dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemistry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to \ 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
prevent clearly unw-d 
hvmin of pegsod pri~a(~~' 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: - o[C 2 7 2001 
LIN 06 063 50498 
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: 
i 
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. 
hL 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifjr for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director ignored certain evidence and misapplied the regulatory 
standards. For the reasons discussed below, while we withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner 
has not made contributions of major significance, we uphold the director's ultimate conclusion that the 
petitioner has not established his overall eligibility through meeting at least three of the regulatory 
criteria. Our finding is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. 
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, 60898-99 (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. tj 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 
Page 3 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a research 
associate. 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 jeld of endeavor. 
The petitioner has never claimed to meet this criterion and the director concluded that the record lacked 
evidence that the petitioner meets this criterion. We acknowledge, however, that the record contains a 
certificate confirming the petitioner's receipt of a Welch Foundation Graduate Fellowship "in 
recognition of outstanding academic achievements in the College of Science at Texas A&M University, 
1995- 1996." The petitioner also submitted a 1995 certificate from McDonald's recognizing the 
petitioner's work as an "Outstanding Graduate Assistant - Teaching." 
Significantly, this office has held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser classification than the one 
sought in this matter, that academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, is 
not a specific prior achievement that establishes the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. 
Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 21 5, 21 9, n.6 (Commr. 1998). Thus, 
academic performance is certainly not comparable to the awards criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more exclusive classification. 
Thus, the petitioner's student fellowship recognizing outstanding academic achievements cannot 
serve to meet this criterion. 
Moreover, the pool of competitors for the McDonald's award appears limited to graduate assistants. As 
the most experienced and renowned members of the field do not compete for this award, it cannot set 
the petitioner apart from others in the field as one of the small percentage who has risen to the top of 
the field, including those who have completed their education. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jeld for which classlJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
Once again, the petitioner has never claimed to meet this criterion and the director concluded that the 
record lacked evidence that the petitioner meets this criterion. We acknowledge, however, that the 
petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in American Chemical Society (ACS). As the 
petitioner has not submitted any evidence that ACS requires outstanding achievements of its members, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in profesional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classijica~ion is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a "News and Views" article in Nature Materials that reviews the 
petitioner's article in that same issue and a review highlighting recent science literature in Science that 
includes a two-paragraph review of one of the petitioner's articles in the Journal of the American 
Chemical Society. The petitioner also submitted a photocopy of a letter from Dr. , the 
Brockhouse Chair in the Physics of Materials at McMaster University in Canada and the author of the 
"News and Views" article. In a request for additional evidence, the director inquired as to whether 
Nature Materials typically reviews the articles it is publishing in the same issue. 
In response, the petitioner asserts that Nature Materials only highlights breakthroughs in the 
sciences. The petitioner submitted the original letter from dr. 
 who asserts that he was asked by 
the Editor of Nature Materials to write the "News and Views" article and that he was happy to do so. 
He discusses the significance of the petitioner's article that appeared in the same issue of Nature 
Materials that was the subject of his review. The petitioner also submitted evidence that Nature 
Materials has an impact factor that places it "not only first among materials science journals but also 
across all the primary research journals in physics and chemistry." 
The director concluded the petitioner was not the primary subject of the section of Science that included 
a brief synopsis of his recent article and that the "spotlight" of the petitioner's article in the same issue 
of Nature Materials that carried his article could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, the 
\ 
petitioner asserts: 
In justikng his finding, the Director inserts an arbitrary criterion on whether the 
mentioned top journals normally highlight exceptional research by top scientists. Such 
an additional, arbitrarily-created extra burden of proof is not a part of the Tile 8 CFR. 
Nor does a plain, straightforward reading of the Code justify even a speculative 
1 
possibility that such extra burden was intended by the authors of the Code. 
It is insufficient, however, to merely submit evidence that relates to a given criterion; the evidence must 
be indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim as one of the small 
percentage at the top of the field if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. 
\ 
- 
Page 5 
The review in "News and Views" is more akin to a promotion of the petitioner's article by the publisher 
than independent journalistic coverage of the petitioner and his work. It does not garner him any 
recognition in the field beyond those already reading the issue of Nature Materials in which his article 
appears. The review in Science is from a more independent source but we concur with the director that 
this brief synopsis of the petitioner's article does not rise to the level of published material about the 
petitioner indicative of sustained national or international acclaim as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the top of the field. 
While the reviews are relevant to both the petitioner's claim to have made contributions of major 
significance and the significance of his scholarly articles, they cannot serve to meet this 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 alliedfield of specfiation for which class$cation is sought. 
Initially, Dr. a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who 
worked with the petitioner there from 1998 through 2004, asserts that the petitioner has "recently" been 
requested to review manuscripts "regularly" for the European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry. Dr. 
asserts that the petitioner has already completed one review and "will be asked to review more 
articles in the future on a regular basis." Dr. further asserts that he asked the petitioner to 
review "a number" of manuscripts for leading scholarly journals. The petitioner submitted two 
electronic mail requests, one from the European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry and the other from the 
Journal of Luminescence. Both requests ask that if the petitioner is unable to complete the review that 
he provide the name and address of another member of the field who might be able to do.the review 
instead. 
In'response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. 
the Editor of the European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry, who confirms that the 
petitioner is serving as a peer reviewer for that journal and that his comments have been prompt and 
appropriate, providing unambiguous information as to the suitability of a manuscript and its potential 
for improvement. The petitioner also provides a similar letter from Dr. -, Editor-in- 
Chief of the Journal of Luminescence, who asserts that the journal only asks experts with a proven 
track record to review manuscripts and that Dr. considers the petitioner among the "top 
researchers who are well suited to evaluate work of other scientists in our field." 
The director concluded that the petitioner merely documented his participation in the peer-review 
process, which the director concluded was not unusual for a published researcher. On appeal, the 
petitioner asserts that the regulation does not exclude peer reviewers from qualifying under this 
criterion. 
As stated above, the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be evaluated as to whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim as one of the small percentage who has 
reached the top of the field if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. 
Page 6 
Regarding the review requests directly from ~r. being requested to review an article by one's 
own colleague is not evidence of national or international acclaim. Regarding the more independent 
requests, 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 and is not indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim as one of the small percentage at the top of the field. Without 
evidence that sets the petitioner apart fiom others in his field as a researcher with national or 
international acclaim as one of the small percentage at the top of the field, such as evidence that he has 
reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests fiom a substantial 
number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude 
that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzJicance in theJield. 
The petitioner obtained his Ph.D. from Texas A&M University in 1997. From 1998 through 2004, the 
petitioner worked as a postdoctoral research associate under the direction of Dr. In 2004, the 
petitioner began working as a research associate under the direction of Dr. where he 
remained when the petition was filed. According to a letter that supplements the appeal, the petitioner 
is currently working for the Dow Chemical Company. 
The petitioner submits several su ort letters discussing the significance of his work at the various 
institutions listed above. Dr. dsserts that the petitioner's Ph.D. research produced a number of 
important discoveries regarding the properties of uranyl phosphonates and "developed new synthetic 
methodologies for the synthesis of extended inorganic materials, which were based on the hydrothermal 
synthesis, and applied them for the first time to uranyl phosphonates. Dr. her asserts that, at 
MIT, the petitioner "was responsible for a number of major accomplishments in the area of spin- 
frustrated magnetism." Dr. explains that spin-fixstrated magnetism has important real-life 
- 
applications, including its relevance to superconductivity. The novel aspects and significance of the 
petitioner's work are discussed by Dr. Chair of the Chemistry Department at Princeton 
University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and Dr. an adjunct 
professor at the University of Maryland. On appeal, the petitioner submits letters from Professor A. B. 
Harris of the University of Pennsylvania and Dr. ( a research geophysicist at the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, who not only praise the petitioner's work but explain how it has influenced 
their own work. Notably, Dr- states: 
Having got so much help from [the petitioner's] publications, I contacted [him] earlier 
this year, and pressed him for more help, which he willingly gave. His insights and 
expertise have provided what I consider to be the final piece of the jarosite 
spectroscopic puzzle. I am now ready to present this spectrothermometer technique to 
the planetary community at the NASA-sponsored Lunar and Planetary Institute's 
m 
Page 7 
Sulfates Workshop in Huston [sic] this coming October. I cannot think of a scientist - 
whose expertise helped me more with my spectroscopic research. 
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. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 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. 
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 the most persuasive. Ultimately, however, 
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. 
As discussed above, the record contains support letters that provide specific information regarding 
how the petitioner has influenced the field, including letters submitted on appeal from independent 
members of the field who have been influenced by the petitioner's work. Moreover, these letters are 
supported by the petitioner's impressive publication record, which includes several articles that are 
widely and frequently cited and an article that was noted in Science. Thus, we are persuaded that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the $el4 in pro~ssional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion and, given the number of the petitioner's 
published articles, the fact that he is consistently widely and frequently cited and the fact that one of his 
articles has been singled out in Science, we concur with the director. 
For the reasons discussed above, we find that while the petitioner meets two of the regulatory 
requirements, he has not established that he meets a third. A petitioner must meet at least three of the 
regulatory criteria to establish eligibility for the classification sought. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 
Moreover, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is 
consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The petitioner, a research associate, relies on his well-cited publication record, letters of 
support from other members of the field and his manuscript review duties. While this may distinguish 
- 
Page 8 
him from other research associates, we will not narrow his field to others with his level of training and 
experience. Rather, the field includes department chairs, those who serve on editorial boards and 
elected fellows of professional associations. 
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. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1153(b)(l)(A)(i); 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
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 a research associate and has some degree of national or international 
exposure, but the evidence 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner .has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.