dismissed O-1A Case: Medical Research

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
identifyingdatadeletedto ,,,,,iveaggeais,us2090preVentClearlyunWalTanted Washington,DC20529-2090
invasionof personalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
andImmigration
UC COPY services
Office:CALIFORNIASERVICECENTER Date: OCT 1 4 2010
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Petitionfor aNonimmigrantWorkerPursuantto Section101(a)(15)(O)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O).
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideroramotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a feeof $585. Pleasebeawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbe filed
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,CaliforniaServiceCenter,deniedthenonimmigrantvisapetition.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.TheAAOwill dismisstheappeal.
The petitioner,a non-profit medical researchorganization,filed this petition seekingto classify the
beneficiaryasan0-1 nonimmigrantpursuantto section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theImmigrationandNationality
Act (the Act), as an alien of extraordinaryability in the sciences.The petitionerseeksto employthe
beneficiaryasajunior scientistfor aperiodof threeyears.
OnJanuary13,2010,thedirectordeniedthepetitionconcludingthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthe
beneficiaryhasreceived"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"or to demonstratethatheis oneof the
smallpercentagewhohasrisento theverytopof hisfield of endeavor.Specifically,thedirectordetermined
thattheevidencesubmitteddid not satisfythecriteriasetforthat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)or at least
threeof theeightcriteriasetforthat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).
Thepetitionersubsequentlyfiledanappeal.Thedirectordeclinedto treattheappealasamotionandforwarded
theappealto theAAO. Onappeal,thepetitionerassertsthatthedirectorfailedto considerevidencethatwould
establishthatthebeneficiarymeetsatleastoneadditionalcriterionat8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B),in addition
to the two criteriathatthe directordeterminedhavealreadybeenmet.Thepetitionersubmitsa brief and
additionalevidenceinsupportoftheappeal.
For the reasonsdiscussedbelow,we upholdthe director'sultimateconclusionthat the petitionerhasnot
establishedthebeneficiary'seligibilityfortheexclusiveclassificationsought.Specifically,weacknowledgethat
whenwe simply"count"theevidencesubmitted,thepetitionerhassubmittedevidencerelatingto threeof the
categoriesof evidenceasrequired.Thesecriteriaarejudgingtheworkof others,originalcontributionsof major
significance,andauthorshipof scholarlyarticlespursuantto 8C.F.R.§§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(iv),(v) and(vi). As
explainedinourfinalmeritsdeterminationhowever,muchof theevidencethattechnicallyqualifiesundersome
of thosecriteria reflectsroutinedutiesor accomplishmentsin the field that do not comparewith the
accomplishmentsof the mostexperiencedandrenownedmembersof the field. Thus,suchevidenceis not
consistentwith a findingthatthe beneficiaryenjoyssustainednationalor internationalacclaim. As will be
discussedfurtherin our final meritsdetermination,whilewe acknowledgethecaliberof the referenceswho
supportthe petition, their accomplishments,editorial positions,and publicationrecordsonly reinforceour
conclusionthatthetopofthebeneficiary'sfieldisfarhigherthanthelevelhehasachieved.
L TheLaw
Section101(a)(15)(O)(i)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i),providesfortheclassificationof aqualified
alienwho:
hasextraordinaryability in thesciences,arts,education,business,orathleticswhichhasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor internationalacclaim. . . andwhoseachievements
havebeenrecognizedin the field throughextensivedocumentation,andseeksto enterthe
UnitedStatestocontinuework intheareaof extraordinaryability . . .
Thelegalauthorityforthistwo-stepanalysiswill bediscussedatlengthbelow.
Page3
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(ii)defines,in pertinentpart:
Extraordinaryability in thefield of science,education,business,or athleticsmeansa levelof
expertiseindicatingthatthepersonis oneof thesmallpercentagewhohavearisento thevery
topof thefield of endeavor.
Theextraordinaryabilityprovisionsof thisvisaclassificationareintendedto behighlyrestrictivefor aliensin
thefieldsof business,education,athletics,andthesciences.See59FR41818,41819(August15,1994);137
Cong.Rec.S18242,18247(daily ed.,Nov. 26, 1991)(comparinganddiscussingthelowerstandardfor the
arts).
In apolicymemorandum,thelegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService(INS)emphasized:
It mustberememberedthatthestandardsfor 0-1 aliensin thefieldsof business,education,
athletics,andthesciencesareextremelyhigh. TheO-1classificationshouldbereservedonly
for thosealienswho havereachedtheverytop of their occupationor profession.TheO-1
classificationis substantiallyhigherthantheold H-1Bprominentstandard.Officersinvolved
in theadjudicationof thesepetitionsshouldnot"waterdown"theclassificationbyapproving
O-1petitionsfor prominentaliens.
Memorandum, ActingAsst.Comm'r.,INS,"PolicyGuidelinesfor theAdjudicationof O
andPPetitions"(June25, 1992).
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)states,inpertinentpart:
Evidentiarycriteriafor an 0-1 alienof extraordinaryability in thefields of science,education,
business,or athletics. An alienof extraordinaryability in the fields of science,education,
business,or athleticsmust demonstratesustainednationalor internationalacclaimand
recognitionforachievementsinthefieldof expertisebyprovidingevidenceof:
(A) Receiptof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward,suchastheNobelPrize;or
(B) At leastthreeof thefollowingfonnsof documentation:
(1) Documentationof thealien'sreceiptof nationallyor internationallyrecognized
prizesorawardsforexcellenceinthefieldofendeavor;
(2) Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for which
classificationis sought,which require outstandingachievementsof their
members,asjudgedby recognizedor intemationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesor
fields;
Page5
Indeterminingthebeneficiary'seligibilityunderthesecriteria,theAAO will followatwo-partapproachsetforth
in adecisionissuedbytheU.S.Courtof AppealsfortheNinthCircuit.Kazarianv. USCIS,2010WL 725317(9*
Cir. March4, 2010). Similarto the regulationsgoverningthis nommmigrantclassification,the regulations
reviewedby theKazariancourtrequirethepetitionerto submitevidencepertainingto at leastthreeoutof ten
alternativecriteriain orderto establisha beneficiary'seligibilityasanalienwith extraordinaryability. Cf 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
Specifically,theKazariancourtstatedthat"theproperprocedureis to countthetypesof evidenceprovided
(whichtheAAO did),"andif thepetitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionisthatthe
applicanthasfailedto satisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(astheAAO concluded)."Id
at*6 (citingto 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"finalmeritsdetermination"asthecorollary
tothisprocedure:
If a petitionerhassubmittedtherequisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhethertheevidence
demonstratesboth a "level of expertiseindicatingthat the individualis oneof that small
percentagewhohaverisento theverytopof the[ir]fieldof endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2),
and "that the alien has sustainednationalor internationalacclaimand that his or her
achievementshavebeenrecognizedintheñeldofexpertise."8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Onlyaliens
whoseachievementshavegarnered"sustainednationalor intemationalacclaim"areeligiblefor
an"extraordinaryability"visa.8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id.at*3.
Thus,Kazariansetsforthatwo-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthen,if qualifyingunderat
leastthreecriteria,consideredin thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.Thefinal meritsdetermination
analyzeswhethertheevidenceisconsistentwiththestatutoryrequirementof "extensivedocumentation"andthe
regulatorydefinitionof "extraordinaryability"as"oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof
thefieldof endeavor."
Althoughthe director'sdecisionpre-datesthe Kazariandecision,AAO Hndsthe Kazariancourt'stwo part
approachto beappropriatefor evaluatingtheregulatorycriteriasetforthfor O-1 nonimmigrantpetitionsfor
aliensof extraordinaryabilityat 8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii),(iv) and(v). Therefore,in reviewingServiceCenter
decisions,theAAO will applythetestsetforthin Kazarian.AstheAAO maintainsdenovoreview,theAAO
will conductanewanalysisif thedirectorreachedhisorherconclusionbyusingaone-stepanalysisratherthan
thetwo-stepanalysisdictatedby theKazariancourt.SeeSoltanev. DOJ,381F.3d 143,145(3d Cir. 2004)
(notingthattheAAO reviewsappealsonadenovobasis).
Inthepresentmatter,thepetitionerhassubmittedevidencepertainingtoseveralof theevidentiarycriteria,buthas
notestablishedthatthebeneficiaryhasrisentotheverytopof hisfieldorthathehasachievedsustainednational
orinternationalacclaim.8C.F.R.§§214.2(o)(3)(ii)and(iii).
II. TheBeneficiary'sEligibility undertheEvidentiaryCriteria
Page6
Thebeneficiaryin thismatteris anativeandcitizenofM Thebeneficiarycompletedhismedicaltraining
at in 2004andreceiveda Masterof Sciencein Clinical Researchfrom Rush
Illinois in 2008.Thepetitionerseeksclassificationof thebeneficiaryasanalienwith
extraordinaryability in thesciences.Thepetitionerindicatesthatthebeneficiaryis a "buddingexpert"in the
field of adultstemcellresearch,andindicatesthat,asajunior scientist,hewill beresponsiblefor developing
andtestingaprotocoltotreatchronicliver diseasesusinginjectionof adultstemcells.
Thepetitionerfiled theFormI-129,Petitionfor a NonimmigrantWorker,on June1,2009. Thepetitioner
initially submittedajob offerfor the beneficiary,thebeneficiary'srésumé,the beneficiary'spublicationsand
conferencepresentations,evidenceof the beneficiary'speerreviewactivities,evidenceof the beneficiary's
membershipin professionalassociations,andtestimonialletters.In responseto a Requestfor Evidence("RFE")
datedAugust28, 2009,the petitionersubmittedsupplementaltestimonialevidenceandotherbackground
informationregardingthesignificanceof thebeneficiary'sresearch,publications,conferencepresentationsand
peerreview responsibilities.
OnJanuary13,2010,thedirectordeniedthepetition,findingthatthebeneficiarymeetsonlytwo of theeight
regulatorycriteriasetforth at 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B).On appeal,the petitionercontendsthat the
beneficiarymeetsatleastoneadditionalcriterion,specifically,thecriterionat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4).
Aftercarefulreviewoftherecord,it mustbeconcludedthatthepetitionerhasfailedto establishthebeneficiary's
eligibility. Theextraordinaryabilityprovisionsof thisvisaclassificationareintendedto behighlyrestrictive.In
orderto establisheligibility for extraordinaryability,the statuterequiresevidenceof "sustained"nationalor
internationalacclaimandevidencethatthealien'sachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of endeavor
through"extensivedocumentation."Thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatthebeneficiary'sabilitieshavebeenso
recognized.
If thepetitionerestablishesthroughthesubmissionof documentaryevidencethatthebeneficiaryhasreceived
a major,internationallyrecognizedawardpursuantto 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A),then it will meetits
burdenof proofwith respectto thebeneficiary'seligibility for O-1classification.Theregulationsciteto the
Nobel Prize as an exampleof a major award. Id. There is no evidencethat the beneficiary hasreceived any
major awardsin his field, andthe petitioner doesnot claim that the beneficiary meetsthis criterion.
As thereis no evidencethat the beneficiaryhasreceiveda major,internationallyrecognizedaward,the
petitionermustestablishthe beneficiary'seligibility underat leastthreeof theeightcriteriasetforth at 8
C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)
1. Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for whichclassificationis
sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof their members,asjudgedby recognized
nationalor internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesorfields;
2The petitioner has not claimed to meet or submitted evidencerelating to the criteria not discussedin this
decision.
Page7
In orderto demonstratethatmembershipin anassociationmeetsthiscriterion,apetitionermustshowthatthe
associationrequiresoutstandingachievementas an essentialcondition for admissionto membership.
Membershiprequirementsbasedon employmentor activity in a given field, minimum educationor
experience,standardizedtest scores,gradepoint average,recommendationsby colleaguesor current
members,or paymentof dues,donotsatisfythiscriterionassuchrequirementsdonotconstituteoutstanding
achievements.Further,the overallprestigeof a givenassociationis not determinative;the issuehereis
membershiprequirementsratherthantheassociation'soverallreputation.
In its initial letterdatedMay28,2009,thepetitionerstatedthatthebeneficiary"isamemberof five important
nationallyrecognizedscientificsocietieswhichincludesmembershipin theprestigiousAmericanSocietyof
Nephrology,the leadingorganizationof kidneyscientistsanddoctors." Thebeneficiary'sresumelistshis
membershipin thissocietyaswellastheAmericanPhysicianScientistsAssociation,theInternationalSociety
for StemCell Research,theInternationalStemCell Forum,andtheAmericanAssociationof Physiciansof
IndianOrigin.Thepetitionersubmittedproofof thebeneficiary'smembershipin eachof theseassociations.
In the RFEissuedon August28, 2009,thedirectorrequestedevidenceof the minimumrequirementsand
criteriausedto applyfor membershipin theseassociationsandanyconditionsorrequirementsof membership
aswell asevidencethattheassociationsrely on nationalor internationalexpertswhomakedeterminations
regardingmembership.Thepetitioner'sresponsetotheRFEdidnotfurtheraddressthiscriterion.
Thedirectordeterminedthattheevidencesubmittedwasinsufficientto meetthis criterion,asthepetitioner
failed to provideany evidencethat the aforementionedassociationsare oneswhich requireoutstanding
achievementsof their membersasjudgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin thefield. The
AAO concurswith thisdeterminationandnotesthatthepetitionerhasnotcontestedthedirector'sfindingthat
thepetitionerdidnotsubmitevidenceto satisfythecriterionat8C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2).
2. Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the
alien, relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classification is sought, which shall
includethetitle, date,andauthorof suchpublishedmaterial,andanynecessarytranslation
In general,in orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthecriterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3),it mustbe
primarily"about"the beneficiaryand,asstatedin theregulations,be printedin professionalor majortrade
publicationsorothermajormedia.Toqualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor
internationaldistribution.An alienwouldnotearnacclaimatthenationallevelfroma localpublication.Some
newspapers,suchasthe , nominallyserveaparticularlocalitybutwouldqualifyasmajormedia
becauseof significantnationaldistribution,unlikesmalllocalcommunitypapers3
The beneficiaryco-authoreda scholarlyarticletitled "Omentumfacilitatesliver regeneration"which was
publishedin theMarch7,2009issueof the Thepetitionernotedthatthis
articledescribes"a novelmethodto regeneratetheliver afterit is damagedirreversiblyby diseasesuchas
3Evenwith nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmustbegivento theplacementofthearticle.For
example,anarticlethatappearsin the WashingtonPost,but in a sectionthatis distributedonly in
for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page8
cirrhosisor fibrosis,"andwasconsidered"a breakthrouh in treatingchronicliver diseases."Thepetitioner
indicatedthatthepublishedpaperwasannouncedby , a newsservicerunby Science,"themost
scholarlysciencejournal in the USA and the world." In addition,the petitionerindicatedthat the
announcementwasrelayedby 15othernationalandinternational'laypress'newsagenciesincludingthe
Thepetitionerprovidedevidenceof theannouncementof th on
thewebsitesof
publications.
Themediaarticlesreferto the work performedby '
" andnotethatthe studyperformed"is thefirst to demonstratethe uniqueroleof the
omentumin regeneratingthe liver."
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3),however,requiresthatthepublishedmaterialbe"aboutthe
alien"relatingto hisworkratherthansimplyaboutthebeneficiary'swork. Thearticlepublishedby
andrelayedby othermediasourcesdoesnotmentionthebeneñeiaryby name;rather,it citesto hispublished
article and credits It
cannotbecrediblyassertedthatthesearticlesare"about"thebeneficiary.
In light of theabove,whiletheevidencediscussedaboveis relevantasto thesignificanceof thebeneficiary's
scholarlyarticlesandoriginalcontributions,it doesnotmeettheplainlanguagerequirementsfor qualifying
evidenceunder8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3).Accordingly,the petitionerhasnot establishedthat the
beneficiarymeetsthiscriterion.
3. Evidenceofthealien'sparticipationonapanel,or individuallyasajudgeoftheworkofothers
in thesameor in analliedfield ofspecializationto thatfor whichclassificationissought
Thepetitionerprovidedevidencethatthebeneficiary,sinceAugust2008,hasbeenincludedin thedatabaseof
reviewersfor theAmericanJournalof Nephrologyandassuch,he is askedto reviewmanuscriptsfor the
journalthatfall within hisareaof expertise.Thepetitionerprovidedevidencethatthebeneficiaryhadbeen
invited to review threemanuscriptsasof the dateof filing.
ssociateEditor of the AmericanJournal ofNephrology, explainedthejournal's peer review
processasfollows:
Eacharticleis reviewedby oneof the editorsandtwo otherexpertsin the field who are
invitedbytheeditor. Theprocessof choosingtheexpertfor thearticleis takencollectively
bytheeditors.
[Thebeneficiary]hasbeenworkingon experimentalchronickidneyandliver diseasesand
theirtreatmentusingstemcells. Throughthisresearchhehasbecomeanexpertonanalytical
techniqueslike polymerasechain reaction(PCR),geneand primer sequencing,protein
estimation,tissuecultureandmechanismsof chronicdiseases.
Page9
The director determinedthat the evidencesubmitteddoes not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R.
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(4).Thedirectornotedthatwhile letterreferencedthebeneficiary'sstatusasan
expertin the field, it "fails to statethatthe beneficiarywaschosenasa reviewerbasedon his sustained
nationalor internationalacclaimin the field." The directorfurther observedthat "the peer review of
manuscriptsis a routineelementof the processby which articlesareselectedfor publicationin scholarly
journals,"andthat "occasionalparticipationin peerreviewof this kind doesnot automaticallydemonstrate
thatthebeneficiaryhasearnedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandisattheverytopof hisfield."
Uponreview,theevidenceof thebeneficiary'speerreviewrolefor theAmericanJournalofNephrologymeets
theplainlanguagerequirementsof theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(l)(3)(iii)(B)(4).Theweightto begivento
theevidencein termsof whetherthebeneficiary'speerreviewresponsibilitiesarecommensuratewith analien
who hasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimwill be addressedfurtherin the final merits
determination.
4. Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-relatedcontributions of
majorsignificancein thefield
To meetthecriterionat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5),thepetitionerhassubmittedseverallettersof support
discussingthe impactof his master'sthesisandhis researchasa researchfellow andjunior scientistat the
petitioner'sfacility,whereheworksunder eniorScientificOfficerandPrincipal
Scientist.
The petitionersubmitteda letter datedMa 6, 2009 fro
statesthathehasknownthebeneficiarysince2005,
whenheb n workasaresearchassistantin HIV nephropathyresearchwith
[The beneficiary's]work on the useof omentumto regeneratethe liver and kidney and to
treat chronic liver and kidney diseasesis innovative. Further he hascultured cells from the
regeneratingliverthathasthesamebeneficialpropertyastheomentum,whichcanallowone
to treatliver diseasesby injectionof cellsratherthanby surgeryinvolvingtheomentum.He
isanindustriousworkerandshowsgreatpotentialasanindependentscientist.
Thepetitioneralsosubmitteda letterfrom the etitioner's residentandexecutive
directorand
[Thebeneficiary]wasrecruitedasa ResearchFellowin 2006andthenasa JuniorScientist
soonafter his graduationfrom Mastersin Clinical Research. [The beneficiary]is an
extremelydedicatedandtalentedresearchscientist.Hehasbeenworkingwith
. . . onHIV nephropathyandin theuseof adultstemcellsfortreatingchronicliverand
kidneydiseases.
Page10
[Thebeneficiary]hasidentifieda new sourceof adult-derivedstemcells (from the liver
omentumfusiontissue)andis applyingthesestemcellsto treatdiseases.Thiskind of work
is of seminalimportancein medicineasit canresultin new methodsof treatment. [The
beneficiary's]presentationsand publicationsof his scientificwork at local andNational
meetingsarescholarlyandattractinginternationalinterest. In my opinionhe is a brilliant
researchercapableof becominganindependentandoriginalscientist.
alsoprovideda letterin supportof thepetition. otesthathis
onworkscloselywith andhisresearchteam.Withrespectto thebeneficiary,
I haveknown [the beneficiary]since2005whenhe startedto work part-timein Human
immunodeficiency(HIV) nephropathyresearchwith
, Hehassincecontinuedto beactivein research,first asa graduatestudent
(2006-2008)andthenas a JuniorScientistat [the petitionin or anization]. During his
graduatework he describedthe extentof HIV patientsin who haveunderlying
kidneydisease,animportantfindingconsideringthatbeforehis reporta largeproportionof
HIV patientswereunder-treatedfor kidneydisease.Followingtheworkhepresentedavery
well written thesison it. Additionally, he also presentedthe HIV nephropathywork
(Asymptomaticmicroalbuminuriain HIV positiveAfrican Americans)at the annualmeeting
of AmericanSocietyof Nephrologyin in 2008.
At thesametimeashebegantheclinicalresearchhealsobecome[sic] activelyinvolvedin
basic'bench'researchwith [The beneficiary's]work on a new methodto
regeneratethe liver (alsothe kidney)by fusingto the omentumbecamea groundbreaking
work that wasreportedasnewsby severalsciencenewsagenciesthis year. Recently,he
successfullyculturedcellsfromtheregeneratedliver tissuewhichcanbeusedin thefuture
for treatingchroniclivery diseasesasan'injectablesubstance'- a remarkableachievement
consideringthat currentlythereareno suchtherapiesavailablefor treatingchronicliver
diseases.
Finally,the petitioner'sinitial evidenceincludeda recommendationletterfrom
statesthatherresearchinterestsincludedevelopment
of methodsto treatleukemiapatientswith stemcellsfromtheomentum.Withrespectto thebeneficiary,
:ates:
I have known [the beneficiary]professionallyin my capacityas a consultantfor the
[petitioner).I haveworkedwith him in developingtheliver injury animalmodelfor testing
theuseof stemcellsin regeneratingtheliver. [Thebeneficiary]hasjust describeda novel
methodto regeneratethe liver usingthe omentumandisolated/characterized/culturedstem
Pagel1
cellsfromthe regeneratingliver tissueto seeif hecanregeneratethe liver by injectionof
thesecells.
Basedon his researchcapabilitiesand presentationsat local and national scientific
conferences,I believe he has a promisingfuture as a physician-scientist.I strongly
recommendUSCISto grant[thebeneficiary]theO-1visain lightof hisremarkableworkon
adultstemcellsforthecureof chronicliverandkidneydiseases.
In theRFEissuedonAugust28,2009,thedirectoracknowledgedthetestimonialssubmitted,butnotedthat
all of thelettersweresubmittedby individualswith whomthebeneficiaryhasworkedor collaborated.The
directornotedthatin orderto satisfythecriterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5),thepetitionershould
establishthatthebeneficiary'sworkhasbeenadoptedby otherresearchersorotherwiseinfluencedthefield of
medicine.
In responseto the RFE,the petitionerindicatedthat it soughtthe opinionof "outsidepeerswho in their
professionalcapacitieswerefamiliarwith theprogressof researchin [thebeneficiary's]fieldof interest(HIV,
kidneyandliver disease,stemcells)." Thepetitionersubmittedfive additionalletters,includingonefrom
AssociateProfessor,
statesthatsheis familiarwith thebeneficiary'sresearchbased
onhispresentationonstemcell researchattheAmericanFederationfor MedicalResearchannualmeetingin
2009. describesthebeneficiaryas"a pioneeringresearcherin thefield of stemcellsand
liver regeneration,"who "has made revolutionaryadvancementsin this highly complex field."
furtherstates:
Themostimportantprojectthat[thebeneficiary]hasdevelopedis theuseof omentumstem
cellsfor liver regeneration.It is unambiguousthat [thebeneficiary's]methodof activating
thestemcellsin theomentumandusingthosestemcellsto regeneratetheinjuredliver is a
giganticsteptowardsthat direction. This "oneof a kind" publishedresearchpaperhas
receivedmuchcriticalacclaimfromthemedicalcommunity.[Thebeneficiary]throughthis
pivotalandexcitingresearchwork hasintroducedanimportantandinnovativemethodthat
other researchershavebegunto adoptfor their organregenerationwork.
* * *
Along with the omentumstem cells and liver regenerationwork describedabove, [the
beneficiary]hasplayeda key role in the developmentof anotherstemcell project. This
involvesisolationof adultstemcellsfroma tissuedevelopedin responseto aninertforeign
bodyplacedundertheskin.Thistissueis calledgranulationtissueandcellstakenfromthis
tissuehaveshownby himto bestemcells.Hehasalreadyshownin publicationsthatthese
granulation-tissuestemcells when injectedvia a peripheralvein havethe potentialto
recognizeandadhereto injuredorganswithin the body. He was invitedto presenthis
researchfindingsat the nationalmeetingsof CentralSocietyof Clinical Researchandthe
AmericanSocietyof ClinicalInvestigation.Hisresearchin granulationtissuestemcellshas
receivedsignificantcommendationandgeneratedtremendousinterestwithin the stemcell
Page12
researchcommunity.This is becauseit is now it will bepossibleto readilyobtainmassive
numberof stemcellsfromthepatient'sownbodyusinghistechniqueanduseit asstemcell
therapyfor variousdiseases.
History,DevelopmentandPromise,"thefirst editionof whichwill bepublishedin thespringof 2010.With
respecttothebeneficiary, states:
Havingreviewedthe stemcell work of [the beneficiary]I believethat his researchhas
immensepotentials[sic] to influencethe currentapproachto treatchronickidneydisease.
ThereforeI haveinvitedhimto write a chapterin theabovedialysisbook. Thechapterthat
thebeneficiarywill penis titled 'Useof StemCellsfor KidneyRepair'in the'LookingInto
theFuture'sectionof thebook.It isthroughhisresearchthatI havejudged[thebeneficiary]
andhavedeemedhimto beoneofthefinestresearchersinthefield inthecountry.
[Thebeneficiary]hasusedtwo novelsourcesof adultstemcellsin thebody(theomentum
andthe skin granulationtissue)for the repairandregenerationof the kidney. Usingthe
omentum,[the beneficiary]hasshownthat whenhe activatesthe stemcells in the omentum
in thesettingof aninjuredkidney[,][t]heomentumcanrecognizethisinjuryby itselfandcan
fuseto the injuredkidney.Within two weeks,he seesa regeneratedkidneywherethe
omentumwasfused. His researchfindingsshowthatthis regenerationis mediatedby the
omentumstemcells andgrowthfactorswithin the omentum.This is a landmarkobservation
consideringthat until now it has beenthe dogmathat an adult kidney could neverbe
regenerated.Takingintoaccountthevalueof thisoutstandingfinding,[thebeneficiary]was
selectedto presenthisresearchdataattheAmericanSocietyof Nephrologyannualmeeting
heldonNovember4-9,2008in Philadelphia.
notesthatthebeneficiary's"originalresearchon theuseof adultstemcellsfromtheomentumand
fromthegranulationtissuehasusheredin newtreatmentstrategiesfor kidneyrepairandregeneration."
Clinical Professorof Neurosurgeryat the also
providedaletterin supportof thepetition. indicatesthathehas"pioneeredthedevelopmentof
thesurgicaltechniqueof freeingtheomentum. . . fromtheabdominalcavitywith its bloodsupplyintactand
layingit overinjuredareasto healspinalcord,braininjuriesandotherneurologicaldisorders."
statesthat he hasover200publicationsin the field of omentaltranspositionsurgery.With respectto the
beneficiary,hestates:
Althoughthe procedureof usingthe omentumfor spinalcord and brain disorderswas
pioneeredby meto acceleratehealing,[thebeneficiary]hasadvancedthis field further.By
pre-activatingtheomentumandcreatinga deliberateinjury in theorganfor theomentumto
fusewith theinjuredsite,hedemonstratedthattheomentumcouldregenerateorganslike the
liver, a ground-breakingfinding consideringthatthe contemporarythoughtwasthat adult
organsdonotregenerate.It is fromthisviewpoint,notpersonalacquaintance,thatI would
Page13
considerhiswork a 'breakthrough'in theuseof omentumfor medicaltherapy.Considering
the significanceof this work, the AmericanSocietyof Gastroenterologyselected[the
beneficiary]for an oral presentationof his liver regenerationresearchin the Digestive
diseasesweek2009AnnualMeeting- anoutstandinghonorfor a scientistconsideringthat
only5%of submittedworksarechosenfor oralpresentationsinthatMeeting.
To further advancethe liver regenerationwork and make the use of omentum more
convenient,[thebeneficiary]hasdevelopeda methodof culturingstemcellstakenfromthe
omentum-liverfusionsite.It will now bepossibleto usecellsfromthe to bring
aboutrepairandregenerationof the injuredliver (stemcell therapy).Thisnovelapproach
wasrecognizedby the stemcell researchcommunityand[thebeneficiary]wasselectedto
presentthisworkatseveralnationalconferences(AmericanSocietyof ClinicalInvestigation,
AmericanFederationof Medical Research-Midwestsection,CentralSocietyof Clinical
Research).
goesto discussthebeneficiary'soriginalresearchin useof omentumfor kidneyregeneration,
notingthat "otherpeersin thefield soonrealizedthe immediateclinicalapplicabilityof [thebeneficiary's]
procedures."Henotesthatthebeneficiarywasinvitedto describehisresearchfmdingsin themedicaljournal
TranslationalResearch,"whosemissionis to rapidlytranslatetechnologiesfrom 'bench-to-bedside."'
concludesby statingthatthebeneficiary's"contributionshaveresultedin newapproachesto treat
diseasespreviouslyconsideredincurable."
AssociateClinicalProfessorin theDepartmentof Medicineatthe
discussesthe beneficiary'sstudy of kidney diseasein African AmericanHIV patients,
publishedin the nnualMeetingof the
AmericanSocietyof Nephrology. statesthat "followingpublicationof his findings,doctorsnow
havea greaterunderstandingfor diagnosingearlykidneydiseasein this patientsub-populationsoit canbe
aggressivelytreated."He further indicatesthat "the subsequentadoptionof thesefindin s has led to
considerableimprovementin the outcomefor HIV patientsat risk of kidneydisease." further
discussesthebeneficiary'sworkin kidneyresearch:
[Thebeneficiary]hasshownthattheomentumhasthepropensityto recognizeandfusewith
aninjuredkidneyandtherebydeliveringstemcellsandgrowthfactorsto theinjuredkidney.
In complexexperimentsusinga modelof Heymannnephritishehasshownthatnewkidney
tissueis formedusing the stemcells from the omentum.. . .Thesefindingshavehad
tremendousimpactonthenephrologycommunitybecausenowit opensupthepossibilityof
stemcell treatmentfor kidneydiseases.[Thebeneficiary]is oneof thevery few stemcell
researchersin theUnitedStateswhohasperformedsuchcomplexandcutting-edgeresearch
in thefield.
Finally,the petitionersubmitteda letterfrom ChiefMedicalOfficer,
indicatesthatthebeneficiary,working
with conductedtwo separateclinical studiesto evaluatetheprevalenceof kidneydisease
amongthecenter'sHIV patientpopulation. states:
Page14
[Thebeneficiary]designedaclinicalstudyto measuretheprevalenceof microalbuminuriain
patientswith earlyHIV infectionswhohadnogrosssymptomsof kidneyfailure. Thisnovel
approachcouldidentifypatientsmostatriskfor renalfailure. {Thebeneficiary]wasselected
to presenthis researchatthe2008annualmeetingof theAmericanSocietyof Nephrology.
Healsopublishedhisfindingsin theprestigiousJournalof AmericanSocietyof Nephrology.
InaseparatestudyconductedattheCOREcenter,[thebeneficiary)
looked at the significanceof the age in the prevalenceof
microalbuminuriain HIV patients.In researchfindingspresentedat the 2008Infectious
DiseasesSocietyof AmericameetingM it wasclearthatearlykidneydiseasewasmore
commonin the older HIV populationas comparedto the youngerHIV patients. These
researchresultshaveledto the olderHIV populationbeingscreenedmorethoroughlyand
treatedmoreaggressivelyforkidneymalfunction.
In my opinion [the beneficiary's]contributionsin HIV-associatednephropathyhavebeen
seminalandhavethepotentialto improvethecareof HIV patientsandpreventrenalfailure
in thesepatients.
Thepetitionersubmittedevidencethatthebeneficiaryhaspresentedhisresearchonkidneydiseasein HIV-
positive patientsand omentum-inducedregenerationof the kidney and liver, at a total of six annual
conferencesbetweenOctober2008andApril 2009. In addition,the petitionersubmittedevidencethatthe
beneficiaryhadreceivedinvitationsto submitmanuscriptsfor potentialpublicationin TranslationalResearch
andAnnals of Gastroenterology
The directordeterminedthatthe petitionerhadsubmittedqualifyingevidenceof originalcontributionsof
majorsignificancein his field andwe concurwith that finding. TheAAO finds the letterssubmittedin
responseto the RFEparticularlypersuasive,asthey werewrittenby expertsin the field with whomthe
beneficiaryhasnotdirectlyworked.Wenotethat,whilewetypicallylookto citationhistoriesin determining
thesignificanceof abeneficiary'scontributionsto thefield,thebeneficiary'smostimportantresearchfindings
werepublishedmereweekspriorto thefiling of thepetition.As such,wef'mdthecontemporaneousmention
of histeam'sresearchfindingsin themainstreampressandtheopinionsof independentrecognizedexpertsto
be indicativeof the significantimpactof the researchin themedicalandscientificcommunity.Thus,the
petitionerhassubmittedqualifyingevidencepursuantto 8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5).
(4) Evidenceof the alien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield, in professionaljournals, or other
majormedia
Thebeneficiary'sresumelistsatotalof tenpublicationsandabstracts.Thepetitionerprovidedacopyof the
beneficiarys full-lengtharticle,"Activatedomentumfacilitatesliver regeneration,"co-authoredwith
two others,which was publishedin the
Page15
Thedirectordeterminedthattheevidencesubmittedwasinsufñeientto meetthis criterion,notingthat "the
publicationof scholarlyarticlesdoesnotnecessarilyindicatethesustainedacclaimrequisiteto classiñcation
asan alienof extraordinaryability." Thedirectorobservedthat the petitionerdid not providea citation
historyfor thebeneficiary'sarticlesor otherwiseestablishthatthebeneficiary"enjoysameasureof influence
thoughhispublications."
Upon review,the AAO finds that the evidencesubmittedsatisfiesthe plain languageof the regulatory
criterionat 8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6)basedonthebeneficiary'spublicationof onescholarlyarticleand
ñveabstracts.Theweightto begivento thebeneficiary'sbodyof publishedworkwill beconsideredbelow
in ourfinal meritsdetermination.
However,theAAO notesthatwe will excludefromconsiderationanyscholarlyarticlesthathaveyet to be
published.Threeof the beneficiary'slistedarticlesweresubmittedin manuscriptform. The beneficiary
indicatesthat one manuscriptwas submittedfor publicationand two were invited for publicationin
TranslationalResearch.In addition,oneof the beneficiary'sabstractswasannotated"to be publishedin
Journalof ClinicalInvestigationJune2009." Thepetitionermustestablisheligibilityatthetimeof filing the
nonimmigrantvisa petition. A visa petitionmaynot be approvedat a futuredateafterthe petitioneror
beneñeiarybecomeseligibleunderanewsetof facts.Matterof MichelinTireCorp.,17I&N Dec.248(Reg.
Comm.1978).
(5) Evidencethat thealien hasbeenemployedin a critical or essentialcapacityfor organizationsand
establishmentsthat havea distinguishedreputation
Thebeneficiary'sresumereflectsthathehasworkedwith thepetitioningmedicalinstitutein variouscapacities
sinceJanuary2005. Heinitiallyservedasa "volunteerresearchfellow"fromJanuary2005until August2006,
thenasaresearchfellowfromSeptember2006untilJune2008,andasajuniorscientistsinceAugust2008.
Thepetitioneraddressedthiscriterionin itsresponseto theRFE. In a letterdatedOctober7,2009,Dr. Singh
stated:
Researchat [thepetitioninginstitute] hasaninternational
reputationfor over one hundredyears. Researchersat this institutionwerepioneersin
establishingtheconceptof bloodbankingandwerethefirstintheworldtooperateabloodbank.
Recently,it alsobecamethefirst intheworldto establisha bankof frozenbloodsothatblood
canbestoredandmadeavailableforalongertime. Becauseof itsexcellentclinicalresearchthe
institutionwasthefirst to establisha traumacenter,andnot surprisingly,it remainsthebest
traumacenterin thecountry(thiswasthereasonthattheinstitutionwaschosenasthesettingfor
theTV show'ER') . . . .Thebeneficiaryis indeedin akeypositionastheonlyresearcherin this
institutionworkingintheemergingnewfieldof stemcellsforregeneratingorgans(suchasliver
andkidney).
furtheraddressedthe beneficiary'sspecificcontributionin publishedpaperswith multipleauthors,
notingthat,whileexperimentalmedicalresearchis ateameffort,"theexperimentershaveagreatercreditin the
Page16
workthanthetheoreticiansandassistants."Hedescribesthebeneficiaryas"themainexperimenteraswellasa
theoreticianinhiswork,"andstatesthathe"clearlydeservesalargepartofthecreditthataccruestotheteam."
Tofurtheraddressthiscriterion,thepetitionersubmittedasecondletter,datedOctober5,2009,fromM
whostates:
StemCellbiologyisanemergingsciencethathashugepromiseformankind.Thisscienceisstill
in thepreliminaryphaseof researchandit will requiretheenormousendeavorof top quality
researchersto reachits potential. Underthe leadershipof
petitioner]hasbeendevelopinga stemcell researchprogramsince2004for thetreatmentof
diabetes,kidneyandliverdiseases.I amveryhappyto statethat[thepetitioner]is amongthe
few medicalresearchcentersin thecountryhavinga focusedadultstemcell andregenerative
medicineresearchprogram.
Thebeneficiaryjoinedthegroupasa stemcellresearcherin 2006. Sincethenhehasprimarily
developedtheresearchprogramof liverregenerationusingstemcellsfromtheomentum.. . .His
researchis backedby severaloriginalpublications,presentationsat nationalandinternational
scientificmeetings.
[The beneficiary)is the leadresearcherresponsiblefor ongoingexperimentsof usingthe
omentumstemcellsto treatvarioustypesof chronicliver diseaseincludingalcoholicliver
disease,cirrhosis.Heisalsoacrucialmemberof thesmallscientificteamworkingtowardsthe
treatmentof chronickidneydisease.Boththeliverandkidneyarevital researchareasbecause
ofthehighdeathratesassociatedwithchronicliverandkidneydiseases.lt isthereforeessential
for[thebeneficiary]tocontinuethislineofresearchat[thepetitioninginstitution].
Enthatregard,[thepetitioner]regards[thebeneficiary's]positionasaMedicalScientistcriticalto
achievingthegoaloff'mdingastemcellcureforbothchronicliverandchronickidneydiseases.
Thedirectorconcluded,withoutdiscussion,thatthepetitionersubmittedevidencethatmeetsthiscriterion.The
AAO disagreesandwill withdrawthedirector'sfinding. As notedabove,theAAO conductsappellatereview
onadenovobasis.SeeSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d143,145(3dCir.2004)
Wehavealreadyacknowledgedthe beneficiary'scontributionsto his field above. At issuefor this criterion,
accordingto theplainlanguageof 8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7)arethepositionsthebeneficiarywasselected
to All and the reputationof the organizationor establishmentthat selectedhim. We acknowledgethe
distinguishedreputationofthepetitioningmedicalinstitution.
However,whilethebeneficiaryhasclearlybeenableto provideexpertisein a medicalresearchareain which
theremaybeapaucityof qualifiedresearchers,thereisnoevidencethathisrolesasresearchfellowandjunior
scientisthavebeenessentialor criticalfor thepetitioner'smedicalinstituteasawhole.A researchfellowshipis
designedto provideresearchtrainingfor a futureprofessionalcareerin thefield of endeavor.Thepetitioner's
evidencedoesnotdemonstratehowthebeneficiary'sresearchfellowshiproledifferentiatedhim fromtheother
fellowsattheinstitutionletalonefromitstenuredfaculty. Thedocumentationsubmittedbythepetitionerdoes
Page17
notestablishthatthebeneficiarywasresponsiblefor thepetitioner'ssuccessor standingto a degreeconsistent
withthemeaningof "essentialorcriticalcapacity."
Thebeneficiaryis currentlyajunior scientistwithin the petitionin institution. Withoutan organizational
chartor otherevidencedocumentinghow,asajunior memberof researchteam,thebeneficiary
performsa leadingor criticalroleor howjunior scientistsfit within thegeneralhierarchyof thepetitioning
institution,we cannotconcludethat the petitionerhas submittedqualifying evidenceunder 8 C.F.R.
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7).Thefact that the beneficiarymayhaveservedasthe mainexperimenteror lead
researcherin one or more experimentsthat resultedin a co-authoredpublication doesnot elevatehis position
withintheinstitutionabovethatof ajunior scientistforthepurposesof thiscriterion.
Whilecounsel,thepetitioner,andtheexperttestimonialshaveattestedto boththecriticalrolethebeneficiaryfills
withinthepetitioner'sinstitutiondueto ascarcityof researcherswithexpertisein adultstemcellresearch,andthe
criticalnatureof thebeneficiary'sresearchfroma nationalinterestandmedicaladvancementstandpoint,these
considerationsgobeyondthescopeof thisevidentiarycriterion,whichmustfocusonthebeneficiaryandthe
relativeimportanceofhispositionswithinthescopeoftheorganizationsthathaveemployedhim.
In lightof theabove,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedevidencethatmeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof 8
C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7).
(6) Summary
Thepetitionerhassubmittedevidencethatmeetstheplainlanguageof thespecificregulationsandtherefore
qualifiesunderthreeof the evidentiarycriteriathat mustbe satisfiedto establishthe minimumeligibility
requirementsnecessaryto qualifyasanalienof extraordinaryability. See8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4),(5)
and(6).A finalmeritsdeterminationthatconsidersall oftheevidencefollows.
B. Final MeritsDetermination
In accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, we must nextconducta final meritsdeterminationthat considersall of
the evidencein thecontextof whetheror notthe petitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) thatthe beneficiaryhas
achieveda levelof expertiseindicatingthatheisoneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisentotheverytopof
thefieldof endeavorpursuantto 8C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii);and(2)thatthebeneficiaryhassustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandthathis achievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise,pursuantto 8
C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii).SeeKazarian,2010WL 725317at*3.
As statedabove,therecordreflectsthatthebeneficiaryhad,asof thedateof filing, revieweda totalof three
articlesfor TheAmericanJournalofNephrology,thussatisfyingtheplainlanguageof theevidentiarycriterionat
8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4).Theextentandnatureof thepetitioner'sjudgingexperience,however,is a
relevantconsiderationasto whethertheevidenceis indicativeof the beneficiary'snationalor international
acclaim.SeeKazarian,2010WL 725317at*5.
Wecannotignorethatscientificjournalsarepeerreviewedandrely onmanyscientiststo reviewsubmitted
articles.Normallyajournal'seditorialstaffwill enlisttheassistanceof numerousprofessionalsin thefield
Page18
who agreeto reviewsubmittedpapers.It is commonfor a publicationto askseveralreviewersto reviewa
manuscriptandto offer comments.The publication'seditorialstaff mayacceptor rejectany reviewer's
commentsin determiningwhetherto publishorrejectsubmittedpapers. Thus,peerreviewis routinein the
field; not everypeerreviewerenjoysinternationalrecognition.Withoutevidencethat setsthe beneficiary
apartfromothersin his field, suchasevidencethathehasreviewedmanuscriptsfor ajournalthatcreditsa
small,elitegroupof referees,receivedindependentrequestsfroma substantialnumberofjournals,or served
in aneditorialpositionfor a distinguishedjournal,wecannotconcludethatthebeneficiary'slimitedjudging
experienceis indicativeof orconsistentwith nationalor internationalrecognition.
In reachingthisconclusion,weacknowledgethepetitioner'sspecificobjectionto thedirector'sdetermination
that "peerreviewis anobligationof scientistsin thefield." Thepetitionersubmitsa letterdatedMarch3,
2010from whostatesthat"peer-
reviewworkisanimportantprocessin theresearchenterpriseandsurelyonlyasmallpercentageof scientists
attainthestatusof peer-reviewersin theircareers." reiteratesthatheselectedthebeneficiaryasa
peerreviewerbecauseheisaperson"of distinction"in hisfield.
It shouldbeemphasizedthatthe AAO doesnot question reasonsfor personallyselectingthe
beneficiaryasa peerreviewerfor the Thebeneficiaryis clearlya very
talentedscientistandresearcherandis morethanqualifiedto performsuchduties.However,hehasservedas
a peerreviewerfor onlythreearticlesduringthecourseof hiscareer,andhasreviewedarticlesfor a single
journal.Whileit maybetruethatnoteveryscientisthasanopportunityto serveasa peerreviewer,theAAO
findsinsufficientsupportfor a findingthatanypeerreviewexperienceplacesa beneficiaryamongthesmall
percentageof scientistsattheverytop of thefield. Thebeneficiary'sexperiencemaydistinguishhim from
otherjunior scientistswho havenot yet beeninvitedto reviewthe work of their peers. However,the
petitionermustdistinguishthe beneficiaryfrom all scientistsin his field, includingthosewho regularly
reviewarticlesfor multiplescholarlyjournalsandsitoneditorialboards.
Weacknowledgethatthepetitionerhaspublishedseveralarticlesandabstractsasa biomedicalresearcherin
2008and2009. TheDepartmentof Labor'sOccupationalOutlookHandbook,2010-2011Edition(accessedat
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htmon October 1, 2010 and incorporated into the record of proceeding),
providesinformationaboutthenatureof employmentasa biologicalscientistandtherequirementsfor sucha
position. Thehandbookexpresslystatesthata "solidrecordof publishedresearchis essentialin obtaininga
permanentpositioninvolvingbasicresearch."Thisinformationrevealsthatpublishedresearchdoesnotsetan
individualapartfromotherbiologicalscientistsemployedinthatresearcher'sfield.
Thatsaid,weacknowledgethepositiveresponseinthefieldtothepetitioner'sresearcharticlesthathecoauthored
with his supervisor andothermembersof the petitioner'sresearchteam,andthe responseto his
conferencepresentations.Wearenotpersuaded,however,thathiscontributions,presentedin hiswell-received
publicationsandpresentations,risetothelevelof sustainednationalor internationalacclaiminthecontextof his
field. All of thebeneficiary'snotableworkwaspublishedor presentedin theyearprecedingthefiling of the
petition,withthemostsignificantworkpublishedonlyweeksbeforethepetitionwasfiled,andnocitationhistory
hasbeenprovided. Whilethereis evidenceof significantinterestin the beneficiary'swork in the form of
testimonialevidencefromexpertsin thescientificandmedicalcommunities,it wouldbeprematureto conclude
thatthebeneficiary,asofJune2009,waswidelyrecognizedasoneofthetopscientistsin hisfield.
Page19
Ultimately,theevidencein theaggregatedoesnotdistinguishthebeneficiaryasoneof thesmallpercentagewho
hasrisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.Thebeneficiaryis ajunior scientistwhoreliesprimarilyon
threemanuscriptreviewsin thewidespreadpeer-reviewprocess,his limitedpublicationrecord,thepraiseof
expertsin hisfield,andtheaffirmationof his colleaguesthatheis importantto thelaboratorywherehenow
worksinaninherentlysubordinateposition.
As notedby thepetitioner,manyof thebeneficiary'sreferences'credentialsareimpressive.Forexample, .
hasheldthe positionof He is an
AssociateEditorof Kidney,a memberof theeditorialboardof the andhas
servedas a refereefor sevenscientificjournals. , is Chief of Nephrologyat the
He is editor-in-chiefof Kidney:A CurrentSurveyof WorldLiterature,
associateeditorof theAmericanJournalof Nephrology,and,accordingto his resume,haspublished249
peer-reviewedarticles.
is currentlythe
ExecutiveDirectorandPresidentof th etitioner'sinstitution,a Professorof Medicineatthe
ccordi to hisresume,heis anelectedfellow
of th
of Science.Heisaregularmedicalcorrespondentforthe heNorthAmericaneditor
for the , co-editorof
a memberof the editorialboardof . andco-editorof
3'"Edition.Hisresumelists142scientificpublicationsandnumerousbooksandbookchapters.
sPrincipalScientistwith thepetitioningorganization.Heservesontheeditorialboardof
the andisaregularreviewerfor
sevenscientificjournals,in additionto reviewinggrantsfor the
esumelists84peer-reviewedpublications.
is As notedabove,hehasbeena
memberof theeditorialboardsof sevenscientificandmedicalpublications.Accordingto hisresume,hehas
receivedawardsfromtheNationalKidneyFoundation,AmericanKidneyFundandAmericanAssociationof
KidneyPatients. wasalsothefoundingpresidentof theInternationalSocietyfor Hemodialysis,andhas
heldexecutivecommitteemembershipandchairpositionsfortheNationalKidneyFoundation,AmericanSociety
ofNephrologyandotherorganizations.Hehaspublished251articlesandeditedseveralbooks.
Whilethepetitionerneednotdemonstratethatthereisnoonemoreaccomplishedthanthebeneficiaryin orderto
establishthatheis qualifiedfor theclassificationsought,it appearsthattheverytopof thebeneficiary'sfieldof
endeavoriswellabovethelevelhehasattained.In contrasttothesereferences,thepetitionerhasnotestablished
thatthebeneficiary'sachievementsatthetimeof filingthepetitionwerecommensuratewithsustainednationalor
internationalacclaiminthebiomedicalresearchfield,orthatheisamongthesmallpercentageattheverytopof
thefield of endeavor.
Page20
HL Conclusion
Reviewof therecorddoesnotestablishthatthebeneficiaryhasdistinguishedhimselfto suchanextentthathe
maybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimor to bewithinthesmallpercentage
at the very top of his field. The evidenceis not persuasivethat the beneficiary'sachievementssethim
significantlyabovealmostall othersin hisfield ata nationalor internationallevel. Therefore,thepetitioner
has not establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act andthe petition may not be
approved.
Nothingin thedecisionof theAAO shouldbeseenasanattemptto minimizetheaccomplishmentsof the
beneficiary,particularlysincetheyhavebeenachievedsoearlyin hiscareer,or asacommentonthecriteria
usedby thepetitionerto selectpersonsfor positions.Indeed,asmanyof thetestimoniallettersmakeclear,
the beneficiaryshowsgreatpromiseandpotentialin thefield of stemcell research,andwasappropriately
describedby thepetitionerasa "buddingexpert"in his field. Thisdenialdoesnot precludethepetitioner
fromfiling a newimmigrantor nonimmigrantvisapetition,supportedby therequiredevidence.As always,
theburdenremainswiththepetitionertoestablisheligibilityfor therequestedvisaclassification.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thatburdenhasnotbeenmet.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.