dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemical Sciences

IdandfliqgbWto 
preveob cl~aij. *-:'dmmted 
invasion ofpersonal privacy 
U.S. Department of Ifomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 06 014 51705 
IN RE: 
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. 
 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
sobert P. WiemM, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifj for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a personal statement addressing some of the director's concerns. For 
the reasons discussed below, however, we uphold the director's well-reasoned decision. 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). 
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. $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. $204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an "acting 
instructor." 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 that, he 
claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally. or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially asserted that his position as an associate professor at Jilin University in China 
and his Japanese patent serve to meet this criterion. The petitioner did not explain how a job, even a 
competitive job at a prestigious institution, constitutes a prize or award for excellence. In addition, 
patents are issued to the inventors of original processes or devices that are useful. No evaluation as to 
the significance of the invention is made.2 A patent is a property right, not an award for excellence. 
We note that this office has previously stated that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record 
of success with some degree of influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York State 
Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 21 5,221 n. 7, (Commr. 1998). If a patent is not sufficient to establish 
eligibility for a lesser classification, the national interest waiver for aliens with exceptional ability or 
advanced degree professionals, it is certainly not evidence of national or international acclaim for 
purposes of a higher and more exclusive classification. In response to the director's request for 
additional evidence and again on appeal, the petitioner no longer asserts that his job at Jilin University 
or his patent serve to meet this criterion and, for the reasons discussed in this paragraph, we find that 
they do not. 
In addition to the above claims, the petitioner submitted evidence that in 1997, he received a 1997 
Japan Science and Technology Corporation (JST) Science and Technology Association (STA) 
Fellowship. In 1999, the petitioner received a Science and Technology postdoctoral fellowships 
sponsored by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). The record contains reference 
letters, some of which attest to the prestigious nature of the fellowships and that they are limited to 
outstanding young scientists. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
* While the U.S. requires that the invention be "useful," the Merriam-Webster Dictionary 759 (1974) defines 
"useful" as "capable of being put to use: advantageous." The same dictionary defines "excellence" as "the 
quality of being excellent," defined as "very good of its kind: first-class." Id. at 250. Thus, recognition of 
the development of a novel and useful process is not a competitive award for excellence in the field. 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. CIS may 
even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in 
any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
The petitioner did not initially submit any materials regarding the JST STA Fellowship. In response to 
the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that STA established 
the fellowship in order to offer "opportunities for promising young foreign researchers" to conduct 
research in Japan. Fellows must have a doctorate or have an equivalent qualification and be no older 
than 35 "in principle." 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence that the main functions of JSPS are to foster young 
researchers, promote international scientific cooperation, to award Grants-in-Aid for Scientific 
. 
Research, to implement the research for the future program, to support scientific cooperation between 
the academic community and industry and to collect and distribute information on scientific research 
activities. The Internet materials provided include a list of programs including both the postdoctoral 
fellowships for foreign research that he received and awards for eminent scientists. In response to the 
director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted additional Internet materials about 
the JSPS postdoctoral fellowship for foreign researchers. The fellowship's purpose is to "provide 
opportunities to young postdoctoral researchers from foreign countries to conduct, under the guidance 
of their hosts, cooperative research with leading research groups in universities and other Japanese 
institutions." Fellows must hold a doctorate received within six years prior to the date of the 
fellowship. The applications must be filed by the host scientist and there are rigorous requirements for 
these applicants. The materials reflect that in Fiscal Year 2000, there were 451 applications filed by 
prospective host scientists in the Chemical Sciences and only 87 of those were accepted. 
The director concluded that the fellowships were limited to young researchers and could not serve to 
meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "young" does not mean inexperienced. He 
reiterates the requirements for the fellowships. 
While the postdoctoral fellowships are competitive and prestigious, they are not awards or prizes 
recognizing past excellence. Rather, they are designed to promote future research cooperation. 
Moreover, we concur with the director that fellowships limited to those scientists who have obtained 
their Ph.D. in the last six years and for which the most experienced and renowned members of the field 
cannot compete are not indicative of or at least consistent with national or international acclaim as one 
of the small percentage at the top of the field. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jeld for which classiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
The petitioner initially asserted that his membership in the American Chemical Society (ACS) serves to 
meet this criterion. The petitioner asserted in his initial statement that ACS is the largest scientific 
society with 163'00 members that include Nobel Laureates and distinguished scientists. The 
petitioner's supervisor provides similar information. One of the petitioner's references, - 
-1, a former visiting professor in the laboratory where the petitioner now works, asserts 
- - 
that ACS membership requires recommendations and a review of the applicant's professional 
accomplishments. The petitioner did not submit the society's official membership criteria. Simply 
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 (Commr. 1998)(citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Cornrnr. 1972)). The petitioner 
submitted no evidence relating to this criterion in response to the director's request for additional 
evidence and no longer claims to meet this criterion on appeal. 
The record lacks evidence that ACS requires outstanding achievements of its members. That the 
membership includes Nobel Laureates does not imply that an achievement on this scale is required for 
membership. In fact, a large membership, as claimed by the petitioner, suggests that ACS is not 
exclusive. Finally, securing recommendations from one's colleagues is not an outstanding 
achievement. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets 
this 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 classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner relies on citations to meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner notes that some of the 
citations remark on the nature of the petitioner's work. While the brief reference to the petitioner's 
work in the context of a larger article that cites several past articles in the field may be favorable, we 
concur with the director that articles which cite the petitioner's work are primarily about the author's 
own work or constitute a review of recent work in the field by many researchers. The articles citing the 
petitioner's work are not "about" the petitioner. As such, the articles cannot be considered published 
material about the petitioner and cannot serve to meet this criterion. That said, they are relevant to the 
significance of the petitioner's scholarly articles and will be considered below in the context of that 
criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 6 
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 alliedfield of speclJication for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner must establish his eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). The record reflects that, as of the date of filing, 
the petitioner had refereed articles for Polymer Degradation and Stability. In response to the director's 
request for additional evidence the etitioner submitted a letter from 1 ~ditor of Polymer 
Degradation and Stability. asserts that reviewers must be experts in the field, possess 
extensive research experience and, preferably, have won an national or international award. - 
asserts that the petitioner was selected "based on his extensive experience and outstanding 
achievements in a variety of polymer-related areas." As stated above, CIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility and give less weight to opinions that are 
not supported by corroborating evidence. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
The record does not contain the official rules for the selection process for reviewers at the journal or 
even the number of reviewers. The record does not suggest that reviewers are credited in the journal 
as editors are. 
We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review 
submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained 
national or international acclaim. As such we concur with the director that, without evidence that sets 
the petitioner apart fiom others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large 
number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an 
editorial position for a distinguished journal, the petitioner cannot establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner relies on his reference letters to meet this criterion. As stated above, the submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters fiom independent 
references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a 
solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely 
on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries 
greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. 
The petitioner earned his Ph.D. from Jilin University in 1995. The petitioner then progressed to an 
associate professor position at that university. As discussed above, in 1998, the petitioner began 
working in Japan pursuant to two postdoctoral fellowships. In 2002, the petitioner joined the 
university of Washington (UW) in Seattle as 
 research associate and was working 
there as an acting instructor in the laboratory of 
 as of the date of filing. 
, currently a professor at Tokai University in Japan, asserts that the petitioner worked 
in his laboratory at the Sagami Chemical Research Center in Japan during his STA Fellowship. 
There, the petitioner worked on liquid crystalline polymers and alignment reagents for liquid crystal 
displays (LCDs). According to : "For the first time, he designed and synthesized liquid 
crystalline side-chain polymers, oligomers, and dendrimers with the fluorescent and photo- 
crosslinkable coumarin units." 
 This work led to five published articles. 
 then 
summarizes the petitioner's original results, but fails to explain how this work has impacted the field 
of liquid crystal polymer research other than to note that the petitioner's work is well cited and has 
been "adopted in the two review articles." 
asserts that at UW the etitioner "applies his research to the electro-optic (E-0) and light- 
emitting materials areas." hexplains the advantages of E-0 materials as building blocks and 
the challenges in their development. The petitioner provided a new strategy to resolve two problems, 
designing E-0 block copolymers of CLD-block-polystyrene using organic and polymeric synthetic 
techniques. concludes that future research in this area "will definitely stimulate the E-0 
research field." 
further asserts that the petitioner has worked on organic light emittiag diodes (OLEDs), 
which have the potential to be smaller, faster and less expensive than LCDs. The petitioner's work 
in this area "suggests a new way for solving the problem of the poor spectra stability" through the 
use of block copolymers as the blue emitter. This work, however, was unpublished as of the date of 
filing. As stated above, the petitioner must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim 
as of the date of filing in this matter. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 49. Thus, we cannot consider accomplishments that had yet to be published and, thus, widely 
disseminated in the field as of that date. 
In a second letter, reiterates that the petitioner's focus at UW has been to develop "novel 
nanostructured materials and devices, which enhance and improve the performance of the optical, 
photonic, and electrical properties of the functional materials." confirms that the petitioner 
has strengthened the laboratory's ongoing research and begun research in new directions. = 
concludes that the petitioner's "success in the development of advanced functional nanomaterials for 
high-speed telecommunication, light-emitting materials, and novel water soluble functional block 
copolymers, which can be used in drug delivery, photodynamic therapy, and biosensors, accredits 
him a leadership [role] in my research group." 
- an associate professor at UW, asserts that the petitioner has "already 
demonstrated that the nanostructured electro-optical block copolymers enhance 1.5 to 2 times of the 
electro-optical materials, and in verse, the preparation of novel electro-optical materials with 
nanotechnology." predicts that this work "will benefit to [sic] the rapid developing 
researches [sic] of nanomaterials and nanotechnology." Similarly, asserts that the 
petitioner's prior work in Japan "shows a otential application of the nanostructured materials for 
optical storage and holography." d' provides no examples of how the petitioner's work is 
already impacting the field other than to note that the petitioner's articles are well cited. and 
, another professor at UW, provide similar information. 
The above letters are all from the petitioner's collaborators and immediate colleagues. While such 
letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot 
bv themselves establish the ~etitioner's national or international acclaim. The ~etitioner did ~rovide 
two letters from inde endents members of the field. 
 Manager oi Materials at kumera 
Corporation, and P, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, 
both assert that they do not know the petitioner personally and that their opinion is based on their 
review of his curriculum vitae and publications he provided to them. 
asserts that the materials with which the petitioner works "have high potentials in the fields 
of flat displays, solar cell, and nanotechnology which are critical to the US economy, national safety, 
health and energy." (Emphasis in original.) 
 does not assert, however, that he was aware of 
the petitioner's-work through his reputation prior to being contacted for a reference or that the 
petitioner's work has influenced his own projects at Lumera. Similarly, rovides general 
praise of the petitioner's publication record and achievements, but does not assert that she was aware 
of the petitioner's work through his national reputation prior to being contacted for a reference or 
that she has personally relied on the petitioner's work in her own projects. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner is a named inventor on a Japanese patent. As stated above, this 
office has previously stated that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with 
some degree of influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 
I&N Dec. at 221 n. 7. Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case 
basis. Id. The petitioner has not demonstrated that his patent has been licensed or is otherwise 
impacting the field. 
Finally, we also acknowledge that the petitioner has a lengthy publication history and is well cited, with 
one article cited 25 times as of the date of filing, the date as of which the petitioner must establish his 
eligibility. The citations clearly reflect on the significance of the petitioner's scholarly articles and will 
be considered below in that context. Without a more detailed explanation of how the petitioner's work 
has impacted the field, however, they are insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's contributions 
are of major signi$cance. The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there 
would be little point in publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the 
field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of science, it can be expected that the results would have already been 
reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to 
gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. As discussed above, the petitioner's independent 
references do not claim to be influenced by the petitioner's work and none of the references explain 
how the petitioner's work is already impacting the field. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that he meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director compared the petitioner's publication record with the record of his references and 
concluded that it could not serve to meet this criterion. The director also noted that while the petitioner 
was published in a prestigious journal, it only carried one of his articles. On appeal, the petitioner 
questions this analysis. 
As stated above, the petitioner has a lengthy publication record, 61 articles as of the date of filing, and 
is consistently well cited. As noted by the petitioner, some of the citations remark favorably on the 
petitioner's work. Thus, we are persuaded that the petitioner meets this criterion. For the reasons 
discussed above and below, however, the petitioner has not established that he meets any of the other 
criteria. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claimed to have played a leading or critical role for Jilin University and UW. The 
director concluded that the petitioner's positions were not at the top of the institutions' hierarchy. The 
petitioner no longer claims to meet this criterion on appeal. We concur with the director. We have 
already considered the petitioner's contributions while at these institutions above. At issue for this 
criterion is the role the petitioner was hired to fill and the reputation of the entity that hired him. While 
these universities may have a distinguished reputation, we cannot conclude that every .associate 
professor or acting instructor who plays an important role in a distinguished university's laboratory 
plays a leading or critical role for the university as a whole. 
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. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
researcher 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 very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as an acting instructor, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements 
set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(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.