dismissed O-1A Case: Epidemiology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave. NW. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: SRC 03 236 5 1017 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Dal-e: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(! 5)(O)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1 101 (a)(l 5)(O)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have beell retunled to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made tc) ihat office. 
*obert P Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC03 23651017 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition in a decision dated 
November 14,2003. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner is a public university, seeking 0- 1 classification of the beneficiary, under section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1(a)(15)(0)(i), as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in epidemiology. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States for a 
period of one year as a visiting research associate. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary can be 
considered as one of the small percentage who have ascended to the very top of his field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and asserts that the beneficiary is qualified for the 0-1 visa 
classification. 
Section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks 
to enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
The issue raised by the director in this proceeding is whether the petitioner has shown that the beneficiary 
qualifies for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in epidemiology as defined by the statute and the 
regulations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 21 4.2(0)(3)(ii) defiles, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the jield of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent parr, that: 
Bvidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of: 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recogpized award, such as the Nabel Prize; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms uf documentation: 
(1) Documentation of the alien's receipt of na~ionally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) Documentation of the alien's ~netrrbzrship in associations in the field for \vhich 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or i~tenlaticinzl experts in their disciplines or f elds; 
SRC 03 236 51017 
Page 3 
(3) Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media ,about 
the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought, which 
shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary 
translation; 
(4) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification 
is sought; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
of major significance in the field; 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
joun~als, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
 evidence. 
The beneficiary in this matter is a 37-year old native and citizen of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The 
record reflects that he received his bachelor's, master's and doctorate degrees in applied statistics from the Fudan 
University in Shanghai, PRC. In 1998, the beneficiary received a master's degree in management fionn the 
Norwegian School of Management in Oslo, Norway. From March 2000 until the date of the filing of the instant 
petition, the beneficiary has worked as a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Epidemiology and 
Biostatistics at the petitioning organization. The record reflects that the beneficiary was last admitted to the 
Tinited States on March 15, 2000, in J-1 classification as an exchange visitor, subject to the two-year foreign 
residency requirement. 
After reviewing the evidence submitted in support of the petition, the director found the beneficiary ineligible for 
0-1 classification based on finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets :he 
requirements of Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2 14.2(0)(3), supra. 
There is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major. internationally recognized award equivalent to that 
listed at 8 C.F.R. 3 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A). Neither is the record persuasive in demonstrating that the beneficiary has 
met at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. €j 2 I* 2(0)(3)(iii)(B). 
Documentation of the alien's receipt ~f nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the fieM of endeavor. 
The petitioner asserts that the beneficiary satisfies criterion number one because he has received the following 
awards: 
1999: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (h11'I) Sloan School of Management 
award in recognition of successful parricipation in the MIT-China Managernent 
Education Project as an Iilternational Faculty Fellow. 
SRC 03 236 51017 
Page 4 
1995 City Bank Teaching Award, Shanghai, PRC. 
a 1997 Yu Cai Award for Achievement in undergraduate education, Shanghai, PRC. 
a 1998 Meng Sandu Fellowship for achievement in statistical research, Shanghai, 
PRC. 
1999 Johnson & Johnson Teaching Award, Shanghai, PRC. 
This criterion requires nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. 
Fellowships 
Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, awards for 
academic work, scholarships and fellowships cannot be considered awards in the field of endeavor. 
Moreover, only students compete for such awards. As the petitioner did not compete with nationally or 
internationally recognized experts in the field, the awards cannot be considered evidence of the beneficiary's 
national'or international acclaim. The petitioner failed to demonstrate that these were awards for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. 
Teaching awards 
Accorciing to the evidence on the record, the petiticrler received two teaching awards. The Yu Cai award is an 
award for undergraduate educators that is awarded every two years to approximately 50 professors in the PRC. 
The petitioner failed to establish that the Yu Cai award is an internationally or nationally recognized award for 
excellence in the beneficiary's field of endeavor. 
The Johnson & Johnson award was a second-place teaching award from the Fudan University School al" 
Management. Institutional awards such as the Johnson & Johnson award are limited to employees or students at s 
single institution. As the beneficiary did not compete with nationally or internationally recognized experts in the 
field, the awards cannot be considered evidence of the beneficiary's national or international acclaim. 
The beneficiary does not satisfy this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the$eidfor which cia,ssi$cation is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements ofthezr members, as,judged by recognized national or international experts 
in their disciplines or$elds. 
For criterion number two, while the beneficiay is a member of the American Statistical Association (ASA), the 
International Chinese Statistical Association (ICSA), and the International Biometric Society, there is insuficient 
evidence that these are associations which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines. The petitioner failed to submit informdtion about 
the membership requirements for two of the three associations. The petitioner submitted d copy of a homepage 
for ASA that indicates it has 19,090 members as of April :8, 2005. The petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
SRC 03 236 51017 
Page 5 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the alien, relating to the 
alien's work in the field for which classiJcation is sought, which shall include the title, date and author of 
such published material, and any necessary translations. 
No evidence was submitted in relation to criterion number three. 
Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work of others in the same 
or in an ailiedfield of specialization to that for which classzfication is sought. 
In July 1999, the beneficiary reviewed "Statistical Analysis and Correction of Contaminated Data" hr Applied 
Probability and Statistics, Shanghai. In January 2000, he reviewed "The Consistence of Error Density Estimation 
under M-estimate" for Applied Probability and Statistics, Shanghai. The petitioner failed to establish the basis for 
the beneficiary's selection to review these articles. 
In April 2003, the beneficiary reviewed a paper for Biometries aid another article for the Journal of Statistical 
Planning and Inference. It appears that the beneficiary performed these two reviews at the behest of his Director, 
Biostatistics Program and Biostatistics and Epidemiology Center for Collaborative Research at the petitioning 
organization. Selection by one's superior is not tantamount to selection by an independent editor. The petitioner 
failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance in 
the$eld. 
For criterion number five, while the beneficiary has published results of his reyearch, the record does  rot show 
that his research is considered of "major significance" in the field. By definition, all professional research must 
be original and significant in order to warrant publication in a professional journal. The record does not show that 
the beneficiary's research is of major significance in relation to other similar work being performed. The 
petitioner provided Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) with eleven testimonials about the value of the 
benefiiids work. 
i 
i * 
<I-. Massachusetts Institute d Technology, a former reacher of the beneficiary, 
wrote that the beneficiary 'kreated a new process for statistical estimation that is more efficient than classical 
processes by an order of magnitude." 
resident, Biostat Inte~national, Inc., wrote that the beneficiary is "especially well known for his 
major contribution in the studies of Generalized Mixed Effects Model" and that his work will greatly enhance the 
application of the model in the analysis of clinical trial safety and efficacy data. 
~ssociate Professor and Director, Biostatistics & Epidemiology Center for Ccllaborative Research, 
University of South Fiorida, -wrote that the beneficiary has great ability and potential aid that he "has made 
significant contributions TO [the] research of the Health Risk Assessment Methodology Group (HRAMG).'' 
Professor of Statistics, Fudan University School of Management, wrote tha the beneficiay's 
work on Edgeworth Expansion is regarded as a big breakthrough in mathematical statistics theory. 
SRC 03 236 51017 
Page 6 
Associate Professor of Division of Health Sciences, University of East Asia, Japan, noted the 
beneficiary's "well-known contribution on the Generalized Mixed Effects Model." 
Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the petitioning organization 
wrote t at,the beneficiary has made "many important advances." h . , 
mpidemiology Program Manager, Florida Department of Health, wrote that her agency contracted 
with the petitioning organization to conduct an evaluation of the state's ongoing syndromic surveillance system. 
-nvironmental Manager, Florida Department of Health, states that the beneficiary's contributions to 
the project are "extraordinary." 
Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South 
Florida, states that the beneficiary's L'recent work on Generalized Mixed Effects Models has brought this 
important longitudinal study to a new level" such that it "could be utilized in a much more broad application 
scope." 
ofessor of Statistics, Columbia University, wrote that the beneficiary has made significant 
contributions in the development of statistics by extending the applications for generalized mixed effects models. 
The testimonials, while expressing high praise for the beneficiary, are conclusory rather than specific in detailing 
the beneficiary's con&ibutions. In review, the evidence fails to show that the beneficiary has sustained natiorial or 
international acclaim and recognition for major achievements in his field of endeavor. 'The beneficiary doe.; not 
satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien5 authorship of scholarly articles in thejield, in profession~nl journals, or other major 
media. 
The director determined that the beneficiary satisfied criterion number six. According to the evidence on the 
record, the beneficiary has co-authored four articles that have been published. The evidence further indicates thzt 
the beneficiary has written additional articles that are either under review or are to be submitted. The M(4 will 
only consider those articles that had been published as of the date of the filing of the petition. The petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts.. ildafter 
of Michelin Tire C~rp.~ 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978). No citation history of the beneficiary's articles 
has been submitted. Published articles by the beneficiary that have been cited by others w7ould more 
meaningfully establish that the beneficiary enjoys a measure of influence through his publications. The 
petitioner has not demonstrated that the beneficiary's work has had a major impact on his field of endeavor. 
The evidence is insufficient to establish that the beneficiary satisfies this criterio~. 
Evidence that the alien has been emplqyed in a critical or essential capacity -for ~rganizations and 
estuhli.shmenls lhat have a distinguished reputation. 
ssociate Professor and Director, Biostatistics & Epidemiology Center for Collaborative Researc~,, 
IJniversify of South Florida, wrote that the beneficiary played a "pivotal rale" with the HRAMG an a research 
SRC 03 236 51017 
Page 7 
project related to neurotoxicity risk assessment. He further notes that the beneficiary is the principal investigator 
on a research project to evaluate and develop an enhanced medical symptomic surveillance system for anti- 
bioterrorism. 
ssociate Professor, University of East Asia, wrote that in the years 2001 to 2003, the petitioning 
organizat~on and the University of East Asia collaborated on a research project to study the association between 
dehression and low serum cholesterol levels. He wrote that the beneficia&'s work "is essential and critical to this 
project." 
It is not enough to establish that the beneficiary played a lead role for one or more research projects, unless the 
petitioner can establish that these projects have a distinguished reputation. The beneficiary does not satis@ this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other 
remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 
For criterion number eight, the petitioner states that the beneficiary will earn an annual salary of $45,000. In 
response to a request for additional evidence, counsel for the petitioner stated that "[allthough the proffered salary 
may not [be] considered high by psavate industry standards, it is considered market value for a grant funded 
research professional at an academic institution." The petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary satisfies 
this criterion. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 Gong. 
Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability. the statute 
requires evidence of "sustained national or international acclaim" and evidence that the alien's achievements have 
been recognized in the field of endeavor through "extensive documentation." The petitioner has not established 
that the beneficiary's abilities have been so recognized. In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 classification, the 
petitioner must establish that the beneficiary is "at the very top" of his field of endeavor. c" C.F.R. 6 
2!4.2(0)(3)(ii). The beneficiary's achievements have not yet risen to this level. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act. 8 U.S.C. 3 
13 6 1. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.