dismissed O-1A Case: Medical Research

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
deleted "3Citi'°""h1P""d""*i3'"ti°"3°'*i'°"identifyingdata to ojjeeojaaminixîrativesppeais,us2o9o
preVent clearly UnWarranteÒ Wahington.DC 20529-2090
invasionof personalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
andImmigration
puCCOPY v.s services
FILE 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
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.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 theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcasebyñling aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a feeof $585. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatany motionmustbe filed
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,CaliforniaServiceCenter,deniedthenonimmigrantvisapetition.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.TheAAOwill dismisstheappeal.
The petitioner,a non-profit medicalresearchorganization,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 satisfythecriteriasetforth at 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 criteriathat the directordeterminedhavealreadybeenmet.Thepetitionersubmitsa brief and
additionalevidencein supportof theappeal.
For the reasonsdiscussedbelow,we upholdthe director'sultimateconclusionthat the petitionerhasnot
establishedthebeneficiary'seligibilityfor theexclusiveclassificationsought.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
explainedinourfinalmeritsdetermination,'however,muchof theevidencethattechnicallyqualifiesundersome
of thosecriteriareflectsroutinedutiesor 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,while we acknowledgethe caliberof thereferenceswho
supportthe petition,their accomplishments,editorialpositions,andpublicationrecordsonly reinforceour
conclusionthatthetopofthebeneficiary'sfieldisfarhigherthanthelevelhehasachieved.
I. 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
UnitedStatesto continuework intheareaof extraordinaryability . . .
1Thelegalauthorityforthistwo-stepanalysiswill bediscussedatlengthbelow.
Page5
In determiningthebeneficiary'seligibilityunderthesecriteria,theAAOwill followatwo-partapproachsetforth
inadecisionissuedbytheU.S.Courtof AppealsfortheNinthCircuit.Kazarianv. USCIS,2010WL 725317(9th
Cir. March4, 2010). Similarto theregulationsgoverningthis 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(astheAAOconcluded)."Id
at *6 (citingto 8 C,F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"finalmeritsdetermination"asthecorollary
tothisprocedure:
If a petitionerhassubmittedthe requisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhethertheevidence
demonstratesbotha "level of expertiseindicatingthat the individualis oneof that small
percentagewhohaverisento theverytopof the[ir]field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2),
and "that the alien has sustainednationalor internationalacclaimand that his or her
achievementshavebeenrecognizedinthefieldof expertise."8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Onlyaliens
whoseachievementshavegarnered"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"areeligiblefor
an"extraordinaryability"visa.8U,S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id.at*3.
Thus,Kazariansetsforthatwo-partapproachwheretheevidenceisfirstcountedandthen,if qualifyingunderat
leastthreecriteria,consideredin the contextof a final meritsdetermination.Thefinal meritsdetermination
analyzeswhethertheevidenceis consistentwiththestatutoryrequirementof "extensivedocumentation"andthe
regulatorydefinitionof "extraordinaryability"as"oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof
thefieldof endeavor."
Althoughthe director'sdecisionpre-datestheKazariandecision,AAO findstheKazariancourt'stwo part
approachto be appropriatefor evaluatingtheregulatorycriteriasetforthfor O-1 nonimmigrantpetitionsfor
aliensof extraordinaryabilityat8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii),(iv) and(v). Therefore,in reviewingServiceCenter
decisions,the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintainsde novo review, the AAO
will conducta newanalysisif thedirectorreachedhisorherconclusionbyusingaone-stepanalysisratherthan
thetwo-stepanalysisdictatedby theKazariancourt.SeeSoltanev. DOJ, 381F.3d 143,145(3d Cir. 2004)
(notingthattheAAO reviewsappealsonadenovobasis).
Inthepresentmatter,thepetitionerhassubmittedevidencepertainingto severaloftheevidentiarycriteria,buthas
notestablishedthatthebeneficiaryhasrisentotheverytopof hisfieldorthathehasachievedsustainednational
or internationalacclaim.8C.F.R.§§214.2(o)(3)(ii)and(iii).
IL TheBeneficiary'sEligibility undertheEvidentiaryCriteria
Page6
Thebeneficiaryin thismatteris anativeandcitizenof India. Thebeneficiarycompletedhismedicaltrainino
a Jniversityin India in 2004andreceiveda Masterof Sciencein ClinicalResearchfrom
Universityin Chicago,Illinois in 2008.Thepetitionerseeksclassificationof thebeneficiaryasanalienwith
extraordinaryability in thesciences.Thepetitionerindicatesthatthebeneficiaryis a "buddingexpert"in the
field of adultstemcell research,andindicatesthat,asajunior scientist,hewill beresponsiblefor developing
andtestingaprotocoltotreatchronicliverdiseasesusinginjectionof adultstemcells.
Thepetitionerfiled the FormI-129,Petitionfor a NonimmigrantWorker,on June1,2009. Thepetitioner
initially submittedajob offerfor thebeneficiary,thebeneficiary'srésumé,thebenenciary'spublicationsand
conferencepresentations,evidenceof the beneficiary'speerreviewactivities,evidenceof the beneficiary's
membershipin professionalassociations,andtestimonialletters.In responseto aRequestfor Evidence("RFE")
datedAugust28, 2009,the petitionersubmittedsupplementaltestimonialevidenceand otherbackground
informationregardingthesignificanceof thebeneficiary'sresearch,publications,conferencepresentationsand
peerreviewresponsibilities.
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).
Aftercarefulreviewof therecord,it mustbeconcludedthatthepetitionerhasfailedto establishthebeneficiary's
eligibility. Theextraordinaryabilityprovisionsofthisvisaclassificationareintendedto 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),thenit will meetits
burdenof proofwith respectto thebeneficiary'seligibility for 0-1 classification.Theregulationsciteto the
Nobel Prize as an exampleof a major award.Id. There is no evidencethat the beneficiary has receivedany
majorawardsin hisfield,andthepetitionerdoesnotclaimthatthebeneficiarymeetsthiscriterion.
As thereis no evidencethat the beneficiaryhasreceiveda major,internationallyrecognizedaward,the
petitionermustestablishthe beneficiary'seligibility underat leastthreeof the eightcriteriasetforth at 8
C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)?
1. Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefieldfor whichclassificationis
sought,which require outstandingachievementsof their members,asjudged by recognized
nationalor internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesorfields;
2Thepetitionerhasnot claimedto meetor submittedevidencerelatingto thecriterianot discussedin this
decision.
Page7
In orderto demonstratethatmembershipin anassociationmeetsthiscriterion,apetitionermustshowthatthe
associationrequiresoutstandingachievementas an essentialcondition for admissionto membership.
Membershiprequirementsbasedon employmentor activity in a given field, minimumeducationor
experience,standardizedtest scores,gradepoint average,recommendationsby colleaguesor current
members,or paymentof dues,do not satisfy this criterion assuchrequirementsdo not constituteoutstanding
achievements.Further,the overallprestigeof a givenassociationis not determinative;the issuehereis
membershiprequirementsratherthanthe association'soverall reputation.
In its initial letterdatedMay28,2009,thepetitionerstatedthatthebeneficiary"isamemberof five important
nationallyrecognizedscientificsocietieswhichincludesmembershipin theprestigiousAmericanSocietyof
Nephrology,the leadingorganizationof kidneyscientistsanddoctors." Thebeneficiary'sresumelists his
membershipin thissocietyaswell astheAmericanPhysicianScientistsAssociation,theInternationalSociety
for StemCell Research,the InternationalStemCell Forum,andtheAmericanAssociationof Physiciansof
IndianOrigin.Thepetitionersubmittedproofof thebeneficiary'smembershipin eachof theseassociations.
In the RFEissuedon August28, 2009,the directorrequestedevidenceof the minimumrequirementsand
criteriausedto applyfor membershipin theseassociationsandanyconditionsorrequirementsof membership
as well as evidencethat the associationsrely on national or international expertswho make determinations
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. Publishedmaterial in professionalor major tradepublications or major mediaabout the
alien, relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classification is sought, which shall
include the title, date,and author of suchpublished material, and any necessarytranslation
In general,in orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthecriterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3),it mustbe
primarily"about"the beneficiaryand,as statedin the regulations,beprintedin professionalor majortrade
publicationsorothermajormedia.Toqualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor
internationaldistribution.An alienwouldnotearnacclaimatthenationallevelfroma localpublication.Some
newspapers,suchastheNewYorkTimes,nominallyserveaparticularlocalitybutwouldqualifyasmajormedia
becauseof significantnationaldistribution,unlikesmalllocalcommunitypapers3
The beneficiaryco-authoreda scholarlyarticletitled whichwas
publishedin theMarch issueof theWorldJournalofGastroenterology.Thepetitionernotedthatthis
articledescribes"a novelmethodto regeneratetheliver afterit is damagedirreversiblyby diseasesuchas
3Evenwith nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmustbegivento theplacementof thearticle. For
example, an article that appearsin the WashingtonPost, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax
County, Virginia, for instance,cannotserveto spreadan individual's reputationoutsideof that county.
Page8
cirrhosisor fibrosis,"andwasconsidered"abreakthroughin treatingchronicliver diseases."Thepetitioner
indicatedthatthepublishedpaperwasannouncedby a newsservicerunbyScience,"themost
scholarlysciencejournal in the USA and the world." In addition,the petitionerindicatedthat the
announcementwasrelayedby 15othernationalandinternational'laypress'newsagenciesincludingthe Wall
StreetJournalandUSAToday.Thepetitionerprovidedevidenceof theannouncementof theWJGarticleon
the websitesof ScientificAmerican,ScienceWeek,USAToday,TheWallStreetJournalandotheron-line
publications.
Themediaarticlesreferto the work performedby nd his colleaguesfrom the CookCounty
Hospitalin Chicago,"andnotethatthestudyperformed"is thefirst to demonstratetheuniquerole of the
omentumin regeneratingtheliver."
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3),however,requiresthatthepublishedmaterialbe"aboutthe
alien"relatingto hisworkratherthansimplyaboutthebeneficiary'swork. Thearticlepublishedby
andrelayedby othermediasourcesdoesnotmentionthebeneficiaryby name;rather,it citesto hispublished
articleandcredits ndhis colleagues,"of whichthebeneficiarywasone,for thenotablework. 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. Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation on a panel, or individually as ajudge of thework of others
in thesameor in analliedf ieldofspecializationto thatfor whichclassificationissought
Thepetitionerprovidedevidencethatthebeneficiary,sinceAugust2008,hasbeenincludedin thedatabaseof
reviewersfor theAmericanJournalof Nephrologyandassuch,he is askedto reviewmanuscriptsfor the
journalthatfall within hisareaof expertise.Thepetitionerprovidedevidencethatthebeneficiaryhadbeen
invitedto reviewthreemanuscriptsasof thedateof filing.
Dr. AssociateEditorof theAmericanJournalofNephrology,explainedthejournal'speerreview
processasfollows:
Eacharticleis reviewedby oneof the editorsandtwo otherexpertsin the field who are
invitedby theeditor. Theprocessof choosingtheexpertfor thearticleis takencollectively
bytheeditors.
[Thebeneficiary]hasbeenworkingon experimentalchronickidneyandliver diseasesand
theirtreatmentusingstemcells. Throughthisresearchhehasbecomeanexpertonanalytical
techniqueslike polymerasechain reaction(PCR),geneand primer sequencing,protein
estimation,tissuecultureandmechanismsof chronicdiseases.
Page11
cellsfromtheregeneratingliver 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 light of hisremarkableworkon
adultstemcellsforthecureof chronicliverandkidneydiseases.
In theRFEissuedonAugust28,2009,thedirectoracknowledgedthetestimonialssubmitted,butnotedthat
all of the lettersweresubmittedby individualswith whomthebeneficiaryhasworkedor collaborated.The
directornotedthatin orderto satisfythecriterionat 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5),thepetitionershould
establishthatthebeneficiary'sworkhasbeenadoptedbyotherresearchersorotherwiseinfluencedthefieldof
medicine.
In responseto the RFE,the petitionerindicatedthat it soughtthe opinionof "outsidepeerswho in their
professionalcapacitieswerefamiliarwith theprogressof researchin [thebeneficiary's]field of interest(HIV,
kidneyandliver disease,stemcells)." Thepetitionersubmittedfive additionalletters,includingonefromDr.
MD, AssociateProfessor,Divisionof Cardiology,at the NorthwesternUniversity
schoolof Medicine. ;tatesthatsheis familiarwiththebeneficiary'sresearchbased
onhispresentationonstemcellresearchattheAmericanFederationfor MedicalResearchannualmeetingin
2009. Dr. describesthebeneficiaryas"a pioneeringresearcherin thefield of stemcellsand
liver regeneration,"who "has made revolutionaryadvancementsin this highly complex field." Dr.
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
receivedmuchcritical acclaimfromthemedicalcommunity.[Thebeneficiary]throughthis
pivotalandexcitingresearchwork hasintroducedanimportantandinnovativemethodthat
otherresearchershavebegunto adoptfor theirorganregenerationwork.
* * *
Along with the omentumstemcells and liver regenerationwork describedabove,[the
beneficiary]hasplayeda key role in the developmentof anotherstemcell project. This
involvesisolationof adultstemcellsfromatissuedevelopedin responseto aninertforeign
bodyplacedundertheskin.Thistissueis calledgranulationtissueandcellstakenfromthis
tissuehaveshownby him to bestemcells.He hasalreadyshownin 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
receivedsignificant commendationand generatedtremendousinterestwithin the stemcell
Page12
researchcommunity.This is becauseit is nowit will be possibleto readilyobtainmassive
numberof stemcellsfromthepatient'sownbodyusinghistechniqueanduseit asstemcell
therapyfor variousdiseases.
The petitioneralso submitteda letterfrom Dr. ProfessorEmeritusof Medicineat
Universi choolof Medicine. ndicatesthat he is the editorof a new book "Dialysis-
History,DevelopmentandPromise,"thefirst editionof whichwill bepublishedin thespringof 2010.With
respecttothebeneficiary ;tates:
Havingreviewedthe stemcell work of [the beneficiary]I believethat his researchhas
immensepotentials[sic] to influencethe currentapproachto treatchronickidneydisease.
ThereforeI haveinvitedhimto write achapterin theabovedialysisbook. Thechapterthat
thebeneficiarywill penis titled 'Useof StemCellsfor KidneyRepair'in the'LookingInto
theFuture'sectionof thebook.It is throughhis researchthatI havejudged[thebeneficiary]
andhavedeemedhimto beoneofthefinestresearchersin thefield in thecountry.
[Thebeneficiary]hasusedtwo novelsourcesof adultstemcellsin thebody(theomentum
andthe skin granulationtissue)for the repairandregenerationof the kidney. Usingthe
omentum,[thebeneficiary]hasshownthatwhenheactivatesthestemcellsin theomentum
in thesettingof aninjuredkidney[,][t]heomentumcanrecognizethisinjuryby itselfandcan
fuseto the injuredkidney. Within two weeks,he seesa regeneratedkidney wherethe
omentumwasfused. His researchfindingsshowthatthis regenerationis mediatedby the
omentumstemcellsandgrowthfactorswithintheomentum.Thisis a landmarkobservation
consideringthat until now it has beenthe dogmathat an adult kidney could neverbe
regenerated.Takingintoaccountthevalueof thisoutstandingfinding,[thebeneficiary]was
selectedto presenthis researchdataattheAmericanSocietyof Nephrologyannualmeeting
heldonNovember4-9,2008in Philadelphia.
notesthatthebeneficiary's"originalresearchontheuseof adultstemcellsfromthe omentumand
from the granulationtissuehasusheredin newtreatmentstrategiesfor kidney repair andregeneration."
Dr. Clinical Professorof also
providedaletterin supportof thepetition.Dr. indicatesthathehas"pioneeredthedevelopmentof
thesurgicaltechniqueof freeingtheomentum. . . fromtheabdominalcavitywith its bloodsupplr intactand
layingit overinjuredareasto healspinalcord,braininjuriesandotherneurologicaldisorders."Dr
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 makethe use of omentummore
convenient,[thebeneficiary]hasdevelopeda methodof culturingstemcellstakenfromthe
omentum-liverfusionsite.It will nowbepossibleto usecellsfrom the Petridishto bring
aboutrepairandregenerationof the injuredliver (stemcell therapy). Thisnovelapproach
wasrecognizedby the stemcell researchcommunityand[thebeneficiary]wasselectedto
presentthisworkatseveralnationalconferences(AmericanSocietyof ClinicalInvestigation,
AmericanFederationof Medical Research-Midwestsection,CentralSocietyof Clinical
Research).
Dr. goesto discussthebeneficiary'soriginalresearchin useof omentumfor kidneyregeneration,
notingthat "otherpeersin the field soonrealizedthe immediateclinicalapplicabilityof [thebeneficiary's]
procedures."Henotesthatthebeneficiarywasinvitedto describehisresearchfindingsin themedicaljournal
TranslationalResearch,"whosemissionis to rapidlytranslatetechnologiesfrom 'bench-to-bedside.'"Dr.
oncludesby statingthatthebeneficiary's"contributionshaveresultedin newapproachesto treat
diseasespreviously consideredincurable."
Dr. ssociateClinicalProfessorin theDepartmentof MedicineattheUniversityoM,
discussesthe beneficiary'sstudyof kidney diseasein African AmericanHIV patients,
publishedin theJournalofsimericanSocietyofNephrologyandpresentedatthe2008AnnualMeetingof the
AmericanSocietyof Nephrology.DrMtates that "following publicationof his findings,doctorsnow
havea greaterunderstandingfor diagnosingearlykidneydiseasein this patientsub-populationsoit canbe
aggressivelytreated."He further indicatesthat "the subsequentadoptionof thesefindings has led to
considerableimprovementin the outcomefor HIV patientsat risk of kidneydisease."Dr 1rther
discussesthe beneficiary'swork in kidney research:
[Thebeneficiary]hasshownthattheomentumhasthepropensityto recognizeandfusewith
aninjuredkidneyandtherebydeliveringstemcellsandgrowthfactorsto theinjuredkidney.
In complexexperimentsusinga modelof Heymannnephritishe hasshownthatnew kidney
tissueis formedusingthe stemcells from the omentum.. . .Thesefindingshavehad
tremendousimpact on the nephrology community becausenow it opensup the possibility of
stemcell treatmentfor kidneydiseases.[Thebeneficiary]is oneof theveryfew stemcell
researchersin theUnitedStateswhohasperformedsuchcomplexandcutting-edgeresearch
inthefield.
Finally,the petitionersubmitteda letterfrom Chief MedicalOfficer,
ealth and Hospitals System.Dr. indicatesthat the beneficiary, working
with Dr nductedtwo separateclinicalstudiesto evaluatetheprevalenceof kidneydisease
amongthecenter'sHIV patientpopulation.Dr states:
Page14
[Thebeneficiary]designedaclinicalstudyto measuretheprevalenceof microalbuminuriain
patientswith earlyHIV infectionswhohadnogrosssymptomsof kidneyfailure. Thisnovel
approachcouldidentifypatientsmostatriskfor renalfailure. [Thebeneficiary]wasselected
to presenthis researchat the2008annualmeetingof theAmericanSocietyof Nephrology.
HealsopublishedhisfindingsintheprestigiousJournalof AmericanSocietyofNephrology.
In aseparatestu conductedattheCOREcenter,[thebeneficiary](withDr.
and Dr. looked at the significanceof the age in the prevalenceof
microalbuminuriain HIV patients.In researchfindingspresentedat the 2008Infectious
DiseasesSocietyof Americameeting(IDSA),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
conferencesbetweenOctobeMnd April In addition,thepetitionersubmittedevidencethatthe
beneficiaryhadreceivedinvitationsto submitmanuscriptsfor potentialpublicationin TranslationalResearch
andAnnalsofGastroenterology.
Thedirectordeterminedthat the petitionerhadsubmittedqualifyingevidenceof originalcontributionsof
majorsignificancein his field andwe concurwith that finding. TheAAO finds the letterssubmittedin
responseto the RFEparticularlypersuasive,astheywerewritten by expertsin the field with whomthe
beneficiaryhasnotdirectlyworked.Wenotethat,whilewetypicallylookto citationhistoriesin determining
thesignificanceof a beneficiary'scontributionstothefield,thebeneficiary'smostimportantresearchfindings
werepublishedmereweekspriorto thefiling of thepetition.As such,wefind thecontemporaneousmention
of histeam'sresearchfindingsin themainstreampressandtheopinionsof independentrecognizedexpertsto
be indicativeof the significantimpactof the researchin the medicalandscientificcommunity.Thus,the
petitionerhassubmittedqualifyingevidencepursuantto 8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5).
(4) Evidenceof the alien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield, in professionaljournals, or other
major media
Thebeneficiary'sresumelistsatotalof tenpublicationsandabstracts.Thepetitionerprovidedacopyof the
beneficiary'sfull-lengtharticle,"Activatedomentumfacilitatesliver regeneration,"co-authoredwith Drs.
and two others,which was publishedin the World Journal of
Gastroenterologyin May2009. Thebeneficiaryhasalsopublishedabstractsin theJournalofInvestigative
Medicine,the Journal of the AmericanSocietyof Nephrology,the Journal of InfectiousDiseases,and
Gastroenterology.
Page15
Thedirectordeterminedthattheevidencesubmittedwasinsufficientto meetthis criterion,notingthat "the
publicationof scholarlyarticlesdoesnotnecessarilyindicatethesustainedacclaimrequisiteto classification
asan alienof extraordinaryability." The directorobservedthatthe petitionerdid not providea citation
historyfor thebeneficiary'sarticlesor otherwiseestablishthatthebeneficiary"enjoysa measureof influence
thoughhispublications."
Upon review,the AAO finds that the evidencesubmittedsatisfiesthe plain languageof the regulatory
criterionat8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6)basedonthebeneficiary'spublicationof onescholarlyarticleand
five abstracts.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 ClinicallnvestigationJune2009." Thepetitionermustestablisheligibilityatthetimeof filing the
nonimmigrantvisa petition. A visa petition may not be approvedat a future dateafter the petitioneror
beneficiarybecomeseligibleunderanewsetof facts.MatterofMichelinTireCorp.,17I&N Dec.248(Reg.
Comm.1978).
(5) Evidencethat thealien hasbeenemployedin a critical or essentialcapacityfor organizationsand
establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation
Thebeneficiary'sresumereflectsthathehasworkedwiththepetitioningmedicalinstitutein variouscapacities
sinceJanuary2005. Heinitiallyservedasa "volunteerresearchfellow"fromJanuary2005untilAugust2006,
thenasaresearchfellowfromSeptember2006untilJune2008,andasajuniorscientistsinceAugust2008.
Thepetitioneraddressedthiscriterionin itsresponseto theRFE. In a letterdatedOctober7,2009,Dr
stated:
Researchat [thepetitioninginstitute](of CookCountyHospital.,Chicago)hasaninternational
reputationfor over one hundredyears. Researchersat this institutionwere pioneersin
establishingtheconceptof bloodbankingandwerethefirstintheworldtooperateabloodbank.
Recently,it alsobecamethefirst in theworldto establisha bankof frozenbloodsothatblood
canbestoredandmadeavailableforalongertime. Becauseof itsexcellentclinicalresearchthe
institutionwasthefirst to establisha traumacenter,andnot surprisingly,it remainsthebest
traumacenterin thecountry(thiswasthereasonthattheinstitutionwaschosenasthesettingfor
theTV show'ER') . . . .Thebeneficiaryisindeedin akeypositionastheonlyresearcherinthis
institutionworkingintheemergingnewfieldof stemcellsforregeneratingorgans(suchasliver
andkidney).
Dr. furtheraddressedthe beneficiary'sspecificcontributionin publishedpaperswith multipleauthors,
notingthat,whileexperimentalmedicalresearchis ateameffort,"theexperimentershaveagreatercreditin the
Page16
workthanthetheoreticiansandassistants."Hedescribesthebeneficiaryas"themainexperimenteraswell asa
theoreticianinhiswork,"andstatesthathe"clearlydeservesalargepartofthecreditthataccruestotheteam."
Tofurtheraddressthiscriterion,thepetitionersubmittedasecondletter,datedOctober5,2009,fromDr.
whostates:
StemCellbiologyisanemergingsciencethathashugepromiseformankind.Thisscienceisstill
in thepreliminaryphaseof researchandit will requiretheenormousendeavorof top quality
researchersto reachits potential. Underthe leadershipof Dr. [the
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
scientific meetings.
[The beneficiary]is the leadresearcherresponsiblefor ongoingexperimentsof usingthe
omentumstemcellsto treatvarioustypesof chronicliver diseaseincludingalcoholicliver
disease,cirrhosis.Heis alsoacrucialmemberof thesmallscientificteamworkingtowardsthe
treatmentof chronickidneydisease.Boththeliverandkidneyarevital researchareasbecause
of thehighdeathratesassociatedwithchronicliverandkidneydiseases.It isthereforeessential
for[thebeneficiary]tocontinuethislineof researchat[thepetitioninginstitution].
Inthatregard,[thepetitioner]regards[thebeneficiary's]positionasaMedicalScientistcriticalto
achievingthegoalof findingastemcellcureforbothchronicliverandchronickidneydiseases.
The director concluded,without discussion,that the petitionersubmittedevidencethat meetsthis criterion. 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 fill and the reputationof the organizationor establishmentthat selectedhim. We acknowledgethe
distinguishedreputationofthepetitioningmedicalinstitution.
However,whilethebeneficiaryhasclearlybeenableto provideexpertisein a medicalresearchareain which
theremaybea paucityof qualifiedresearchers,thereis noevidencethathisrolesasresearchfellowandjunior
scientisthavebeenessentialor criticalforthepetitioner'smedicalinstituteasawhole. A researchfellowshipis
designedto provideresearchtrainingfor a futureprofessionalcareerin thefield of endeavor.Thepetitioner's
evidencedoesnotdemonstratehowthebeneficiary'sresearchfellowshiproledifferentiatedhimfromtheother
fellowsattheinstitutionletalonefromitstenuredfaculty. Thedocumentationsubmittedbythepetitionerdoes
Page17
notestablishthatthebeneficiarywasresponsiblefor thepetitioner'ssuccessor standingto a degreeconsistent
withthemeaningof "essentialorcriticalcapacity."
Thebeneficiaryis currentlyajunior scientistwithin the petitioninginstitution. Withoutan organizational
chartor otherevidencedocumentinghow,asajunior memberof Dr 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 thatthe beneficiarymayhaveservedasthe mainexperimenteror lead
researcherin oneormoreexperimentsthatresultedin aco-authoredpublicationdoesnotelevatehisposition
withintheinstitutionabovethatof ajunior scientistforthepurposesof thiscriterion.
Whilecounsel,thepetitioner,andtheexperttestimonialshaveattestedtoboththecriticalrolethebeneficiaryfills
withinthepetitioner'sinstitutionduetoascarcityof researcherswithexpertisein adultstemcellresearch,andthe
criticalnatureof thebeneficiary'sresearchfroma nationalinterestandmedicaladvancementstandpoint,these
considerationsgobeyondthescopeof this evidentiarycriterion,whichmustfocusonthebeneficiaryandthe
relativeimportanceof hispositionswithinthescopeof theorganizationsthathaveemployedhim.
Enlightof 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),(3)
and(6).A fmalmeritsdeterminationthatconsidersall oftheevidencefollows.
B. Final MeritsDetermination
In accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, we mustnext conducta final meritsdeterminationthat considersall of
the evidencein the contextof whetheror not the petitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) thatthe beneficiaryhas
achieveda levelof expertiseindicatingthatheisoneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof
thefieldof endeavorpursuantto 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii);and(2)thatthebeneficiaryhassustainednationalor
internationalacclaimandthathis achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field 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 on manyscientiststo reviewsubmitted
articles.Normallyajournal'seditorialstaffwill enlistthe assistanceof numerousprofessionalsin thefield
Page18
who agreeto reviewsubmittedpapers.It is commonfor a publicationto askseveralreviewersto reviewa
manuscriptandto offer comments.The publication'seditorialstaff may acceptor rejectany reviewer's
commentsin determiningwhetherto publishorrejectsubmittedpapers. Thus,peerreviewisroutinein the
field; not everypeerreviewerenjoysinternationalrecognition.Withoutevidencethatsetsthebeneficiary
apartfromothersin hisfield, suchasevidencethathehasreviewedmanuscriptsfor ajournalthatcreditsa
small,elitegroupof referees,receivedindependentrequestsfroma substantialnumberofjournals,or served
in aneditorialpositionfor a distinguishedjournal,we cannotconcludethatthebeneficiary'slimitedjudging
experienceis indicativeof orconsistentwith nationalor internationalrecognition.
In reachingthisconclusion,weacknowledgethepetitioner'sspecificobjectionto thedirector'sdetermination
that "peerreviewis anobligationof scientistsin thefield." Thepetitionersubmitsa letterdatedMarch3,
2010from D f theAmericanJournalof Nephrology,whostatesthat"peer-
reviewworkis animportantprocessin theresearchenterpriseandsurelyonlyasmallpercentageof scientists
attainthestatusof peer-reviewersin theircareers."Dr. reiteratesthatheselectedthebeneficiaryasa
peerreviewerbecauseheisaperson"of distinction"in hisfield.
It shouldbeemphasizedthatthe AAO doesnot questionDr.Measons for personallyselectingthe
beneficiaryas a peerreviewerfor theAmericanJournalofNephrology.Thebeneficiaryis clearlya very
talentedscientistandresearcherandismorethanqualifiedto performsuchduties.However,hehasservedas
a peerreviewerfor only threearticlesduringthecourseof hiscareer,andhasreviewedarticlesfor a single
journal.Whileit maybetruethatnoteveryscientisthasanopportunityto serveasapeerreviewer,theAAO
findsinsufficientsupportfor a findingthatanypeerreviewexperienceplacesa beneficiaryamongthesmall
percentageof scientistsat theverytop 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.
Weacknowledgethatthepetitionerhaspublishedseveralarticlesandabstractsasabiomedicalresearcherin
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,weacknowledethe ositiveresponseinthefieldtothepetitioner'sresearcharticlesthathecoauthored
with his supervisorDr. andothermembersof the petitioner'sresearchteam,andthe responseto his
conferencepresentations.Wearenotpersuaded,however,thathiscontributions,presentedin hiswell-received
publicationsandpresentations,risetothelevelof sustainednationalorinternationalacclaiminthecontextof 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.,asof June2009,waswidelyrecognizedasoneofthetopscientistsinhisfield.
Page19
Ultimately,theevidencein theaggregatedoesnotdistinguishthebeneficiaryasoneof thesmallpercentagewho
hasrisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor.Thebeneficiaryis ajunior scientistwhoreliesprimarilyon
threemanuscriptreviewsin thewidespreadpeer-reviewprocess,his limitedpublicationrecord,the praiseof
expertsin his field,andtheaffirmationof hiscolleaguesthatheis importantto thelaboratorywherehenow
worksinaninherentlysubordinateposition.
As notedb thepetitioner,manyof thebeneficiary'sreferences'credentialsareim ressive.Forexample,Dr.
hasheldthe ositionof Directorof DialysisM He is an
AssociateEditorof amemberof theeditorialboardof theAmericanJournalofNephrology,andhas
servedas a refereefor sevenscientificjournals. Dr. , M.D., is Chief of Nephrologyat the
He is editor-in-chiefo A Current Surveyof World Literature,
associateeditorof theAmericanJournalof Nephrology,and,accordingto his resume,haspublished249
peer-reviewedarticles.
Dr.M is currentlythe Divisionof Nephrology-Hypertensionat
ExecutiveDirectorandPresidentof the a Professorof MedicineattheUniversityof
Illinois andMedicalDirectorof theChicago coordingto hisresume,heisanelectedfellow
of th ollegeof Physicians andtheAmericanSocietyfor theAdvancement
of Science.Heisaregularmedicalcorrespondentfor theBritishMedicalJournal,theNorthAmericaneditor
for theInternationalJournalofArtyicial Or ans,co-editorof A CurrentSurveyof WorldLiterature,
a memberof the editorialboardo andco-editorof TheOxfordIllustratedMedical
Companion,3" Edition.Hisresumelists142scientificpublicationsandnumerousbooksandbookchapters.
Dr.4k PrincipalScientistwith thepetitioningorganization.Heservesontheeditorialboardof
theAmericanJournalofNephrology,andKidney:A Surveyof WorldLiterature,andis aregularreviewerfor
sevenscientificjournals,in additionto reviewinggrantsfor theNationalKidneyFoundationof Illinois. Dr.
resumelists84peer-reviewedpublications.
D is ProfessorEmeritusof Medicine2 As notedabove,hehasbeena
memberof theeditorialboardsof sevenscientificandmedicalpublications.Accordingto hisresume,hehas
receivedawardsfromtheNationalKidneyFoundation,AmericanKidneyFundandAmericanAssociationof
KidneyPatients.Dr wasalsothefoundingpresidentof theInternationalSocietyfor Hemodialysis,andhas
held executivecommitteemembershipandchairpositionsfor theNational Kidney Foundation,AmericanSociety
of Nephrologyandotherorganizations.Hehaspublished251articlesandeditedseveralbooks.
Whilethepetitionerneednotdemonstratethatthereisnoonemoreaccomplishedthanthebeneficiaryin orderto
establishthatheis qualifiedfortheclassificationsought,it appearsthattheverytopof thebeneficiary'sfieldof
endeavoriswellabovethelevelhehasattained.In contrasttothesereferences,thepetitionerhasnotestablished
thatthebeneficiary'sachievementsatthetimeof filingthepetitionwerecommensuratewithsustainednationalor
internationalacclaimin thebiomedicalresearchfield,orthatheisamongthesmallpercentageattheverytopof
thefield of endeavor.
Page20
III, Conclusion
Reviewof therecorddoesnotestablishthatthebeneficiaryhasdistinguishedhimselfto suchanextentthathe
maybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimorto bewithin thesmallpercentage
at the very top of his field. The evidenceis not persuasivethat the beneficiary'sachievementssethim
significantlyabovealmostall othersin his field at a nationalor internationallevel. Therefore,thepetitioner
has not establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act andthe petition may not be
approved.
Nothingin thedecisionof the AAO shouldbeseenasanattemptto minimizetheaccomplishmentsof the
beneficiary,particularlysincetheyhavebeenachievedsoearlyin hiscareer,or asa commentonthecriteria
usedby thepetitionerto selectpersonsfor positions.Indeed,asmanyof thetestimoniallettersmakeclear,
the beneficiaryshowsgreatpromiseandpotentialin the field of stemcell research,andwasappropriately
describedby thepetitionerasa "buddingexpert"in his field. Thisdenialdoesnot precludethepetitioner
fromfiling a newimmigrantor nonimmigrantvisapetition,supportedby therequiredevidence.As always,
theburdenremainswiththepetitionerto establisheligibilityfor therequestedvisaclassification.
In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith the
petitioner.Section291of theAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thatburdenhasnotbeenmet.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.