dismissed O-1A Case: Medical Research

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
d deleted Citi'©"8hiv °"d I""i8""'i°" services
ng sta (O Officeof AdministrativeAppeals,MS2090
prevent clearly unwarranted washington,oc 20529-2090
invasionof personalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
andImmigration
UCCOPT 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).
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER: SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.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 theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcasebyfiling aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a feeof $585. Pleasebeawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbefHed
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOfñce
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,CaliforniaServiceCenter,deniedthenonimmigrantvisapetition.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)onappeal.TheAAO will 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 histield 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.Thedirectordeclinedtotreattheappealasamotionandforwarded
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
signifcance,andauthorshipof scholarlyarticlespursuantto 8C.F.R.§§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(iv),(v) and(vi). As
explainedinourfinalmeritsdetermination,'however,muchof theevidencethattechnicallyqualifiesundersome
of thosecriteria reflectsroutinedutiesor accomplishmentsin the field that do not comparewith the
accomplishmentsof themostexperiencedandrenownedmembersof the field. Thus,suchevidenceis not
consistentwith a findingthatthe beneficiaryenjoyssustainednationalor internationalacclaim. As will be
discussedfurtherin our final meritsdetermination,while we acknowledgethe caliberof the referenceswho
supportthe petition,their accomplishments,editorialpositions,andpublicationrecordsonly 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,or athleticswhichhasbeen
demonstratedby sustainednationalor internationalacclaim. . . andwhoseachievements
havebeenrecognizedin the field throughextensivedocumentation,andseeksto enterthe
UnitedStatestocontinueworkin theareaof extraordinaryability . . .
1Thelegalauthorityforthistwo-stepanalysiswill bediscussedatlengthbelow.
Page3
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(ii)defines,in pertinentpart:
Extraordinaryability in thefield of science,education,business,or athleticsmeansa levelof
expertiseindicatingthatthepersonisoneof thesmallpercentagewhohavearisento thevery
topof thefield of endeavor.
Theextraordinaryabilityprovisionsofthisvisaclassificationareintendedtobehighlyrestrictiveforaliensin
thefieldsof business,education,athletics,andthesciences.See59FR41818,41819(August15,1994);137
Cong.Rec.S18242,18247(dailyed.,Nov. 26, 1991)(comparinganddiscussingthe lowerstandardfor the
arts).
In apolicymemorandum,thelegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService(INS)emphasized:
It must be rememberedthat the standardsfor O-1 aliens in the fields of business,education,
athletics,andthesciencesareextremelyhigh. The0-1 classificationshouldbereservedonly
for those aliens who have reachedthe very top of their occupation or profession. The O-l
classificationis substantiallyhigherthantheold H-1Bprominentstandard.Officersinvolved
in theadjudicationof thesepetitionsshouldnot"waterdown"theclassificationbyapproving
0-1 petitionsforprominentaliens.
Memorandum, omm'r.,INS,"PolicyGuidelinesfor theAdjudicationof O
andPPetitions"(June25,1992).
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)states,in pertinentpart:
Evidentiarycriteriafor an 0-1 alienof extraordinaryability in thefields of science,education,
business,or athletics. An alienof extraordinaryability in the fieldsof science,education,
business,or athletics must demonstratesustainednational or internationalacclaim and
recognitionfor achievementsin thefield of expertiseby providing evidenceof:
(A) Receiptof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward,suchastheNobelPrize;or
(B) At leastthreeofthefollowingformsof documentation:
(1) Documentationof thealien'sreceiptof nationallyor internationallyrecognized
prizesorawardsforexcellenceinthefieldofendeavor;
(2) Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for which
classificationis sought,which require outstandingachievementsof their
members,asjudgedbyrecognizedor internationalexpertsin theirdisciplinesor
fields;
Page4
(3) Publishedmaterialin professionalor majortradepublicationsor majormedia
aboutthealien,relatingto thealien'sworkin thefield for whichclassificationis
sought,whichshallincludethetitle,date,andauthorof suchpublishedmaterial,
andanynecessarytranslation;
(4) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipationonapanel,or individuallyasajudgeof the
workof othersin thesameor in analliedfieldof specializationto thatfor which
classificationissought;
(5) Evidenceof the alien's original scientific, scholarly,or business-related
contributionsofmajorsignificanceinthefield;
(6) Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield,in professional
joumals,orothermajormedia;
(7) Evidencethatthealienhasbeenemployedin a criticalor essentialcapacityfor
organizationsandestablishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
(8) Evidencethatalienhaseithercommandeda highsalaryor will commandahigh
salaryorotherremunerationfor services,evidencedby contractsorotherreliable
evidence.
(C) If the criteriain paragraph(o)(3)(iii) of this sectiondo not readilyapply to the
beneficiary'soccupation,thepetitionermaysubmitcomparableevidencein orderto
establishthebeneficiary'seligibility.
Additionally,theregulationat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(2)(iii)provides:
TheevidencesubmittedwithanOpetitionshallconformtothefollowing:
(A) Affidavits, contracts,awards,andsimilar documentationmustreflectthe natureof the
alien'sachievementandbeexecutedbyanofficerorresponsiblepersonemployedbythe
institution,firm,establishment,ororganizationwheretheworkwasperformed.
(B) Affidavitswrittenbypresentor formeremployersor recognizedexpertscertifyingto the
recognitionandextraordinaryability. . . shallspecificallydescribethealien'srecognition
andability or achievementin factualtermsandsetforth the expertiseof theaffiant andthe
mannerinwhichtheaffiantacquiredsuchinformation.
Thedecisionof U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)in a particularcaseis dependentuponthe
qualityof theevidencesubmittedbythepetitioner,notjustthequantityof theevidence.Themerefactthatthe
petitionerhassubmittedevidencerelatingto threeof the criteriaas requiredby the regulationdoesnot
necessarilyestablishthatthealieniseligiblefor O-1classification.59FedRegat41820.
Page5
Indeterminingthebeneficiary'seligibilityunderthesecriteria,theAAO will followatwo-partapproachsetforth
inadecisionissuedbytheU.S.Courtof AppealsfortheNinthCircuit.Kazarianv. USCIS,2010WL 725317(9*
Cir. March4, 2010). Similarto the regulationsgoverningthis nonimmigrantclassification,theregulations
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 8 C.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
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 thecontextof a final meritsdetermination.Thefinal meritsdetermination
analyzeswhethertheevidenceisconsistentwiththestatutoryrequirementof "extensivedocumentation"andthe
regulatorydefmitionof "extraordinaryability"as"oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof
thefieldofendeavor."
Althoughthe director'sdecisionpre-datesthe Kazariandecision,AAO findsthe Kazariancourt'stwo part
approachto be appropriatefor evaluatingtheregulatorycriteriasetforth for 0-1 nonimmigrantpetitionsfor
aliensof extraordinaryabilityat8 C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii),(iv) and(v). Therefore,in reviewingServiceCenter
decisions,theAAO will applythetestsetforthin Kazarian.As theAAO maintainsdenovoreview,theAAO
will conducta newanalysisif thedirectorreachedhisor herconclusionbyusingaone-stepanalysisratherthan
thetwo-stepanalysisdictatedby theKazariancourt.SeeSohanev. DOJ, 381F.3d143,145(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 anativeandcitizenof India. Thebeneficiarycompletedhismedicaltraining
at niversity' 004andreceiveda Masterof Sciencein Clinical Researchfrom
Universityin 008.Thepetitionerseeksclassificationof thebeneficiaryasanalienwith
extraordinaryability in thesciences.Thepetitionerindicatesthatthebeneficiaryis a "buddingexpert"in the
field of adultstemcellresearch,andindicatesthat,asajunior scientist,hewill beresponsiblefor developing
andtestingaprotocoltotreatchronicliverdiseasesusinginjectionof adultstemcells.
Thepetitionerfiled the FormI-129,Petitionfor a NonimmigrantWorker,on June1, 2009. Thepetitioner
initially submittedajob offerfor the beneficiary,thebeneficiary'srésumé,thebeneficiary'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
regulatorycriteriaset forth 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 mustbeconcludedthatthepetitionerhasfailedtoestablishthebeneficiary'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 anassociationmeetsthis criterion,apetitionermustshowthatthe
association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 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
membershiprequirementsratherthanthe association'soverall reputation.
In its initial letterdatedMay28,2009,thepetitionerstatedthatthebeneficiary"isamemberof five important
nationallyrecognizedscientificsocietieswhichincludesmembershipin theprestigiousAmericanSocietyof
Nephrology,the leadingorganizationof kidneyscientistsanddoctors." Thebeneficiary'sresumelistshis
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 theminimumrequirementsand
criteriausedto applyfor membershipin theseassociationsandanyconditionsorrequirementsof membership
aswell asevidencethattheassociationsrely on nationalor internationalexpertswho makedeterminations
regardingmembership.Thepetitioner'sresponsetotheRFEdidnotfurtheraddressthiscriterion.
Thedirectordeterminedthattheevidencesubmittedwasinsufficientto meetthiscriterion,asthepetitioner
failed to provideany evidencethat the aforementionedassociationsare oneswhich requireoutstanding
achievementsof their membersasjudgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin the field. 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'swork in thefield for which classificationis sought,which shall
include thetitle, 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,asstatedin theregulations,be printedin professionalor majortrade
publicationsorothermajormedia.Toqualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor
internationaldistribution.An alienwouldnotearnacclaimatthenationallevelfroma localpublication.Some
newspapers,suchastheNewYorkTimes,nominallyserveaparticularlocalitybutwouldqualifyasmajormedia
becauseof significantnationaldistribution,unlikesmalllocalcommunitypapers?
The beneficiaryco-authoreda scholarlyarticletitled which was
publishedin theMarch7,2009issueof theWorldJournalof hepetitionernotedthatthis
articledescribes"a novelmethodto regeneratetheliver afterit is damagedirreversiblyby diseasesuchas
3Evenwith nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmustbegivento theplacementofthearticle. For
example,an article that appearsin the WashingtonPost,but in a sectionthat is distributedonly in Fairfax
County,Virginia,for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page8
cirrhosisor fibrosis,"andwasconsidered"a breakthroughin treatingchronicliver diseases."Thepetitioner
indicatedthatthepublishedpaperwasannouncedbM a newsservicerunby Science,"themost
scholarlysciencejournal in the USA and the world." In addition,the petitionerindicatedthat the
announcementwasrelayedby 15othernationalandinternational'lay press'newsagenciesincludingthe Wall
StreetJournalandUSAToday.Thepetitionerprovidedevidenceof theannouncementof thc articleon
the websites WallStreetJournalandotheron-line
publications.
The mediaarticlesreferto the work performedby andhis colleaguesfrom the
andnotethatthestudyperformed"is the first 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 his published
articleandcredits andhiscolleagues,"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'sparticipationonapanel,or individuallyasajudge of theworkof others
in thesameor in an alliedfield ofspecializationto thatfor which classificationis sought
Thepetitionerprovidedevidencethatthebeneficiary,sinceAugust2008,hasbeenincludedinthedatabaseof
reviewersfor the andassuch,he is askedto reviewmanuscriptsfor the
journalthatfall within hisareao expertise. e petitionerprovidedevidencethatthebeneficiaryhadbeen
invitedto reviewthreemanuscriptsasof thedateof filing.
ssociateEditorof thc explainedthejournal'speerreview
processas o ows:
Eacharticleis reviewedby oneof the editorsandtwo otherexpertsin the field who are
invitedbytheeditor. Theprocessof choosingtheexpertfor thearticleis takencollectively
by the editors.
[Thebeneficiary]hasbeenworkingon experimentalchronickidneyandliver diseasesand
theirtreatmentusingstemceHs.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 etterreferencedthebeneficiary'sstatusasan
expertin the field, it "fails to statethatthe beneticiarywaschosenasa reviewerbasedon his sustained
nationalor internationalacclaimin the field." The directorfurther observedthat "the peerreview 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 the eets
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
major signficance in thefield
Tomeetthecriterionat8C.F.R.§214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5),thepetitionerhassubmittedseverallettersof support
discussingthe impactof his master'sthesisandhis researchasa researchfellow andjunior scientistat the
petitioner'sfacility,whereheworksu SeniorScientificOfficerandPrincipal
Scientist.
The petitionersubmitteda letter datedMay 16,2009 from Chief of the Sectionof
Professorof Medicinein theDepartmentof MedicineandProfessorof Physiologyat
theUniversityo statesthathehasknownthebeneficia ince2005
whenhebeganworkasaresearchassistantin HIV nephropathyresearchwith
states:
[Thebeneficiary's]work on the useof omentumto regeneratethe liver andkidneyandto
treatchronicliver andkidneydiseasesis innovative.Furtherhehasculturedcellsfromthe
regeneratingliverthathasthesamebeneficialpropertyastheomentum,whichcanallowone
to treatliver diseasesby injectionof cellsratherthanby surgeryinvolvingtheomentum.He
isanindustriousworkerandshowsgreatpotentialasanindependentscientist.
Thepetitioneralsosubmitteda letterfrom M.D.,thepetitioner'spresidentandexecutive
directorandChairmanEmeritusof theDivisionof Nephrologyat th
tates:
[Thebeneficiary]wasrecruitedasa ResearchFellowin 2006andthenasa JuniorScientist
soonafter his graduationfrom Mastersin Clinical Research. [The beneficia is an
extremelydedicatedandtalentedresearchscientist.Hehasbeenworkingwith
. . onHIV nephropathyandin theuseof adultstemcellsfor treatingchronicliverand
kidneydiseases.
Page11
cellsfrom theregeneratingliver 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 chronicliver andkidneydiseases.
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]fieldof interest(HIV,
kidneyandliver disease,stemcells)." Thepetitionersubmittedfive additionalletters,includingonefrom Dr.
M\ AssociateProfessor,Division of , at the University
choolof Medicine. statesthatsheisfamiliarwith thebeneficiary'sresearchbased
onhispresentationonstemcell researchatthe r MedicalResearchannualmeetingin
2009. Dr. describesthebeneficiaryas"a pioneeringresearcherin thefield of stemcellsand
liver regeneration,"who "has made revolutionaryadvancementsin this highly complex field." Dr.
furtherstates:
Themostimportantprojectthat[thebeneficiary]hasdevelopedistheuseof 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 hasintroducedan importantandinnovativemethodthat
otherresearchershavebeguntoadoptfortheirorganregenerationwork.
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.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.
The petitioneralsosubmitteda letter from Dr. ProfessorEmeritusof Medicinea
University Schoolof Medicine. indicatesthat he is the editorof a newbook "Dialysis-
History,DevelopmentandPromise,"thefirst editionof whichwill bepublishedin thespringof 2010.With
respectto the beneficiaryMtates:
Havingreviewedthe stemcell work of [the beneficiary]I believethat his researchhas
immensepotentials[sic] to influencethecurrentapproachto treatchronickidneydisease.
ThereforeI haveinvitedhimto writea chapterin theabovedialysisbook. Thechapterthat
thebeneficiarywill penis titled n the
theFuture'sectionof thebook.It isthroughhisresearchthatI 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
fuse to the injuredkidney.Within two weeks,he seesa regeneratedkidney wherethe
omentumwasfused. His researchfindingsshowthatthis regenerationis mediatedby the
omentumstemcellsandgrowthfactorswithintheomentum.Thisis alandmarkobservation
consideringthat until now it hasbeenthe dogmathat an adult kidney could neverbe
regenerated.Takingintoaccountthevalueof thisoutstandingfinding,[thebeneficiary]was
selectedto presenthisresearchdataat theAmericanSocietyof Nephrologyannualmeeting
heldonNovember4-9,2008in Philadelphia.
otesthatthebeneficiary's"originalresearchontheuseof adultstemcellsfromtheomentumand
from thegranulationtissuehasusheredin newtreatmentstrategiesfor kidneyrepairandregeneration."
Clinical Professorof Neurosurgeryat the Universityo , also
provideda letterin supportof thepetition. ndicatesthathehas"pioneeredthedevelopmentof
thesurgicaltechniqueof freeingtheomentum. . . fromtheabdominalcavitywith its bloodsu intactand
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,hedemonstratedthattheomentumcouldregenerateorganslikethe
liver, a ground-breakingfinding consideringthatthe contemporarythoughtwasthat adult
organsdo notregenerate.It is fromthisviewpoint,notpersonalacquaintance,thatI would
Page13
considerhiswork a 'breakthrough'in theuseof omentumfor medicaltherapy.Considering
the significanceof this work, the AmericanSocietyof selected[the
beneficiary]for an oral presentationof his esearchin the Digestive
diseasesweek2009AnnualMeeting- anoutstandinghonorfor a scientistconsideringthat
only 5%of submittedworksarechosenfor oralpresentationsin thatMeeting.
To further advancethe liver regenerationwork and makethe use of omentummore
convenient,[thebeneficiary]hasdevelopeda methodof culturingstemcellstakenfromthe
omentum-liverfusionsite.It will nowbepossibleto usecellsfrom thePetridishto bring
aboutrepairandregenerationof theinjuredliver (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 describehisresearchfindingsin themedicaljournal
TranslationalResearch,"whosemissionis to rapidlytranslatetechnologiesfrom 'bench-to-bedside.'"Dr.
::oncludesby statingthatthebeneficiary's"contributionshaveresultedin newapproachesto treat
diseasespreviouslyconsideredincurable."
AssociateClinicalProfessorin theDepartmentof Medicineat+
discussesthe beneficiary'sstudy of kidney diseasein African AmericanHIV patients,
publishedintheJournalofAmericanSocietyofNephrologyandpresentedattMnnual Meetingof the
AmericanSocietyof Nephrology statesthat "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." further
discussesthe beneficiary'swork in kidney research:
[Thebeneficiary]hasshownthattheomentumhasthepropensityto recognizeandfusewith
aninjuredkidneyandtherebydeliveringstemcellsandgrowthfactorsto theinjuredkidney.
In complexexperimentsusinga modelof Heymannnephritishehasshownthatnewkidney
tissueis formedusingthe stemcells from the omentum.. . .Thesefindingshavehad
tremendousimpactonthenephrologycommunitybecausenowit opensupthepossibilityof
stemcell treatmentfor kidneydiseases.[Thebeneficiary]is oneof theveryfew stemcell
researchersin theUnitedStateswhohasperformedsuchcomplexandcutting-edgeresearch
inthefield.
Finally,the petitionersubmitteda letterfrom
CORECenter,CookCountyHealthandHospitalsSystem. indicatesthatthebeneficiary,working
with conductedtwo separateclinical studiesto evaluatetheprevalenceof kidneydisease
amongthecenter'sHIV patientpopulation states:
Page14
[Thebeneficiary] aclinicalstudyto measuretheprevalenceof microalbuminuriain
patientswith earlyHIV infectionswhohadnogrosssymptomsof kidneyfailure. Thisnovel
approachcouldidentifypatientsmostatrisk for renalfailure. [Thebeneñeiary]wasselected
to presenthis researchatthe2008annualmeetingof theAmericanSocietyof Nephrology.
Healsopublishedhisfindingsin theprestigiousJournalof AmericanSocietyof Nephrology.
Ina separatestudyconductedattheCOREcenter,[thebeneficiary](with Dr.
and Dr.M looked at the significanceof the age in the prevalenceof
microalbuminuriain HIV patients.In researchfindingspresentedat the 2008 Infectious
DiseasesSocietyof Americameeting(IDSA),it wasclearthatearlykidneydiseasewasmore
commonin the older HIV populationas comparedto the youngerHIV patients. These
researchresultshaveled to the older HIV populationbeingscreenedmorethoroughlyand
treatedmoreaggressivelyforkidneymalfunction.
In my opinion [the beneficiary's]contributionsin HIV-associatednephropathyhavebeen
seminalandhavethepotentialto improvethecareof HIV patientsandpreventrenalfailure
in thesepatients.
Thepetitionersubmittedevidencethatthebeneficiaryhaspresentedhis researchon kidneydiseasein HIV-
positive patientsand omentum-inducedregenerationof the kidney and liver, at a total of six annual
conferencesbetweenOctober2008andApril 2009. In addition,thepetitionersubmittedevidencethatthe
beneficiaryhadreceivedinvitationsto submitmanuscriptsfor potentialpublicationin TranslationalResearch
andAnnals ofGastroenterology.
Thedirectordeterminedthatthe petitionerhadsubmittedqualifyingevidenceof originalcontributionsof
majorsignificancein his field andwe concurwith that finding. TheAAO finds the letterssubmittedin
responseto the RFEparticularlypersuasive,astheywerewrittenby expertsin the field with whomthe
benenciaryhasnotdirectlyworked.Wenotethat,whilewetypicallylookto citationhistoriesin determining
thesignificanceof abeneficiary'scontributionstothefield,thebeneñeiary'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's authorship of scholarly articles in thefield, in professionaljournals, or other
majormedia
Thebeneficiary'sresumelistsatotalof tenpublicationsandabstracts.Thepetitionerprovideda copyof the
beneficiary'sfull-lengtharticle, ' co-authoredwithM
nd two others,which was publishedin the World Journal of
Gastroenterologyin M Thebeneficiaryhasalsopublishedabstractsin theJournalofInvestigative
Medicine, the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, the Journal of Infectious Diseases, and
Gastroenterology.
Page15
Thedirectordeterminedthattheevidencesubmittedwasinsufficientto meetthis criterion,notingthat "the
publicationof scholarlyarticlesdoesnotnecessarilyindicatethesustainedacclaimrequisiteto classification
as an 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
five abstracts.Theweightto begivento thebeneficiary'sbodyof publishedworkwill beconsideredbelow
in our final meritsdetermination.
However,theAAO notesthatwe will excludefromconsiderationanyscholarlyarticlesthathaveyet to be
published.Threeof the beneficiary'slisted articlesweresubmittedin manuscriptform. The beneficiary
indicatesthat one manuscriptwas submittedfor publicationand two were invited for publicationin
TranslationalResearch.In addition,oneof the beneficiary'sabstractswasannotated"to be publishedin
Journalof ClinicallnvestigationJune Thepetitionermustestablisheligibilityatthetimeof filing the
nonimmigrantvisa petition. A visa petitionmaynot be approvedat a futuredateafterthe petitioneror
beneficiarybecomeseligibleunderanewsetof facts.MatterofMichelin TireCorp.,17I&N Dec.248(Reg.
Comm.1978).
(5) Evidencethat thealien hasbeenemployedin a critical or essentialcapacityfor organizationsand
establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation
Thebeneficiary'sresumereflectsthathehasworkedwith thepetitioningmedicalinstitutein variouscapacities
sinceJanuary2005. Heinitiallyservedasa "volunteerresearchfellow"fromJanuary2005until August2006,
thenasaresearchfellowfromSeptember2006untilJune2008,andasajuniorscientistsinceAugust2008.
Thepetitioneraddressedthiscriterionin itsresponsetotheRFE.In a letterdatedOctober7,2009,
stated:
Researchat [thepetitioninginstitute](of CookCoun hasanintemational
reputationfor over one hundredyears. Researchersat this institutionwere pioneersin
establishingtheconceptof bloodbankingandwerethefirstintheworldtooperateabloodbank.
Recently,it alsobecamethefirst in theworldto establishabankof frozenbloodsothatblood
canbestoredandmadeavailableforalongertime. Becauseof itsexcellentclinicalresearchthe
institutionwasthefirst to establisha traumacenter,andnot surprisingly,it remainsthebest
traumacenterin thecountry(thiswasthereasonthattheinstitutionwaschosenasthesettingfor
theTV show'ER') . . . .Thebeneficiaryisindeedin akeypositionastheonlyresearcherinthis
institutionworkingintheemergingnewfieldof stemcellsforregeneratingorgans(suchasliver
andkidney).
furtheraddressedthebeneficiary'sspecificcontributionin publishedpaperswithmultipleauthors,
notingthat,whileexperimentalmedicalresearchis ateameffort,"theexperimentershaveagreatercreditin the
Page16
workthanthetheoreticiansandassistants."Hedescribesthebeneficiaryas"themainexperimenteraswell asa
theoreticianinhiswork,"andstatesthathe"clearlydeservesalargepartofthecreditthataccruestotheteam."
Tofurtheraddressthiscriterion,thepetitionersubmittedasecondletter,datedOctober5,2009,from
whostates:
StemCellbiologyisanemergingsciencethathashugepromiseformankind.Thisscienceisstill
in thepreliminaryphaseof researchandit will requiretheenormousendeavorof to uality
researchersto reachits potential._Underthe leadershipof [the
petitioner]hasbeendevelopinga stemcell researchprogramsince2004for thetreatmentof
diabetes,kidneyandliverdiseases.I amveryhappyto statethat[thepetitioner]is amongthe
few medicalresearchcentersin thecountryhavinga focusedadultstemcell andregenerative
medicineresearchprogram.
Thebeneficiaryjoinedthegroupasastemcellresearcherin 2006.Sincethenhehasprimarily
developedtheresearchprogramof liverregenerationusingstemcellsfromtheomentum.. . .His
researchis backedby severaloriginalpublications,presentationsat nationalandinternational
scientificmeetings.
[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)
We havealreadyacknowledgedthebeneficiary'scontributionsto his field above.At issuefor this criterion,
accordingto theplainlanguageof 8 C.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
theremaybeapaucityof qualifiedresearchers,thereis noevidencethathisrolesasresearchfellowandjunior
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. Withoutanorganizational
chartor otherevidencedocumentinghow,asajunior memberof searchteam,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 oneor moreexperimentsthatresultedin aco-authoredpublicationdoesnotelevatehisposition
withintheinstitutionabovethatof ajunior scientistforthepurposesof thiscriterion.
Whilecounsel,thepetitioner,andtheexperttestimonialshaveattestedtoboththecriticalrolethebeneficiaryfills
withinthepetitioner'sinstitutionduetoascarcityof researcherswithexpertisein adultstemcellresearch,andthe
criticalnatureof thebeneficiary'sresearchfroma nationalinterestandmedicaladvancementstandpoint,these
considerationsgo beyondthescopeof thisevidentiarycriterion,whichmustfocusonthebeneficiaryandthe
relativeimportanceof hispositionswithinthescopeoftheorganizationsthathaveemployedhim.
In light of 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 finalmeritsdeterminationthatconsidersalloftheevidencefollows.
B. Final MeritsDetermination
In accordancewith theKazarian opinion, we mustnext conducta final merits determinationthat considersall of
the evidencein the contextof whetheror not the petitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) thatthe beneficiaryhas
achieveda levelof expertiseindicatingthatheis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof
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 thebeneficiary'snationalor international
acclaim.SeeKazarian,2010WL 725317at*5.
Wecannotignorethatscientificjournalsarepeerreviewedandrely onmanyscientiststo reviewsubmitted
articles.Normallyajournal'seditorialstaffwill enlisttheassistanceof numerousprofessionalsin the field
Page18
whoagreeto reviewsubmittedpapers.It is commonfor a publicationto askseveralreviewersto reviewa
manuscriptandto offer comments.The publication'seditorialstaff may acceptor rejectany reviewer's
commentsin determiningwhetherto publishor rejectsubmittedpapers. Thus,peerreviewis routinein the
field; not everypeerreviewerenjoysinternationalrecognition.Withoutevidencethatsetsthe beneficiary
apartfromothersin his field, suchasevidencethathehasreviewedmanuscriptsfor ajournalthatcreditsa
small,elitegroupof referees,receivedindependentrequestsfroma substantialnumberofjournals,or served
in aneditorialpositionfor a distinguishedjournal,we cannotconcludethatthebeneficiary'slimitedjudging
experienceis indicativeof or consistentwith nationalor internationalrecognition.
In reachingthisconclusion,weacknowledgethepetitioner'sspecificobjectionto thedirector'sdetermination
that "peerreviewis anobligationof scientistsin thefield." Thepetitionersubmitsa letterdatedMarch3,
2010from AssociateEditorof theAmericanJournalofNephrology,whostatesthat"peer-
reviewworkis animportantprocessin theresearchenterpriseandsurelyonlyasmallpercentageof scientists
attainthestatusof peer-reviewersin theircareers." reiteratesthatheselectedthebeneficiaryasa
peerreviewerbecauseheis aperson"of distinction"in hisfield.
It shouldbeemphasizedthattheAAO doesnot question reasonsfor personallyselectingthe
beneficiaryasa peerreviewerfor theAmericanJournalof Nephrology.Thebeneficiaryis clearlya very
talentedscientistandresearcherandismorethanqualifiedto performsuchduties.However,hehasservedas
a peerreviewerfor onlythreearticlesduringthecourseof his career,andhasreviewedarticlesfor a single
journal.Whileit maybetruethatnoteveryscientisthasanopportunityto serveasapeerreviewer,theAAO
findsinsufficientsupportfor afindingthatanypeerreviewexperienceplacesa 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.blssov/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,waswidelyrecognizedasoneofthetopscientistsinhisfield.
Page19
Ultimately,theevidencein theaggregatedoesnotdistinguishthebeneficiaryasoneof thesmallpercentagewho
hasrisento theverytop of thefield of endeavor.Thebeneficiaryis ajunior scientistwhoreliesprimarilyon
threemanuscriptreviewsin thewidespreadpeer-reviewprocess,his limitedpublicationrecord,thepraiseof
expertsin his field,andtheaffirmationof his colleaguesthatheis importantto thelaboratorywherehenow
worksinaninherentlysubordinateposition.
As notedby thepetitioner,manyof thebeneficiary'sreferences'credentialsareimpressive.Forexample,Dr.
hasheldthe positionof Directoro ospitalin Chicago. He is an
AssociateEditorof 4 amemberof the f theAmericanJournalofNephrolog, andhas
servedas a refereefor sevenscientificjournals. M.D., is Chief of Nephrologyat the
He is editor-in-chiefof A CurrentSurveyof WorldLiterature,
associateeditorof theAmericanJournalof Nephrology,and,accordingto his resume,haspublished249
peer-reviewedarticles.
is currentlythe Divisionof Nephrology-Hypertension2 Hospital,
ExecutiveDirectorandPresidentof th . a Professorof Medicineat theUniversityof
andMedicalDirectorof th . Accordingto hisresume,heisanelectedfellow
of the of Physicians andthe American Society for the Advancement
of Science.Heis aregularmedica fortheBritishMedicalJournal,theNorthAmericaneditor
for theInternationalJournal of Artificial Organs,co-editorof Kidney,A CurrentSurveyof WorldLiterature,
a memberof the editorialboardo andco-editorof The
Companion,3'"Edition.Hisresumelists142scientificpublicationsandnumerousbooksandbookchapters.
Dr. is with the petitioning organization.He serveson the editorial boardof
theAmerican Journal of Nephrology, an A Surveyof World Literature, and is a regularreviewer for
sevenscientificjournals,in additionto reviewinggrantsfor theNationalKidneyFoundationo
esumelists84peer-reviewedpublications.
Dr. s ProfessorEmeritusof Medicineat As notedabove,hehasbeena
memberof theeditorialboardsof sevenscientificandmedicalpublications.Accordingto hisresume,hehas
fromtheNationa oundation,AmericanKidneyFundandAmericanAssociationof
KidneyPatients. wasalsothefoundingpresidentof theInternationalSocietyfor ndhas
heldexecutivecommitteemembershipandchairpositionsfortheNationalKidneyFoundation,AmericanSociety
ofNephrologyandotherorganizations.Hehaspublished251articlesandeditedseveralbooks.
Whilethepetitionerneednotdemonstratethatthereisnoonemoreaccomplishedthanthebeneficiaryin orderto
establishthatheis qualifiedfor theclassificationsought,it appearsthattheverytopof thebeneficiary'sfieldof
endeavoriswellabovethelevelhehasattained.Incontrasttothesereferences,thepetitionerhasnotestablished
thatthebeneficiary'sachievementsatthetimeof filingthepetitionwerecommensuratewithsustainednationalor
intemationalacclaimin thebiomedicalresearchfield,orthatheisamongthesmallpercentageattheverytopof
thefield of endeavor.
Page20
HL Conclusion
Reviewof therecorddoesnotestablishthatthebeneficiaryhasdistinguishedhimselfto suchanextentthathe
maybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimor to bewithin thesmallpercentage
at the very top of his field. The evidenceis not persuasivethat the beneficiary'sachievementssethim
significantlyabovealmostall othersin hisfield ata nationalor internationallevel. Therefore,thepetitioner
hasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act andthe petitionmay not be
approved.
Nothingin thedecisionof theAAO 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.