dismissed EB-1A Case: Aquaculture Research

adentifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invatdm of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 04 086 52988 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: ,,A,, 2MB 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
> Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 04 086 52988 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the 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 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on February 6, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as an aquaculture researcher. A letter of support accompanying the petition states that the petitioner was 
employed as a Research Professor at the Fuzhou Research Institute in China from July 1987 to May 1999. 
The record reflects that the petitioner has previously been accorded H-1B nonimmigrant visa status as the 
beneficiary of two approved Form 1-129 petitions filed on November 1, 1996 and January 27, 2000. The 
latter nonimmigrant visa was valid from April 12, 2000 until December 1, 2002. While the alien's Form I- 
140 lists a residence in China, his appellate submission reflects a United States address. On appeal, the 
petitioner states that he now works "as a consultant for private abalone farms," but he does not specifically 
identify them. 
WAC 04 086 52988 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awardsfor excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Award presented to the Shandong Provincial Institute of Oceanic 
Aquaculture in 1978. The plain wording of the regulation, however, requires evidence of the "alien's receipt 
of. . . prizes or awards for excellence." It cannot suffice that the petitioner was one member of a large group 
that earned collective recognition. If the petitioner himself is not named on the certificate, then it is not apparent 
how such an award would demonstrate his individual acclaim. There is no evidence showing that the individual 
members of the group receiving this award were announced in trade journals or in some other manner that 
would garner them national acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Award presented to him in 1992 declaring him the recipient of a 
"government special stipend." This criterion, however, is intended to be restrictive and cannot be open to 
every scholar or scientist who has ever received a nominal grant or stipend from a national institution or 
agency. The record includes no evidence that would demonstrate the number of awards given, the geographic 
area from which the individuals eligible for consideration for this award were drawn from, the criteria for 
granting the award, the number of individuals eligible to compete for the award, or the level of publicity 
surrounding the award. Therefore, the significance of the award cannot be determined. 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Honor from the People's Government of Fujian Province conferring 
him with "the title of Fujian Provincial Agro-scientist with Outstanding Contributions" (1998). This award, 
however, reflects provincial recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Encouragement stating that he contributed to a project "which was 
awarded third prize in aquaculture technology improvement by the Chinese Academy of Fisheries Sciences in 
1983." There is no evidence showing that this award reflects national recognition rather than institutional 
recognition. Further, the evidence indicates that this was a group award rather than an individual award 
making the petitioner's level of contribution difficult to ascertain. As noted previously, it cannot suffice that 
the petitioner was one member of a large group that earned collective recognition. The record includes no 
documentation from the awarding entity or the print media to establish that the petitioner's Certificate of 
Encouragement constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized award. 
The petitioner submitted certificates from 1994 and 1996 stating that his biographical entry was to be published in 
the Contemporary Dictionary for Chinese Scientists and Inventors and the Dictionary for Chinese Science and 
Technology Personnel. Books of this size, with such a limited portion devoted to the petitioner, appear to be 
more of a comprehensive directory than a special form of recognition limited to an elite few. A form of 
recognition regularly bestowed upon a large number of recipients is of minimal evidentiary weight. 
WAC 04 086 52988 
Page 4 
Interestingly, the record includes no evidence of the published entry about the petitioner appearing in these 
books. 
The petitioner also submitted a "Certificate of Appointment" naming him "a member of the Technical and 
Economic Expert Advisory Committee" on the Fujian Provincial Ocean and Fishery Bureau. We do not find, 
however, that a provincial committee appointment is tantamount to a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award for excellence. 
In addition to the above deficiencies, the record includes no evidence showing that the petitioner has won any 
scientific awards in China subsequent to the 1990's. The absence of such awards indicates that the petitioner 
has not sustained whatever acclaim he may have earned in China during the 1980's and 1990's. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Finally, the overall prestige of a given 
association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's 
overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his lifetime membership in the International Abalone Society and his 
membership on the board of the Chinese Society of Malacology. The record, however, does not include the 
membership bylaws or the official admission requirements for these societies. There is no indication that 
admission to membership in these associations required outstanding achievement or that the petitioner was 
evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of his admission to membership. 
Published materials about the alien in profissional or majar trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which clmsification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the New 
WAC 04 086 52988 
Page 5 
York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.' 
As previously noted, the petitioner submitted certificates from 1994 and 1996 stating that his biographical entry 
was to be published in the Contemporary Dictionary for Chinese Scientists and Inventors and the Dictionary for 
Chinese Science and Technology Personnel. In this instance, there is evidence of the published entry about the 
petitioner appearing in these books. The plain wording of this criterion, however, requires the submission of 
"published materials about the alien'' including "the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation." Further, the editors of these publications do not single out the petitioner as superior to the scores of 
other scientists featured in those same volumes. We cannot conclude that the petitioner's limited entry into such 
sizable tomes would constitute qualifying published material about the petitioner and his work. 
The petitioner also submitted newspaper clippings from Science and Technology Daily and Fuzhou Evening 
News. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that 
the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. The translations accompanying the petitioner's 
newspaper clippings were incomplete and were not certified as required by the regulation. Without proper 
translations, it cannot be determined if the petitioner was the primary subject of the published material. 
Further, there is no evidence showing that these publications had substantial national readership. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijkance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support. The director's decision addressed this evidence stating: 
Documentation submitted for this criterion demonstrates that [the petitioner] has made contributions 
as an aquaculture researcher; however, it has not been established if the contributions are of major 
significance in his field of endeavor. [The petitioner] has not shown how the field has changed as a 
result of his work, beyond the incremental improvements in knowledge and understanding that are 
expected from original valid research work. 
On appeal, the petitioner cites his published work as evidence of his original scientific contributions of major 
significance in the field. Published work, however, falls under the next criterion, a criterion that we find the 
evidence in this case adequately satisfies. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are 
separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for published work and contributions, 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. If 
evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the 
requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. The petitioner's published work 
will be addressed under the next criterion. 
I 
 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, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
WAC 04 086 52988 
Page 6 
We accept that the petitioner's research has yielded some useful and valid results; however, it is apparent that 
any manuscript, in order to be accepted for publication or presentation, must offer new and useful information 
to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every scientist whose research is accepted for publication or 
presentation has made a major contribution to his field. Without extensive documentation (such as a large 
volume of independent citations) showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential or highly 
acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that his work rises to the level of a contribution of 
major significance. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other mmajor media. 
We concur with the director's finding that the petitioner's evidence is adequate to satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the petitioner cites his life membership in the International Abalone Society as evidence that he 
meets this criterion. The petitioner's membership in this society has already been addressed under an earlier 
criterion. In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment 
with a distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire 
organization or establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. The petitioner has not 
submitted evidence detailing the dates of his service for the International Abalone Society, his specific 
responsibilities, and his individual importance to its overall success. In this case, we find the petitioner has 
not established that he performed in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization, or that his 
involvement has earned him sustained national or international acclaim. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijcantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in thefield 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he earns "$20,000.00 per year." The record, however, includes no 
financial documentation (such as payroll records, bank transactions, or income tax forms) to support the 
petitioner's claim regarding his yearly compensation. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). Further, the plain wording of this criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a 
high salary "in relation to others in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his 
compensation was significantly high in relation to others in his field. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he meets at 
least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
WAC 04 086 52988 
Page 7 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record includes no such e~idence.~ 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
- - -- 
2 
 While the record includes a letter of support from 
 President of Fishtech Inc. of San Rafael, California, 
stating that he has worked with the petitioner in the past, letter does not specifically address how the 
petitioner seeks to continue working in his area of expertise in the United States.