sustained O-1A Case: Medical Research

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~nted 
invasion of personal pnvac} 
PUBLlCCOPY 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Irrnnigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: DEC 2 0 2010 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuantto Section JOJ(a)(J5)(O) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § JlOJ(a)(15)(O). 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: SELF -REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The matter is 
now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will sustain the appeal. 
The petitioner, a non-profit medical research organization, filed this petition seeking to classify the 
beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant pursuant to section 1OI(a)(IS)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The petitioner seeks to employ the 
beneficiary as an assistant project scientist for a period of 17 months. 
On March 2, 2010, the director denied the petition concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the 
beneficiary has received "sustained national or international acclaim" or to demonstrate that he is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. Specifically, the director determined 
that the evidence submitted did not satisfy the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or at least 
three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded 
the appeal to the AAO. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director failed to consider evidence that would 
establish that the beneficiary meets at least one additional criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8), in addition 
to the two criteria that the director determined have already been met. 
I. The Law 
Section 101 (a)( IS)(O)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101 (a)(IS)(O)(i), provides for the classification of a qualified 
alien who: 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim ... and whose achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and seeks to enter the 
United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability .. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics means a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive for aliens in 
the fields of business, education, athletics, and the sciences. See S9 FR 41818,41819 (August IS, 1994); 137 
Congo Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and discussing the lower standard for the 
arts). 
In a policy memorandum, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) emphasized: 
It must be remembered that the standards for 0-1 aliens in the fields of business, education, 
athletics, and the sciences are extremely high. The 0-1 classification should be reserved only 
for those aliens who have reached the very top of their occupation or profession. The 0-1 
classification is substantially higher than the old H-I B prominent standard. Officers involved 
in the adjudication of these petitions should not "water down" the classification by approving 
0-1 petitions for prominent aliens. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien af extraardinary ability in the fields af science, educatian, 
business, ar athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of: 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) At least three ofthe following forms of documentation: 
(1) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(3) Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media 
about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, 
and any necessary translation; 
(4) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classification is sought; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
journals, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
Page 4 
(8) Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(iii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 
(B) Affidavits written by present or former employers or recognized experts certifYing to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability ... shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the 
petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg at 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary'S eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach set forth 
in a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 725317 (9th 
Cir. March 4, 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant classification, the regulations 
reviewed by the Kazarian court require the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three out of ten 
alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary'S eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ability. Cj 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, the Kazarian court stated that "the proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided 
(which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the 
applicant has failed to satisfY the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id 
at *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary 
to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the evidence 
demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens 
whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for 
an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifYing under at 
least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination. The final merits determination 
analyzes whether the evidence is consistent with the statutory requirement of "extensive documentation" and the 
regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor." 
The AAO finds the Kazarian court's two part approach to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set 
forth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions for aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii), (iv) and (v). 
Therefore, in reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO 
maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by 
using a one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Soltane v. DOJ, 
381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004)(noting that the AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
II. The Beneficiary's Eligibility under the Evidentiary Criteria 
The petitioner seeks to classifY the beneficiary as alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences in the fields 
of neurobiology and physiology. The beneficiary received the equivalent of a Ph.D. in biological sciences 
from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in 1992, and a Master of Science degree from the Moscow Institute 
of Physics and Technology in 1986. Since 1992, he has conducted research at the Free University of Berlin, 
University of Innsbruck, Stanford University Medical Center, Bogomoletz Institute of Technology (Kiev 
National University), Georgetown University, University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, the University 
of Michigan Medical Center, and at the petitioning university. 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received 
a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its 
burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary's eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulations cite to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a major award. Id. There is no evidence that the beneficiary has received any 
major awards in his field, and the petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, the 
petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)I 
I. Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor 
I The petitioner has not claimed to meet or submitted evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
At the time of filing, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on the following: 
• Award of a "Beginning Grant-in-Aid" in the amount of $132,000 from the American Heart 
Association for the project "Subsarcolemmal calcium signaling in heart cells." 
• Research Award 1995, awarded by the School of Medicine, Free University of Berlin 
• A "Trainee Abstract Travel Award" for attendance at the 2003 AHA Scientific Sessions, 
granted by the American Heart Association. 
• 2"d Prize at the All-Union Contest of Young Scientists in Pharmacology, 1988, awarded by the 
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and 
Petrochemistry in 1988. 
The petitioner submitted documentary evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of such awards, but did not offer 
any explanation or additional documentation demonstrating how these awards qualify as nationally or 
internationally-recognized awards prizes or awards for excellence. 
In a request for evidence C'RFE") issued on February 1, 2010, the director acknowledged each of these 
awards, and advised that further evidence would be required to establish that any of them are nationally or 
internationally-recognized prizes in the beneficiary's field. The director specifically requested evidence to 
establish the origination, purpose, significance and scope of any national or international award, the criteria 
used to nominate and judge the participants and award winners, and evidence that identifies previous winners 
of each award for the past three to five years. 
While the petitioner submitted a timely response to the RFE, it did not address this criterion. The director 
determined that the petitioner failed to establish that these awards are "nationally or internationally recognized 
awards in which the beneficiary competed with other top professionals in the field." Referring to the 
beneficiary's research grant, specifically, the director observed that a research grant is principally designed to 
fund future research and is not an award to honor or recognize past achievement. 
recognized award. The petitioner submits a letter 
of Ukraine, who addresses the award and states: 
is a nationally or internationally 
of the National Academy of Sciences 
All prizes in the competition were awarded by decision of the academic committee appointed 
by the Pharmacological Committee of the USSR to evaluate all applications submitted to the 
"All-Union Contest of Young Scientists in Pharmacology in 1988." ... 
The competition was open to all researchers throughout the former USSR who were less than 
33 years of age, and conducting research at any academic institution in the former USSR in 
the field of pharmacology or related disciplines that involve studies of pharmacological 
agents. 
Page 7 
Counsel further asserts that "a simple Google search" on the issuing organization reveals that the organization 
is "national in scope." The petitioner does not contest the director's finding that the beneficiary's research 
grant, research award and travel award are not nationally or internationally-recognized prizes or awards. 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not satisfied this 
criterion. The letter from attesting to the scope and significance of the beneficiary's second-prize 
award in the All Union Contest of Young Scientists in Pharmacology will not be considered, as the director 
previously advised the petitioner that additional evidence would be required to establish the significance of 
this award. 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). If the petitioner had wanted the submitted evidence pertaining to the beneficiary's award to be 
considered, it should have submitted the documents in response to the director's explicit request for such 
evidence. Id. Under the circumstances, the AAO need not and does not consider the sufficiency of the 
evidence submitted on appeal. The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(l). 
The AAO acknowledges counsel's contention that the director erred by requiring that the petitioner submit 
evidence that "the Beneficiary competed with other top professionals in the field," in order to meet this 
criterion. The AAO agrees that a petitioner can meet the plain language of this criterion by submitting 
evidence that the beneficiary has received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in his field of endeavor. However, it is the petitioner's burden to establish every element of this 
criterion. A competition may be open to individuals from throughout a particular country or countries, but 
this factor alone is not adequate to establish that an award or prize is "nationally or internationally 
recognized." The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition and achievement 
associated with the beneficiary's awards. The petitioner cannot simply submit an award certificate and 
suggest that USCIS should have used Google to research the significance of the award. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
Cali/ornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
Moreover, the plain language of the regulation requires documentation of "receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards," rather than documentation of "receipt of a nationally recognized 
prize or award." Section 1 0 I (a)(J 5)(O)(i) of the Act requires the submission of extensive evidence. Consistent 
with that statutory requirement, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(l) expressly requires evidence that 
the beneficiary has received "prizes or awards." Therefore, even if we found the beneficiary's second place 
award in the All Union Contest of Young Scientists in Pharmacology is qualifYing under this criterion, which we 
do not, a single nationally or internationally recognized prize or award would not meet the plain language of the 
regulation. 
Page 8 
2. Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the 
alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought, which shall 
include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any necessary translation 
In general, in order for published material to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3), it must be 
primarily "about" the beneficiary and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. To quality as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would quality as major media 
because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.' 
To satisty this criterion, the petitioner submitted evidence in the form of articles that cite the beneficiary's 
published work, as well as evidence of citations of the beneficiary'S published articles from Google Scholar. 
As noted by the director, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(3), however, 
requires that the published material be "about the alien" relating to his work rather than simply about the 
beneficiary'S work. Counsel emphasizes on appeal that several of the articles "in fact discuss and characterize the 
Beneficiary'S work in some detail, and in several instances present the Beneficiary's work as authoritative on the 
point being discussed." Nevertheless, the AAO concurs with the director that it cannot be persuasively asserted 
that these scholarly articles are "about" the beneficiary. 
While such evidence is relevant as to the significance of the beneficiary'S scholarly articles and original 
contributions, it does not meet the plain language requirements for qualitying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8)(3). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
3. Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually as ajudge of the work of others 
in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification is sought 
The petitioner did not specifically address this criterion prior to the director's decision. On appeal, the 
petitioner asserts that the beneficiary can in fact satisty this criterion and has submitted evidence to 
establish that the beneficiary has reviewed papers submitted for publication to Neurophysiology, General 
Physiology and Biophysics and the The Journal of Physiology, among others. The petitioner has also 
provided evidence that the beneficiary was requested by the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine to 
participate as an evaluator of doctoral thesis research performed between 2002 and 2005 at the Academy's 
A.A. Bogomoletz Institute of Physiology. The submitted evidence satisfies the plain language of the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8)(4), 
2 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax 
County, Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 9 
4. Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field 
In her decision, the director detennined that the beneficiary meets this criterion. The AAO concurs with the 
director's detennination. The record contains evidence that the petitioner's various scientific articles have been 
individually well-cited and that his work as a whole has been cited at least 396 times. 
Further, the petitioner has submitted a total of nine letters from various experts in the beneficiary's field stating 
that the petitioner's original scientific contributions are of major sih'11ificance in the field and providing specific 
examples of those contributions and how they have already significantly contributed to the field. We cite 
representative examples below. 
states: 
descr·ib,,, the beneficiary's prior research activities and 
I consider the topics of his investigation to be of utmost importance as a basic sCience 
background, from which novel therapeutic approaches for treatment of various 
neurodegenerative disorders, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, amytotrophic 
lateral sclerosis, Huntingdon's disease and spinocerebellar ataxias can be developed, as recent 
evidence indicates that neuronal calcium signaling is abnormal in many of these illnesses. I 
strongly believe that understanding of molecular mechanisms of calcium antagonists will help 
and promote their utilization as a remedy used in combination with other neurodegenerative 
disease-specific therapeutic approaches. 
More recently [the beneficiary] has been involved in the development and refining of novel 
imaging approaches for exploring calcium signaling and tracking small fluorescent entities 
with high precision, and has addressed very essential questions of presynaptic regulation of 
exocytosis. This included the application of the total internal reflection fluorescence (TIRF) 
microscopy to study calcium signaling produced by individual voltage-gated and calcium-
induced calcium release channels. For this innovative idea and corresponding project, 
[the beneficiary] from the American 
Heart Association. Later at the University of Michigan he applied TIRF-microscopy to study 
motion of chromaffin granules that occurs prior to exocytosis of the vesicles, as well as the 
molecular nature of interactions that detennine dense core vesicle tethering. [The beneficiary] 
brilliantly solved this problem by employing a novel approach to analyzing the motion based 
on very accurate measurements of the fluorescent granule center position. This study 
detennined that on a molecular scale, chromaffin granules indeed tend to increase their 
motion shortly before exocytosis, in contrast to the classical, "textbook" idea of vesicles 
being finnly docked as a prerequisite for subsequent fusion and secretion. This was a 
significant advance in the field and this work has been published in a very prestigious journal, 
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 
Page 10 
worked with the beneficiary directly, but is "well aware of his extraordinary achievements" primarily 
"through his highly regarded publications international scientific journals and abstracts and presentations at 
international scientific meetings." further states: 
[The beneficiary'S] contributions and expertise in the field of calcium signaling, calcium 
channel properties and presynaptic mechanisms of secretion and neurotransmission are 
extremely unique and quite remarkable. Through his work in the area of G-protein-mediated 
inhibition of neuroendocrine calcium channels accomplished at Freie Universitat Berlin, 
followed by structure-function studies on calcium channel inactivation and putative binding 
sties of calcium channel blockers carried out in Innsbruck University, [the beneficiary] gained 
experience that was invaluable for his further studies of functional interactions between 
neuronal calcium channels and individual proteins of presynaptic neurotransmitter release 
machinery, particularly syntaxin lA, completed at Standford University. He has 
demonstrated that this core SNARE protein is a physiological modulator of the slow 
inactivation mechanism of neuronal calcium channel function. One of the top researchers in 
this area worldwide, [the beneficiary's] investigation of the syntaxin lA regulation of 
presynaptic calcium channel gating contributed tremendously to understanding of the nature 
of this effect, and also helped to establish experimental protocols which following 
investigators used .... 
[The beneficiary] has also made unique and crucial contributions towards the development of 
novel technologies of calcium signaling research using total internal reflection fluorescence 
(TIRF) microscopy and that have allowed for imaging of elementary calcium signaling, up to 
the resolution of events produced by individual calcium channels. He subsequently applied 
TIRF microscopy to investigate secretory granule behavior immediate adjacent to the plasma 
membrane. In these seminal studies he questioned the "classical" view of a long-lived 
docked state as a prelude to granule fusion, and discovered that this notion does not 
encompass the physical reality of molecular scale motions, multiple tethering states, and 
indeed increased significant travel immediately preceding the exocytotic event. I consider 
this result of [the beneficiary's] multidisciplinary study to be an accomplishment unparalleled 
by other researchers in this highly specialized field. 
_ states that the beneficiary is remarkable due to "his unique combination of abilities which bridge 
the fields of fluorescence imaging/microscopy to neuroscience/molecular and cell physiology." Finally, he 
states that the beneficiary'S discoveries in the field of molecular mechanisms of synaptic transmission are "key 
towards understanding the etiology and pathogenesis of numerous neurodevelopmental disorders, diabetes, 
immune deficiency and other diseases." 
The record also contains a letter from professor of neurobiology at the petitioning 
university, who discusses the beneficiary'S prior research conducted at the University of Michigan in the area 
of motion of secretory vesicles in chromaffin cells. _ notes that the beneficiary'S discovery was 
published in 2007 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and "is widely referred to by 
Page II 
scientists around the world." ••••• concludes that the beneficiary's "studies have a profound impact in 
the presynaptic mechanisms of neuronal communication and regulation of calcium channels," and states that 
the beneficiary "has made significant contributions to neuroscience in the U.S. and abroad." 
professor of applied neurophysiology at the University of Bristol in the United 
Kingdom, states that he became acquainted with the beneficiary's research by reading his papers in the field of 
calcium channels regulation, and has interacted with him at scientific meetings. _ states that the 
beneficiary's work at the Freie Universitat Berlin "showed for the first time that different heterotrimeric G­
proteins could mediate regulation of ion channels from one specific receptor." He further states: 
In a subsequent research project conducted in Innsbruck University, [the beneficiary 1 
successfully identified molecular structures involved in binding of phenylalkylamine and 
benzothiazepine drug families in cardiac/muscle calcium channels (L-/S-types), which 
overlap with structure motives that determine inactivation gating properties also in neuronal 
calcium channels (P/Q-type). I have a particular appreciation and interest in this direction, 
because it is related to the channel mutation-induced diseases and provides a potential basis 
for discoveries of suitable therapeutic interventions. 
_ further indicates that the beneficiary's research at Stanford University with respect to the 
interaction of the synaptic protein syntaxin I A with neuronal calcium channels was "a pioneering 
demonstration of syntaxin as a physiological selective modulator of the slow inactivation of presynaptic 
calcium channels, and provided yet another evidence of multiple mechanisms of channel inactivation." 
Finally, _ discusses the beneficiary's current research and states that he is "confident in the 
forthcoming discoveries and significant impact in his amazing and ground-breaking research." 
belleiici,ary, he is "very well aware of his work and the impact it had in the field of calcium channel regulation 
and understanding of presynaptic mechanisms." __ states: 
It is now well established that the activity of calcium channels is subject to modulation by a 
number of different means, including pharmacological blockers, voltage-dependent gating, 
G-protein coupled receptors and synaptic proteins. [The beneficiary 1 has contributed to 
understanding ofthe molecular nature of all these mechanisms . 
• • • 
I am most closely familiar with [the beneficiary's 1 . . .structure-function studies of 
pharmacological receptors and inactivation properties of voltage-gated calcium channels 
conducted in Innsbruck University (Austria), as well as regulation of neuronal calcium 
channel gating by a synaptic protein syntaxin lA, accomplished in Stanford University. It has 
turned out that pharmacological and physiological modulations share overlapping structural 
determinants, and have similarities in their mechanisms. A few key amino acids that 
determine binding of calcium antagonists also dramatically affect channel inactivation gating 
Page 12 
properties. [The beneficiary] has demonstrated the role of syntaxin as a physiological 
modulator of slow inactivation in neuronal calcium channels. 
Indeed, I have cited his manuscripts on these topics sixteen times in my reviews and research 
articles, because I consider this work to be a very important contribution in the area of 
calcium channel regulation. Based on his knowledge, research expertise and his reputation, I 
consider [the beneficiary] one of the leading scientists in his area of expertise in the world. 
states that, prior to his first meeting with the beneficiary, he was "familiar with his 
outstanding work in the field of voltage-gated calcium channel regulation, calcium signaling and presynaptic 
mechanisms." _ further describes the beneficiary's contributions as follows: 
Results and findings of one of his earlier research projects ... demonstrated that syntaxin IA 
could selectively affect one type of calcium channel inactivation, have indeed made a large 
impact on further studies of functional interaction of neuronal calcium channels with SNARE 
proteins. Research topics and methodology in several laboratories in the USA and other 
countries have been strongly influenced and promoted by his discovery. This also applies to 
my own group, as we demonstrated the regulatory role of other presynaptic proteins, munc 18 
and munc 13, in controlling SNARE proteins pairing, and modulating syntaxin IA effect on 
calcium channel inactivation .... We cited [the beneficiary's] original work in our 
manuscripts, as did many dozens of other scientists around the globe whose research was 
based on ' ] findings, including 
[The beneficiary's] work at the University of Michigan in laboratory has 
made an even larger advance in the understanding of presynaptic mechanisms involved in 
exocytosis. They have overturned the long-lived classical idea of secretory vesicles being 
stably docked, which has been fonnulated based on results of electron and confocal 
mICroscopy. TlRF-microscopy developed in In 
combination with sophisticated image to 
dynamically track motion of the vesicles with accuracy approaching the optical diffraction 
limit. This methodology allowed [the beneficiary] to demonstrate that, in contrast to 
previously postulated belief, a substantial portion of vesicles do not only preserve their 
mobility on a molecular scale, but also increase motion and often travel to a new area on the 
plasma membrane immediately before the fusion. This prominent study has been published 
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, one of the most respectable 
multidisciplinary journals in the world. Without a doubt, [the beneficiary's] research has 
made a significant contribution to the understanding of presynaptic mechanisms of 
exocytosis. 
opines that "there are maybe only a few others in the U.S. research community who can match 
his level of expertise in fluorescent imaging of SNARE proteins interaction in synapses of central neurons." 
Page 13 
The director detennined that the petitioner had submitted qualifying evidence of original contributions of 
major significance in his field and we concur with that finding. The preceding experts, many of whom have not 
worked with the beneficiary, have not merely reiterated the regulatory language of this criterion, they have clearly 
described how the petitioner's scientific contributions are both original and of major significance in the field. 
Several of the experts have explained how they currently use the petitioner's findings in their own work. 
Moreover, in support of the preceding experts' statements, the petitioner submitted documentation showing 
approximately four hundred independent citations to his published findings. These citations are solid evidence 
that other researchers have been influenced by his work and are familiar with it. This evidence corroborates the 
independent experts' statements that the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in his 
field. The record reflects that the petitioner's contributions are important not only to the institutions where he has 
worked, but throughout the greater field as well. Leading scientists from around the world have acknowledged 
the value of the petitioner's work and its major significance in the neuroscience field. 
(4) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional journals. or other 
major media 
The record demonstrates that the beneficiary has published at least 22 full papers and over 30 abstracts in 
professional scientific journals. The director detennined that the beneficiary meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(6). The AAO concurs with this determination. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that meets the plain language of the specific regulations and therefore 
qualifies under three of the evidentiary criteria that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(4), (5) 
and (6). A final merits determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of 
the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) that the beneficiary has 
achieved a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii); and (2) that the beneficiary has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). See Kazarian, 2010 WL 725317 at *3. 
In 1992, the beneficiary received his PhD. from The Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and has demonstrated a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). His publication record of at least 53 published articles and abstracts at the time of filing not only 
meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(6), his articles are consistently well-cited, with 
approximately 400 independent cites to his body of work as of the petition's filing date. See Kazarian, 596 
F.3d 1115 at 1121 (citations may be relevant to the final merits determination of whether an alien is at the 
very top of his field). This citation record is also consistent with a detennination that his original 
contributions of major significance, discussed in detail in the reference letters from scientists from several 
different countries, are consistent with national or international acclaim. The petitioner submitted reference 
letters from experts in the field, detailing the petitioner's specific contributions and explaining how those 
Page 14 
contributions have influenced the field. Moreover, the petitioner has participated in the peer-review process 
for numerous journals. Thus, the petitioner's achievements are commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
III. Conclusion 
In review, while not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by counsel, the petitioner 
has submitted evidence qualifying under three of the eight categories and established that the beneficiary has 
a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top ofthei[ir] field of endeavor" and has earned "sustained national or international acclaim." Therefore, the 
petitioner has established eligibility for the benefit sought under section 1 OI(a)(I5)(O)(i) of the Act. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.