dismissed EB-1A Case: Agricultural Science

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 14 2013 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service: 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: hnmigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability · Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
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. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not me any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
• 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
WWW . 11~d~.IJOV 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of her 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" ofthe alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. The director determined that 
the petitioner's evidence had met the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets the regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F .R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), (viii), and (ix). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the 
director's decision. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if--
(i) the alien 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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and hnmigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability'' 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. Id.; 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in 
part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given 
evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court 
concluded that while users may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a 
subsequent"final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the 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 
1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. I d. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on September 7, 2012, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research scientist. The petitioner states: "As a researcher, I have 
excelled and established myself as an outstanding professional in the area of agro-climatology, 
soil science. and cron simulation modelim!." The petitioner received her Ph.D. in Soil Science 
from the in 2005. Subsequently, the petitioner worked as 
Laboratory Manager of the from 
October 2006 to November 2007. From August 2008 to December 2011, the petitioner trained 
as a postdoctoral research associate at At the time of filing the petition, the 
petitioner was working as a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Agronomy and 
Soils at The petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the 
following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)? 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); 
Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) 
(the court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the 
AAO). Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
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 national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields . 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, 
considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, 
considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that she served as a peer reviewer for . 
Accordingly, the AAO affirms the director's 
finding that the petitioner's evidence meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In the director's decision, he determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
regulatory criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires 
"[ e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field." [Emphasis added.] Here, the evidence must be 
reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original scientific or scholarly-related 
contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2"d Cir. Sep 15, 
2003). 
The petitioner submitted various letters of support discussing her work. 
First, let me state that the work being done by [the petitioner] has a particular value to the 
U.S. Government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Agency for 
International Development, and other similar federal organizations, that are involved in 
agricultural productivity, and resources management and conservation. There have been 
a multitude of indications of climate change reported during the last half a century, and 
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has identified the risk of climate change impact on 
agriculture, ecosystems, food-energy-water nexus, and human society. One of the major 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
responsibilities of the U.S. agencies is to provide quantitative assessments of the impact 
of climate change on natural resources, food production, environment, and ecosystems. 
The agricultural modeling work accomplished and being pursued by [the petitioner] is 
certainly a key element in the work on the quantitative assessment of the climate change 
impacts on food security. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] is an outstanding researcher and her current research on the impact of 
climate change and simulation of crops to help decision-making regarding management 
practices is definitely in the best interest of the United States. I have no personal ties to 
[the petitioner]. I have known her name from her publications in prestigious scientific 
journals, such as.- [The petitioner] 
is working in the multidimensional areas of agriculture and soil science for the past 11 
years and has published many [sic] useful information in some well-known and 
prestigious journals. After starting her job at she is now 
entering that phase of her research career when we would expect her contributions to 
fully take off and fundamentally alter our understanding of certain aspects regarding 
decision-making based on climate forecasts in agriculture and crop production. 
While _ comments that the "agricultural modeling work accomplished and being 
pursued by [the petitioner] is certainly a key element in the work on the quantitative assessment 
of the climate change impacts on food security," he does not provide specific examples of how 
the petitioner's original work has significantly impacted the field or otherwise equates to 
scientific contributions of major significance in the field. In addition, _ 1sserts that the 
petitioner has published "useful information" in prestigious journals, but there is no documentary 
evidence showing that her specific findings rise to the level of original contributions of major 
significance in the field. further states that the petitioner "is now entering that phase 
of her research career when we would expect her contributions to fully take off and 
fundamentally alter our understanding of certain aspects regarding decision-making based on 
climate forecasts in agriculture and crop production." however, fails to explain how 
the petitioner's work was of major significance in the field as of the date of filing the petition. 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); 
Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at 
a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 
I&N Dec. 169, 17 5 ( Comm 'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 
18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only 
subsequent to the filing of a petition." !d. at 176. 
[The petitioner's] continuing work in global climate change has also saved countless 
communities in hunger-impoverished areas. Her work is not limited to the present but has 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
far-reaching impacts that will contribute to the health and wellbeing of many generations 
to come. 
[The petitioner's] research on climate variability as related to crop growth and yield is 
critical for the continued productivity of U.S. producers. Her research is considered to be 
on the "cutting edge" of what will be needed for ensuring the long-term environmental 
and economic sustainability of agricultural production. Since her work involves crops and 
climate variability, it also has positively impacted animal production as well. Her work 
with crop modeling is helping U.S. producers to remain productive during major climate 
change events like El Nifio and La Nifia. Her work has been based on input and 
cooperation from stakeholder groups from the producer to the end user. The approach 
that she has developed has resulted in the use of improved management tools for water, 
tillage, soil, and nutrient management, thereby improving the environmental impact of 
agriculture while continuing to feed countless communities. 
The impact of [the petitioner's] research is reflected by her extensive publication and 
presentation record. Very often research is completed but never published such that it is 
not useful to the nation's scientific agricultural community. This is not the case with her 
research efforts. [The petitioner] has an excellent publication record for entire time that 
she has been in this country. It is obvious from her published articles in the 
that she is very active and an excellent collaborator with other scientists 
across the country .... In addition to her publications, [the petitioner] has made several 
national and international presentations at the 
comments that the petitioner's "work with crop modeling is helping U.S. producers to 
remain productive during major climate change events like El Nifio and La Nifia" and that the 
approach the petitioner has developed "has resulted in the use of improved management tools for 
water, tillage, soil, and nutrient management,'' but he fails to provide specific examples of how 
the petitioner's original work has been implemented in agricultural industry at a level indicative 
of scientific contributions of major significance in the field. With regard to and : 
comments regarding the petitioner's published and presented work, the regulations 
contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will not presume 
that evidence relating to or even meeting the 
scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. Here 
it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. 
Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of 
major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. To hold 
otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Publications and 
presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that 
they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. US CIS, 580 F .3d at 1036. In 2010, the Kazarian 
court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the alien had 
not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. Thus, there is no 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
presumption that every published article or conference presentation is a contribution of major 
significance; rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact of her article or presentation. 
The petitioner submitted citation evidence reflecting an aggregate of 35 cites to her body of 
research work. Ten of the submitted citations are self-cites by the petitioner or her coauthors. 
Self-citation is a normal, expected practice. Self-citation cannot, however, demonstrate the 
response of independent researchers. The AAO notes that the number of independent citations per 
article is minimal to moderate. For instance, the submitted documentation reflects that none of the 
petitioner's articles was independently cited to more than ten times. Specifically: 
1. "Evaluation of management strategies for sustainable rice-wheat cropping system, 
using DSSAT seasonal analysis" (The Journal of Agricultural Science) was 
independently cited to nine times (plus two self-citations by the petitioner); 
2. "Sequence analysis of DSSAT to select optimum strategy of crop residue and 
nitrogen for sustainable rice-wheat rotation" (Agronomy Journal) was independently 
cited to eight times (plus one self-citation by the petitioner); 
3. "Assessment of sustainability of rice-wheat system under different combinations of 
tillage, crop residue and fertilizer nitrogen applications using crop simulation model" 
(Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Technology) was independently cited to twice (plus 
three self-citations by the petitioner); 
4. "Solution chemistry and availability of iron to groundnut crop (Arachis hypogaea L.) 
in calcareous soils" (M.Sc. thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences) was 
independently cited to three times; 
5. "Correlation of Portable X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) and Inductively Coupled Plasma 
Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) for Elemental Determination" (Compost 
Science and Utilization) was independently cited to twice (plus four self-citations by 
the petitioner's coauthor Dr. Weindorf); and 
6. "Response of wheat to wetland and dryland rice tillage, crop residue incorporation 
and rate of fertilizer N application in rice-wheat rotation on coarse alfisol of Eastern 
India" (Proceedings of the 2ih Southern Conservation Tillage Systems Conference) 
was independently cited to once. 
Merely submitting documentation reflecting that the petitioner's work has been cited by others in 
their published work is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without documentary 
evidence reflecting that the petitioner's work has been of "major significance in the field." 
Generally, the number of citations is reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that the 
field has taken some interest to the petitioner's work. However, it is not an automatic indicator 
that the petitioner's work has been of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
established that the minimal to moderate number of independent cites per article for her research 
work is indicative of original scientific contributions of major significance in the field. 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
Staff Scientist V (Associate Professor) at the 
states: 
[The petitioner] had her Ph.D. from . 
. . . Her doctoral 
research on decision-making through simulation modeling for optimum use of nitrogen, 
an important and expensive agricultural input, was astounding. Her work on simulating 
the soil conditions after application of crop residue as a substitute of nutrient supply was 
a novel finding for rice-wheat rotational agricultural system. Crop residue is mainly used 
as fodder or roof material in most of the south Asian countries but her idea to use it as 
nutrient-resource was innovative. The idea was also tested through her crop model and 
found to be sustaining in long run. Rice-wheat rotation is one of prevalent crop rotation in 
India and a research finding like this is practically helpful to the farmers' community in 
India and beyond that. 
comments on the petitioner's Ph.D. research at the 
but there is no documentary evidence showing that her work was frequently cited 
by independent researchers, widely implemented by the farming community, or otherwise 
constitutes original scientific contributions of major significance in the field. While the 
petitioner's Ph.D. research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown 
to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific 
community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, 
publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. It does not follow that every scientist who performs original research that adds to 
the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of "major significance" to the 
field as a whole. 
I have known rthe petitionerl since 2001 when she registered her [sic] as Ph.D. student at 
_ _ I found her as an extremely diligent and 
commendable student with enormous quench [sic] of learning and understanding the 
methodology and mechanisms of soil and plant systems as well as crop productivity and 
agricultural system. Moreover, her ability to apply computer technology through her 
involvement in simulating the crop growth and yield by crop simulation models proves 
her generous dedication to the research. This definitely intensified the impacts of the 
results and application of her research in many folds to present agriculture. 
Results from her research on selection of management practices specially type of tillage, 
residue application and Nitrogen and irrigation strategies has increased the understanding 
of practices of resource management in agriculture and its impact on sustainability of 
crop production and economic output. 
comments on the petitioner's "ability to apply computer technology through her 
involvement in simulating the crop growth and yield by crop simulation models." Assuming the 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
petitioner's ability is unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill 
shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor through the alien employment certification process. See Matter of New 
York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). 
further states that the results from the petitioner's "research on selection of management 
practices ... has increased the understanding of practices of resource management in agriculture 
and its impact on sustainability of crop production and economic output," but there is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's findings were extensively applied in the 
agricultural industry, that her research results were heavily cited by independent researchers, or 
that her findings otherwise equated to original scientific contributions of major significance in 
the field. The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little 
point in publishing or presenting research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in 
the field. As previously discussed, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the 
petitioner's contributions not only be original but of "major significance" in the field. 
I have known [the petitioner] since August 2008 when she started working at 
:====-= ts a Postdoctoral Research Fellow and a Co-Investigator of the study entitled 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] past research has amply demonstrated that the selection of best and 
suitable management practices for a cropping system through field research and 
simulation of crop growth and yield by adopting crop models can help anticipate yield 
increase and sustain productivity in the long run. This research was well accepted and 
published in an internationally acclaimed journal ( _ _ _ _ 
· - [The petitioner's] research on simulating the rice and 
wheat yield based on specific soil and climate condition help understand how an 
optimum rate of N application help increase crop yield as well as well management of 
resources. 
states that the petitioner's research in _ _ was "well accepted," but 
according to the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner, her article in the journal has been 
independently cited to only eight times since its publication in 2008. There is no documentary 
evidence showing that any of the petitioner's original crop models have been widely 
implemented throughout the agronomy field or otherwise rise to the level of scientific 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
[The petitioner] is currently working as a Postdoctoral researcher at 
where she works under the direction of 
* * * 
I have been working with [the petitioner] to provide agronomic data for the 
forecast climate model she is working on. The current model 
is focused specifically on wheat production and designed to help predict crop growth and 
nitrogen application rates during El Nifio and [The petitioner] 
will present this work :::.t thP. m 
Cincinnati, OH in This research represents a novel approach that 
integrates climate 
models with various production inputs to help farmers make better 
decisions to optimize yields and profits. 
* * * 
As the use of technology increases throughout farming systems in the United States, the 
model developed by [the petitioner] demonstrates how the integration of modem 
technology and traditional agronomic principles can optimize agricultural production. 
[The petitioner's] research is of particular significance because climate has traditionally 
been a variable that contributed significant risk to agricultural production, however, using 
climate forecasts to assist growers with their agronomic decision making significantly 
reduces risk associated with climate variability to produce consistent yields in order to 
feed a growing national and international population. In tum, the increase in agricultural 
production also benefits the economic growth of the United States. 
[The petitioner] has produced a diverse, unique, and valuable body of work that has 
significantly contributed to the scientific literature. For example, [the petitioner's] 
findings on selection of management practices that include different wet and dry tillage 
techniques, crop residue incorporation, rates of fertilizer N application and irrigation 
strategies on soil physical properties, sequential soil organic carbon content, N leaching 
and N uptake has led to more economically and environmentally sound rice-wheat 
cropping systems. [The petitioner] also has worked in soil chemistry by examining 
different forms of iron and calcium present in calcareous soils and demonstrating that 
optimum combinations of moisture and CaC0 3 in the soil can improve groundnut yield 
on highly calcareous soils. 
:;tates that the petitioner was scheduled to present her work on the l 
climate model at the · - · --- · --- · - · · _ in Cincinnati, OH in 
October 2012. The AAO notes, however, that any impact resulting from her presentation post­
dates the September 7, 2012 filing date of the petition. As previously discussed, eligibility must 
be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. With regard to the 
petitioner's , there is no evidence demonstrating that her approach 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
had been implemented across the United States to predict crop growth and to improve crop 
production, or that her findings otherwise equated to original contributions of major significance 
in the field at the time of filing the petition. In addition, there is no documentary evidence 
showing that the petitioner's findings on selection of crop management practices and her 
research on different forms of iron and calcium in calcareous soils are frequently cited by 
independent researchers, widely applied in the agricultural industry, or otherwise of major 
significance in the field. 
, Bushland, Texas, states: 
[The petitioner's] background in agriculture especially soil science and crop modeling 
commanded her researches extensively on soil environment as well as crop simulation to 
understand the impact of climate change factors in agriculture which is very high interest 
to me. [The petitioner] works with crop models to simulate growth and yield of a crop or 
cropping system. The output of her research has been quite useful for my work related to 
remote sensing based models to improve agricultural water management in west Texas. 
Her research results on selecting crop-soil specific management practices for long-term 
sustainability are exceptional and have greatly helped the process of decision-making by 
producers and researchers. The outcome of her studies suggested that better management 
of nitrogen and water resources through proper decision-making using crop modeling is 
possible for selecting specific rate of nitrogen and irrigation strategies. I also noticed that 
some of the management strategies proposed by her are widely implemented in numerous 
research studies. Without any doubt, [the petitioner's] breakthroughs in crop simulation 
modeling to study the performance of cropping systems over long run and under varying 
climate are ground breaking with tremendous impact on crop production strategies. 
asserts that the petitioner's "breakthroughs in crop simulation modeling ... are 
grourid breaking with tremendous impact on crop production strategies," but fails to 
provide specific examples of how the petitioner's approaches have been utilized throughout the 
agricultural industry or otherwise constitute original scientific contributions of major 
significance in the field. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. 
The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
[The petitioner] is currently employed at as postdoctoral research 
fellow and working on the climate change factors and its effect on 
crop growth and yield. 
She is also involved in developing and sharing the information on weather and climate 
and various other information regarding climate change and their effect on agriculture 
through an online website 
* * * 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
As an engineer, I cannot emphasize enough how important [the petitioner's] research is to 
the individuals related to agriculture and economy .... [The petitioner's] involvement in 
studying how a little change in temperature and pressure on sea surface of the tropical 
Pacific Ocean in the form oJ nd its gradual effect on the agricultural system of SE 
USA has been exploring the opponunities to modify the management options based on 
climate change factors. The outcome of the research will unquestionably help farmers 
reduce over-application and encourage timely application of N fertilizer to the 
agricultural system . 
. comments that the petitioner helped develop and share "information on weather 
and climate . 
. . and their effect on agriculture through an online website" at 
but does not provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's work has already been of maJor significance in the field. In addition, while 
indicates that the outcome of the petitioner's esearch "will unquestionably 
help farmers reduce over-application and encourage timely application of N fertilizer to the 
agricultural system," fails to provide any additional information or examples to 
show how the petitioner's specific research findings have actually been applied by others 
throughout the field, so as to demonstrate that her original contributions have been of "major 
significance." 
states that [the petitioner] is currently working under her direct supervision as a Post-Doctoral 
Research Fellow. :tsserts that the petitioner, "who has a Ph.D. in Soil Science, is one of 
a handful of scientists with expertise in soil science, agronomy and crop simulation modeling 
techniques to improve crop production efficiency." As previously discussed, assuming the 
petitioner's research expertise is unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to 
alleviate skill shortages in a given field. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are 
available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the 
alien employment certification process. See Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. The petitioner's appellate submission includes an April26, 
2012 e-mail from [ndicating that she and the petitioner "have been working on the 
development of a and that the petitioner "is working on the content 
of the page." There is no documentary evidence showing, however, that that the webpage has 
impacted the field at a level indicative of a scientific contribution of major significance in the 
field. 
In his first letter, 
[The petitioner] started working with me on a project entitled '' 
She conducted work on the 
soil physics related aspects of detecting buried land mines using ground penetrating radar 
(GPR). [The petitioner] actively planned the field research to study the effect of various 
soils with different textural and physical properties which affected the response of ground 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
penetrating radar devices in detecting buried land mines. The research conducted during 
2008-2009 suggested some interesting results on the impact of soil moisture 
concentration and electrical conductivity of different soils on differential GPR responses. 
We were excited to find differences in the soil effects during the first year of the study. 
We made plans to continue our research to reveal additional details of how the 
response was affected by soil properties. [The petitioner] wrote a $300K grant with me 
on 
which was funded in September 2010. 
[The petitioner's] research efforts were focused on identifying the soil factors that might 
be influencing the operation of the radar component of the mine detector. . . . Her 
findings were significant when analyzed. [The petitioner] found that there is a trend 
towards reduced reliability in mine detection with the GPR when the soil properties of 
clay allowed the clay particles to hold more water without becoming liquefied. Thus, now 
soldiers are aware that when the plasticity index of low swelling clay soil is above an 
index value of 19 the GPR may be less reliable. 
comments that his project with the petitioner entitled 
_ "suggested some interesting results on the impact of 
soil moisture concentration and electrical conductivity of different soils on differential GPR 
responses," but does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's findings 
have been successfully implemented to improve GPR reliability, or how her original work 
otherwise equates to a scientific contribution of major significance in the field. In addition. -
~tates that the petitioner helped him write a $300K grant on '' 
which was 1unut:u m ;:o,t:ptt:mot:r 
2010. The AAO cannot ignore that a substantial amount of scientific research is funded by 
grants from a variety of public and private sources. Every successful scientist engaged in 
research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously 
the past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The funding 
institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. 
Nevertheless, the AAO cannot conclude that the ability to secure funding for one's research 
constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. further states 
that the petitioner "found that there is a trend towards reduced reliability in mine detection with 
the GPR when the soil properties of clay allowed the clay particles to hold more water without 
becoming liquefied" and that "now soldiers are aware that when the plasticity index of low 
swelling clay soil is above an index value of 19 the GPR may be less reliable," but there is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's findings have been implemented by 
the U.S. military or that her findings are recognized beyond the project such that her original 
work equates to a contribution of major significance in the field. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the contributions be "of major significance 
in the field" rather than primarily limited to a specific research project and its collaborators. 
In his second letter, states: 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
· [The petitioner] worked on two projects (funded by the m 
collaboration with the and the results from those 
projects made valuable contributions in the understanding of GPR (ground penetrating 
radar) devices used in the detection ofburied antipersonnellandmines. 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] research findings were presented at several professional and scientific 
meetings and were captured in research reports submitted to the 
Release of information contained in the reports was subject to approval by the U.S. Army 
- Ft. Leonard Wood, MO. The findings of the research have not been 
published because we operated on one year contracts and these did not allow us to collect 
sufficient data over time to meet responsibility requirements for publishing. Research 
funding priorities shifted from land mine detection as the war in Iraq came to an end. 
Although the results were not published in scientific journals, the outcomes of more than 
3 years of research by [the petitioner] have potential for improving the safety of land 
mine detection beyond U.S. military personnel. The results of the studies conducted by 
[the petitioner] are being discussed with members of the U.S. State Department's 
Humanitarian Demining team. What we learned from our research can be transferred to 
non-military 
applications of the mine detection technology and to many other commercial 
applications of GPR technology. The information has value to many users. 
comments that the petitioner has presented her research findings "at several 
professional and scientific meetings." The AAO notes that many professional fields regularly 
hold meetings and symposia to present new work, discuss new findings, and to network with 
other professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional 
associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. Participation in such 
events, however, does not equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
There is no documentary evidence showing that any of the petitioner's specific conference 
presentations are frequently cited by other research scientists, have significantly impacted the 
field, or otherwise rise to the level of contributions of major significance in the field. While 
presentation of the petitioner's work demonstrates that his findings were shared with others and 
may be acknowledged as original contributions based on their selection for presentation, the 
AAO is not persuaded that presentations of the petitioner's work at various scientific meetings 
are sufficient evidence establishing that her work is of "major significance" in the field as a 
whole and not limited to the engagements in which her 
work was presented. The petitioner has 
failed to establish, for example, the impact or influence of her presentations beyond those in 
attendance so as to establish that her work was of major significance in the field. 
In addition, asserts that the petitioner's research results "can be transferred to non­
military applications of the mine detection technology and to many other commercial 
applications of GPR technology," but he fails to provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's findings are already being utilized at a level indicative of contributions of major 
significance in the field. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
filing the petition. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A 
petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based solely on the expectation of future 
eligibility. Id. 
I know [the petitioner] from her Post Doctoral position at the 
* * * 
[The petitioner] conducted several field scale experiments to select best combination of 
management practices for sustainable rice-wheat crop rotation. . . . I consider her ideas 
of applying seasonal and sequence analysis programs for simulation of rice-wheat 
rotation as pioneering and ground-breaking. Her research findings were novel and have 
definitely provided us with some basic understandings on intricacies between crop 
performance and effect of weather factors in long run. She successfully used crop 
models as a helpful tool to simulate the long-term yield of a crop rotation and verifying 
the long-term effects of different management practices on agricultural systems, which I 
think has inspired many researchers around the world to follow in her footsteps. [The 
petitioner's] crop simulation study has resulted in the widespread acceptance of using the 
CERES group of models for studying the effect of crop residue incorporation and 
selecting better N application strategies. The results of her studies have been published in 
Peer-reviewed - -
with an impressive citation record. 
While describes the petitioner's application of "seasonal and sequence analysis 
programs for simulation of rice-wheat rotation as pioneering and ground-breaking" and asserts 
that the petitioner "has inspired many researchers around the world to follow in her footsteps," 
he does not provide specific examples indicating that independent crop scientists are utilizing the 
petitioner's results, that her findings are being widely applied throughout the agricultural 
industry, or that her work otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance in the 
field. also notes that the results of the petitioner's studies· have been published in 
but the 
citation evidence submitted by the petitioner fails to demonstrate that her published findings in 
the journals have been heavily cited or were otherwise of major significance in the field. 
states: 
[The petitioner] joined as a co-investigator and got involved in a study of 
. . . Subsequently, she 
wrote a proposal in 201 0 on 
and it was approved for funding with more than $300,000.00. 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has scientific background and experiences in understanding and the 
explaining the influence of climatic variable in conjunction with soils, fertilizers and 
other biotic and abiotic factors. She already has published and presented multiple papers 
and lectures on the related subjects in various scientific forums. The guidelines and 
recommendations coming out of her work will be very helpful to our farmers and 
agricultural producers. Recently she has developed a website 
which has become very useful to many users as a ready guide. 
comments that the petitioner "has published and presented multiple papers and 
lectures on the related subjects in various scientific forums," but the minimal number of 
independent cites to the petitioner's work fails to demonstrate that her findings were of major 
significance in the field. Moreover, does not provide specific examples of how 
the petitioner's guidelines, recommendations, and website at have 
significantly impacted the field at large or otherwise equate to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically 
identify contributions or' provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the 
field are insufficient. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036. In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the 
AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] contributions in 
the 
field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered by 
both the director and the AAO. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 
795 (eomm'r. 1988). users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of reference letters 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 r&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BrA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the references' statements and 
how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when 
written by independent .experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition 
· are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a research 
scientist who has made original contributions of major significance in the field. Without 
additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, 
widely applied throughout her field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major 
significance, the AAO cannot conclude that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
The petitioner has documented her authorship of scholarly articles and, thus, has submitted 
qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the AAO affirms the 
director's finding that the petitioner's evidence meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted an August 6, 2012letter from l 
While a department head, I employed [the petitioner] to serve as 
At the time, our Laboratory served as one of only seven 
facilities in the U.S. certified in composted product quality assurance testing under 
TMECC/USCC [United States Composting Council] standards. As Laboratory Manager, 
[the petitioner] played a critical role not only with laboratory development, but as a 
principal who assisted with the definition of operational rules and procedures. 
The petitioner submitted a December 17, 2012 letter from 
Please be advised that I worked with rthe petitionerl in my role as the~··--·-· -· ···-··~- ~ 
_ _ from Oct. 2006 through Nov. 2007. Her responsibilities during this 
time included testing compost samples and completing report forms for STA Program 
participants, while working for STA certified lab There were 
approximately 119 companies, representing 155 products in the STA Program at that 
time. 
* * * 
Her testing and resulting suggestions back to the compost producers helped to grow their 
knowledge in improving the quality of compost and this helped to supply better quality 
compost for the soil and environment. She played a significant role as both a soil 
scientist and a laboratory manager. 
was one of only 11 STA certified labs in the United States, and [the 
petitioner's] role in this program was very critical to its ongoing operation and success. 
The petitioner submitted a December 19, 2012 letter from 
_ stating: 
I worked with [the petitioner] during the mid 2000's when she managed the 
_ At that time, was one of only 
a few laboratories approved for testing of compost that participated in the Seal of Testing 
Assurance (STA) Program. 
and 
(b)(6)
Page 19 
* * * 
Her specialized understanding of our industry and our product was critical in helping us 
produce a high quality product. We sell our various compost products for anywhere from 
$20/cubic yard up to $30/cubic yard depending on the blend. Without the 1 
and validity provided by [the petitioner] who specialized in compost, soils, etc., we could 
not have quoted the price and sold our products at these rates. 
The petitioner submitted a 2007 progress report prepared by 
Operation of th~:: 
was 
manager) and 
stating: 
[Texas Agricultural Experiment Station] 
dramatically scaled back with the departure of [the petitioner] (lab 
(director). Supervision of the lab has been transferred to 
and samples are being run by student workers. 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which the 
alien is responsible for the success or standing of the organization. According to the 2007 
progress report, the responsibility for testing of soil samples was assigned to "student workers" 
after the petitioner's departure from the Tarleton State University Compost Analysis Laboratory. 
As the petitioner was replaced by students, the submitted evidence fails to establish that she was 
responsible for the laboratory's success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of 
"critical role." However, the AAO finds that the petitioner's position as laboratory manager was 
equivalent to a leading role. 
The next issue is whether the petitioner has submitted evidence establishing that the 
has a distinguished reputation. The petitioner 
submitted information about the , from the 
~ ~ ~ 
The preceding information, however, fails to demonstrate that the · 
had a distinguished reputation relative to other . 
scientific laboratories in the United States. The petitioner has not established that simply 
qualifying as an approved laboratory to perform analyses is indicative of a distinguished 
reputation. Without objective documentary evidence setting the 
apart from other laboratories in the U.S., the AAO cannot 
conclude that the laboratory enjoyed a distinguished reputation during the petitioner's period of 
employment. 
Furthermore, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires 
evidence that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished 
"organizations or establishments" in the plural. The use of the plural is consistent with the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, 
not all of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the 
(b)(6)
Page 20 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel 
or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the 
plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of 
experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the 
remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld 
USC IS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a 
regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 
26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) 
(upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" 
foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single degree rather than a 
combination of academic credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner were to submit 
documentary evidence showing that the reputation of the 
meets the elements of this regulatory criterion, which she has not, the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence of a leading or 
critical role for more than one distinguished organization or establishment. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner submitted a compensation statement from _ _ 
reflecting an annual gross salary of in 2007. The petitioner also submitted year end 
pay statements from Lincoln University indicating that she earned , in 2008, 
in 2010, and in 2011. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted an August 17, 2012 pay statement from Auburn University reflecting biweekly 
earnings of annually. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits 2007 salary information from 
St henville, Texas for 
limited to 
The petitioner 
also submits 2003 and 2007 salary information from limited to Jefferson 
City, Missouri fo1 w o were both employed at Lincoln 
University. The petitioner, however, must submit evidence showing that she has earned a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration "in relation to others in the field," not simply a 
salary that is slightly above the amount paid to a small sampling of researchers from the 
universities and localities where she worked. The petitioner's reliance on average salary 
calculations limited to her peers at the two universities that employed her is not an appropriate 
basis for comparison in demonstrating that her earnings constitute a "high salary" relative to 
"others in the field." See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) 
(considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. 
U.S. Dept. ofHomeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding average salary 
information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the field); 
Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary 
(b)(6)
Page 21 
versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing 
salary ofNHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). Accordingly, the petitioner 
has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly 
demonstrate that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) 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" and (2) "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)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination. 3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
!d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained 
that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions offact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).