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) protocol for 
Page 14 
detecting small solitary nodules in mice. concludes that the beneficiary's "observations are 
of critical importance for lung cancer research" but provides no examples of how the beneficiary's 
work with MRIs has impacted the field. 
asserts that while investigating candidate genes that may elucidate the mechanism of lung cancer 
formation, the beneficiary identifiedMa protein whose contribution in promoting the malignant 
phenotype promises to be as important biologically and therapeutically." does not 
explain, however, how this work is being used in the field. 
beneficiary "observed that the Sonic Hedgehog genetic athwa is abnormally regulated in the 
adenocarcinomas she is studying." Once again, however, does not provide examples 
of this work being used in the field. 
Other colleagues currently or previously affiliated with the petitioning institution, such as - 
provide similar information, list the beneficiary's credentials (such as her publications 
and funding), praise her professionalism and creativity, and conclude broadly that her work is 
internationally recognized. None of these colleagues, however, provide examples of the beneficiary's 
impact in the field. 
As noted by counsel on appeal, the petitioner did submit letters from independent references 
supporting the petition. - 
Research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. identities the ~etitioner's 
supervisor, as &joying international renown. Regarding the beneficiary, 
praises her work but does not explain its impact. For example, he praises her murine model as a 
"critical tool" but does not claim to be using this tool or identify any other independent laboratory 
that is doing so. While discusses the difficulty in securing funding, we note that most, if 
not all research, receives funding from some source. We are not persuaded that every funded 
researcher enjoys international recognition as outstanding. Finally, affirms his own belief 
that the petition should be approved because "such an exceptional young investigator should be 
granted the o ortunity of working permanently in the excellent laboratories we have in our 
country." 
PP 
belief that exceptional researchers should be afforded the opportunity to work 
in the Unite tates permanently does not shed light on the statutory standard in this matter, whether 
the beneficiary enjoys international recognition. We note that the classification sought in this matter 
is not the sole classification for which a researcher might qualify. 
Page 15 
asserts that the beneficiary was "the first researcher worldwide to succeed in 
developing a lung-specific mouse model of tumorigenesis determined by low amount of CIEBP 
alpha protein in the lung." As stated above, however, all research must be original to qualifl for 
publication, presentation and even graduation. does not provide any examples of 
independent laboratories using the beneficiary's model. 
In resDonse to the director's reauest for additional evidence. the ~etitioner submitted a letter fiom Dr. 
senior vice President and ~ranchise ~iad, - 
Laboratories. 
 however, was previously a professor at the medical school affiliated 
with the ~etitioninrr institution and acknowledrres that he has known the beneficiary for manv vears. 
reference. Significantly, does not suggest that 
is using or even evaluating the beneficiary's mouse model for use in 
their own research. 
On appeal, -1 a professor at - asserts that the 
beneficiary's 2007 article in Blood reported that the drug CDDO favors differentiation of primary 
blasts from leukemic patients, suggesting the inclusion of CDDO in the therapy of these patients. 
states that a clinical trial is currently underway at an unidentified institution to determine 
the efficacy of a CDDO analog. does not specifically assert that the clinical trial resulted 
fiom the beneficiary's work, which dealt with CDDO (an existing drug) rather than a CDDO analog. 
-, a professor at the medical school affiliated with the petitioner, asserts that 
clinical tests involving the use of CDDO (not an analog) to treat lung cancer patients are underway, 
but then states only that the beneficiary's work led her team to pursue in murine models. Dr. 
asserts only that the beneficiary's work helped his laboratory secure funding to test 
does not state whether the funding will support human or murine studies. Regardless, none fut o the 
references indicate that clinical trials were initiated prior to the date of filing in this matter. The 
petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary's work was internationally recognized as outstanding 
as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. 
Comrn'r. 197 1). 
Similarly, ffirms that the beneficiary identified the molecular target Sonic Hedgehog as a 
major abnormality that occurs in lung cancer and notes that clinical trials aimed at studying the role 
of this pathway are now underway at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The record lacks letters 
from these investigators confirming the importance of the beneficiary's discovery to the initiation of 
their clinical trial. Regardless, once again, it is not clear that this trial predates the filing of the 
petition. 
While the beneficiary'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 postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
Page 16 
The record does not establish that the beneficiary's contributions are consistent with international 
recognition as outstanding. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly books or articles (in scholarly journals with 
international circulation) in the academicjeld. 
The record establishes that the beneficiary has authored several scholarly articles and is well cited in the 
aggregate. Thus, we are persuaded that the beneficiary meets this single criterion. For the reasons 
discussed above, however, the petitioner has not documented that the beneficiary meets a second 
criterion. 
The petitioner has shown that the beneficiary is a talented and prolific researcher, who has won the 
respect of her collaborators, employers, and mentors, while securing some degree of international 
exposure for her work. The record, however, stops short of elevating the beneficiary to the level of an 
alien who is internationally recognized as an outstanding researcher. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established that the beneficiary is qualified for the benefit sought. 
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 appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.