dismissed EB-1A Case: Colloid Science

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
SRC 08 800 38353 
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: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
fr~hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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. fj 1153(b)(l)(~).' 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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and a new exhibit. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the 
director's findings. We reach this conclusion by considering the evidence under the regulatory criteria 
individually and 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. 
I 
 The petitioner selected box "a" on part two of the petition, indicating that he seeks classification as an alien 
of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Counsel's initial cover letter also 
references this classification. On appeal, counsel asserts that the applicable authorities are section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), which relate to aliens of extraordinary ability. Counsel 
includes a heading, however, stating: "Relevant Standard for Determining a National Interest Waiver." 
(Emphasis in original.) This waiver, however, is applicable to the lesser classification set forth at section 
203(b)(2) of the Act. Regardless, the discussion under this heading includes the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), which pertain to aliens of extraordinary ability. Thus, the reference to the national 
interest waiver appears to be an inadvertent error. Regardless, we will adjudicate the appeal based on the 
original classification requested. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 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 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. 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 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 colloid science 
researcher. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).~ 
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 alliedjeld of specification for which classification is sought. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner has served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts submitted for 
publication to the Journal of Rheology and the ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The petitioner also lists his peer review duties for these journals on his self- 
serving curriculum vitae. Exhibit 18 is simply a self-serving list of these journals and the editors who 
allegedly invited the petitioner to review a manuscript. 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'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Cornm'r. 1972)). Significantly, none of the petitioner's 
references assert that he has ever served as a peer reviewer. 
The director concluded that the record lacked evidence indicating that the petitioner's peer review 
participation set him apart from others in the field. On appeal, counsel asserts that the journals for 
which the petitioner has allegedly reviewed manuscripts are prestigious and, thus, print articles that 
"must be reviewed by experts in the field who are in the top percentage of their field to insure that all 
the information is accurate and up to date." Once again, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 3 n.2; Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
First, the record contains no documentary evidence establishing that the petitioner has served as a peer 
reviewer for any journal. Specifically, the record lacks the invitations to serve as a peer reviewer, 
acknowledgements of past reviews or similar evidence from the journals for which the petitioner has 
allegedly reviewed manuscripts. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted the necessary initial required 
evidence required under this criterion. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Regardless, the evidence submitted to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international a~claim.~ 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, by itself, is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that 
he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of referees, received 
independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a 
distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijicance in the field. 
The petitioner relies on his publication record and letters mostly from colleagues where he has worked 
or studied to meet this criterion. The director concluded that the petitioner had not established his 
impact in the field. On appeal, counsel asserts that the reference letters establish that other scientists 
have utilized the petitioner's work. 
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. tj 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. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles 
criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would 
Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 (S.D. Tex. March 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL 
et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *I 1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26,2005). 
render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that 
a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. See also Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9~ 
Cir. 2009) (publications and presentations are insufficient absent evidence that they constitute 
contributions of major significance). 
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. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS 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; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. 
USCIS 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 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
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, 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. Vague, solicited 
letters from local colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify contributions or how those 
contributions have influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036. 
The petitioner received his Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Texas A&M University in May 2006. 
He worked as a research associate at that institution for four months before accepting a postdoctoral 
research associate position at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where the petitioner remained as 
of the date of filing. 
The petitioner submitted letters from his Ph.D. advisor at Texas A&M University, - 
a member of his Ph.D. advisory committee while previously employed at Texas A&M 
University, currently at the Universi 
 of Massachusetts, Amherst); one of the 
petitioner's professors at Texas A&M University, 
 and a professor who 
collaborated with during his appointment at Texas A&M University, 
(currently at Old Dominion University). In addition, the petitioner submitted a 
supervisbr of the petitioner's Dostdoctoral research at the ~niversitv of Wisconsin. Madison. -1 
. Finally, rh'e petitioner submitted an independent fetter from; 
assistant professor at Texas Tech University, which does not establish the petitioner's recognition 
outside of Texas where he received his Ph.D. 
explains that the petitioner "independently implemented Stokesian-Brownian Dynamic 
simulations and an associated theoretical framework to investigate thermodynamic and hydrodynamic 
factors controlling self- and directed- assembly of colloidal structures in interfacial systems." More 
specifically, explains that the petitioner implemented "his own Stokesian Dynamics 
simulation code to rigorously simulate multi-body hydrodynamic interactions in interfacial colloidal 
systems of interest to my group." notes that Stokesian Dynamics is a mathematically 
complex simulation method and that few approaches had been previously explored for applying the 
technique to interfacial colloidal systems, making the petitioner's work "novel." notes that 
the petitioner developed this simulation code under the supervision of an advisor with little experience 
in dynamic simulation codes, resulting in the petitioner's two-month collaboration with the professor at 
the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) who is the ori inator of Stokesian Dynamics and 
recognized the petitioner's proficiency with these codes. does not explain how this work has 
had a demonstrable impact on the field. 
further asserts that the petitioner applied his simulation codes to multi-body hydrodynamic 
interactions and Brownian motion in interfacial colloidal systems to test the validity of his codes. In 
this work, the petitioner discovered an apparently neglected term and a cancellation of errors in 
previous work, showing that a more rigorous treatment could correctly discriminate all conservative 
and dissipative forces acting between two particles and a wall. According to 
 this work 
addressed a 10 year old problem. 
 provides no examples, however, of its impact on the field. 
In addition, 
 discusses the petitioner's identification of a dynamic signature for the 
equilibrium percolation threshold of weakly attractive colloidal fluids. In this work, the petitioner 
adapted existing theories for self-diffusion, originally developed for problems in suspension rheology. 
The petitioner demonstrated that the percolation threshold corresponds to a transition of the high 
frequency dynamic viscosity dominated b multi-body hydrodynamic contributions in contravention bf 
previous thoughts on this issue. While 
 asserts that this work has "great significance" to 
various areas of physics, he does not explain how the petitioner's work is already being utilized. 
significantly concludes that the petitioner has "displayed many of the characteristics of an 
exceptional independent investigator" and compares with the top Ph.D. students has known. 
At issue, however, is whether the petitioner enjoys national or international acclaim and whether he is 
within the top percentage of his field, including the most experienced and renowned members of the 
field. 
similarly concludes that the petitioner "has demonstrated his outstanding potential as an 
independent scientist." asserts that the petitioner was the first of students to 
focus on modeling, he had to implement all simulation tools from scratch although, as stated above,- 
references the petitioner's collaboration with an expert at Caltech. ~e~ardless, does 
not explain, however, how the petitioner's ability to implement these tools has impacted the wider field 
of fluid dynamics. While 
 provides areas where the petitioner's work may eventually have 
an impact, such as 
 from suspension containing other elements, he does not explain 
how the petitioner'swork has already had the type of impact indicative of a contribution of major 
significance to fluid dynamics. Finally, one of the petitioner's professors at Texas A&M University, 
-1 asserts that the petitioner is as good if not better than the best graduate students he 
has encountered. We will not, however, narrow the petitioner's field to those just studying for their 
careers. Rather, the petitioner must compare with the most experienced and renowned members of his 
field. 
sserts that the 
 etitioner demonstrated his "potential to be a leader in science and 
technology" upon joining b group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 
further asserts that the petitioner initiated two projects in fluid mechanics in 
 laboratory. 
Specifically, according to 
 the petitioner first developed a highly efficient computational 
method for studying the dynamics of thin films of fluid containing nanoparticles. 
 discusses 
the importance of this work and the complexities involved. 
 concludes that the petitioner's 
"new tool will enable for the first time the computational treatment of the dynamics of large collections 
of nanoparticles during field-driven assembly into multiparticle structures, with full incorporation of the 
effects of hydrodynamic interactions and confinement." does not identifl any independent 
laboratories utilizing the petitioner's tool. 
then discusses the petitioner's second project involving the study of the dynamics of blood 
flow in the presence of various additives. explains that scientists have observed beneficial 
effects on the circulation of animals from the injection of small amounts of certain polymers and the 
explanation of this process "has the potential to provide an important new class of therapies for 
treatment of hemorrhage, coronary artery disease, diabetes and many other circulatory disorders." 
According to , the petitioner "developed an extraordinary computational method for [the] 
simulation of flowing blood in the capillaries, which allows him to perform, in a matter of hours, 
simulations that in other research groups take weeks." further asserts that the petitioner 
extended this approach to capture the effect of polymer molecules on blood flow, which has allowed 
the petitioner's group to make "the first predictions of how these additives change blood flows, 
generating knowledge that will allow the understanding and rational design of therapies for circulatory 
disorders." While asserts that publications will result from this work, he does not explain 
how this work has already impacted the field, such as by providing examples of other laboratories 
utilizing the petitioner's methods. 
The petitioner submitted a single letter from an independent reference, 
 an assistant 
professor at Texas Tech University, who asserts that he knows of the petitioner through his publications 
and through interactions at conferences. asserts that he is pursuing research in the same field 
and praises the petitioner's work without indicating any personal reliance on that work. - 
asserts that the impact of the petitioner's work is evident from the journals in which his work has 
appeared. We will not, however, presume the significance of an article from the journal in which it 
Page 8 
appeared. Rather, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate the impact of the individual article. As 
stated above, the publication of scholarly articles is a separate criterion, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and 
evidence directly relating to that criterion is not presumptive evidence to meet this criterion without 
evidence of the article's individual impact. See Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036. 
The petitioner also submitted a self-serving list of citations. Once again, 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. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. at 190). The petitioner did not submit copies of the citing articles or the results of a 
search on a citation database. Regardless, of the 15 alleged citations listed, 10 are self-citations by the 
petitioner or his coauthors. While self-citation is a normal and expected practice, it cannot establish the 
petitioner's influence beyond his immediate circle of colleagues. 
While the petitioner's 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 or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
It does not follow that every researcher 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. 
Without additional evidence of the impact of the petitioner's research, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner 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 petitioner initially submitted copies of six articles. As stated above, the petitioner did not 
document any citations of this work and only lists five independent citations on his self-serving list of 
alleged citations. The director concluded that publication is inherent to the petitioner's field of 
scientific research and concluded that the petitioner's publication and citation record was not indicative 
of or consistent with national or international acclaim. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred 
in failing to consider the 15 citations claimed, asserting that some of them appear in the top journal 
Langmuir. Counsel does not reconcile this assertion withassertion that he has been cited 
over 300 times and 
 assertion that he has been cited approximately 1,400 times. While 
counsel states that this issue should have been addressed in a request for additional evidence, the only 
new evidence submitted on appeal is material fiom Langmuir's website indicating that the journal 
ranks second among 110 journals in physical chemistry. Significantly, the petitioner does not submit 
any evidence of the claimed citations themselves. 
The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at 
www.bls.~ov/oco on November 30, 2009 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), provides 
information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See www.bls.novlocolocos066.htm. The handbook expressly states 
that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the professor's 
research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for 
faculty positions require a dissertation, or written report on original research. Id. This information 
reveals that original published research, whether arising from research at a university or private 
employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in that researcher's field. 
While we acknowledge that we must avoid requiring acclaim within a given criterion, it is not a circular 
approach to require some evidence of the community's reaction to the petitioner's published articles in 
a field where publication is expected of those merely completing training in the field. Kazarian, 
580 F.3d at 1036. Even if we accepted the self-serving list of alleged citations, we are not persuaded 
that five independent citations, even if appearing in top journals, demonstrate that the petitioner's 
publications are indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim, the statutory standard 
in this matter. 
Finally, 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 postdoctoral research associate, relies on his alleged volunteer services as a 
manuscript reviewer, coverage of his work on two websites, his publication record, and the praise of his 
immediate circle of peers and one independent researcher. While this may distinguish him from other 
~ostdoctoral researchers and research associates. we will not narrow his field to others with his level of 
training and experience. 
 is an external reviewer for tenure evaluations. 
 is an 
associate editor of a high impact journal and has been cited 1,400 times. 
 is also an 
associate editor of a distinguished journal. has been cited at least 300 times. Thus, it 
appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained. 
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 
colloid science 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 colloid science researcher, 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.