dismissed EB-1A Case: Computational Fluid Dynamics

4 10 
pp.eve11~ L~ .. .,- 
 4 mated 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: LIN 04 088 50124 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: aN 1 4 20D7 
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. $ 11 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Ths 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. 
/ A Lo~v~ 17.1 LXL~ C/L. 
-&/ 
Robert P. Wiemam, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Akstrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or intemational acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director also determined the petitioner had not 
submitted clear evidence that he would continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that the director failed to consider the documentation submitted in response to the 
request for evidence. The petitioner also argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3) and that his statement of plans for work in the United States indicates that he will 
continue work in hs area of expertise in this country. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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 Extraordmuy 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 achevements 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. 
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 seelung immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 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 
intemational 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, filed on February 6, 2004, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a researcher in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Part 6 of the Form 1-140 petition, 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 3 
"Basic information about the proposed employment," was left blank. On appeal, the petitioner states that he 
"was employed at University of Illinois at Chicago from April 2002 to April 2003" and that he then worked 
on "the development of a three-dimensional photocatalytic reactor model" in South Korea starting in 2004. 
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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). In determining 
whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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 petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to 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 submitted a "Certificate of Achievement" issued to him by the Wichita State University (WSU) 
High Performance Computing Center on December 13, 2000 "for achieving one million CPU minutes in one 
year on hydra." The record reflects that the petitioner worked as Postdoctoral Research Associate at WSU7s 
National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR) from 1999 to 2002. 
The petitioner also submitted a " 
6 
a medal reflecting that , a sister 
company of his previous employer, 
 , presented him with a "Best Paper  ward."' 
The certificate states: "This paper was adjudged the Best Pap 
 1 the papers appearing in Tata 
Search, an annual journal covering the technological advances in 
We find that the preceding awards from the petitioner's former employers,and, reflect institutional 
recognition rather than national or international recognition. There is no evidence such as independent press 
coverage surrounding the petitioner's awards or evidence showing that they command a substantial level of 
recognition beyond the presenting organizations. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i), however, specifically requires that the awards or prizes be nationally or internationally 
recognized and it is the petitioner's burden to establish every element of a given criterion. We further note that 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive documentation of sustained national or international 
acclaim. Pursuant to the statute and regulations, the petitioner must provide adequate evidence showing that 
the awards presented for this criterion enjoy significant national or international stature. 
1 
 Tata Steel and Tata Consultancy Services are companies within the Tata Group, an India-based conglomerate 
comprised of 96 operating companies in seven business sectors. See http://www.tata.com/O about us/group ~rofile.htn~, 
accessed on May 24,2007. 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 4 
The petitioner's initial submission also included a July 200 1 letter fi-om S trathmore Directories Ltd. extending 
him "an invitation to be included in the forthcoming 2001 -2002 edition of Strathmore 's WHO 'S  WHO."^ The 
letter fiuther states: "This unique volume recognizes those men and women who have achieved success in 
their respective fields. . . . Kindly respond to this invitation, now while it is convenient, by completing the 
enclosed information card." The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he received a plaque 
confirming his inclusion in the 2001-2002 edition. The plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires that the prize or award be presented for "excellence in the field" rather than simply 
for having "achieved success" in the field. The Strathmore WHO'S WHO publication, with such a limited 
portion devoted to the petitioner, is more of a comprehensive professional directory or registry rather than a 
special form of recognition limited to an elite few in the petitioner's field. Appearing as one of thousands, or 
even hundreds of other successful individuals in a regularly published directory is not evidence of national or 
international acclaim. 
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 field for which classz~cation 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
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. Further, 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 "Associate Member" status in the American Institute of Aeronautics 
and Astronautics (AIAA) and his membership in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). 
The petitioner also submitted documentation showing that he filled out an online "Membership Application 
Form" for the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering, but there is no first-hand evidence confirming 
his admission to membership in the CSME.' While the record includes documentation printed from the 
internet websites of the AIAA, ASME, and CSME containing general information about these organizations, 
there is no evidence of their membership bylaws or official admission requirements. We find no evidence 
showing that admission to membershp in these organizations required outstanding achievement or that the 
petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of his admission to membership. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
The record includes no evidence of the petitioner's published entry in this directory of professionals. 
3 
 The online CSME application submitted by the petitioner bears a date of October 4, 2003. The sections on the 
' 
application entitled "Past Member Year" and "Past Member Number" were left blank. 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 5 
Published materials 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. 
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. Some newspapers, such as 
the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant 
national distribution, unlike small local community papers.4 
The petitioner submitted a number of articles that merely reference his published work. 
 The director 
concluded that the citing articles and conference papers were not "about the petitioner's achievements and 
career." The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be 
about the petitioner. In this case, the articles that cite the petitioner's work are primarily about the author's work, 
not the footnoted material identifying the petitioner. If the petitioner and his work are not the main subject of 
these articles, then such materials fail to demonstrate his national or international acclaim. We cannot ignore 
that the articles citing the petitioner's work similarly referenced numerous other authors. In the petitioner's 
field, it is the nature of research work to build upon work that has gone before. In some instances, prior work 
is expanded upon or supported. In other instances, prior work is superseded by the findings in current 
research work. In either case, the current researcher normally cites the work of the prior researchers. Clearly 
this is not the same thing as published material written about an individual's work in the field. This type of 
material does not discuss the merits of an individual's work, the individual's standing in the field, or any 
significant impact that hs or her work has had on work in the field. Citations of the petitioner's work will be 
further addressed under the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets ths 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 speclJication for which class$cation is sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, 
reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of 
endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted material from the organizers of the ASME Proceedings of the 7th AIAAIASME Joint 
Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference (1 998) "Thermal Management of Electronics" session thanking 
4 
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. 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 6 
him for his services a manuscri t reviewer. One of the two organizers of the session for which the petitioner 
reviewed papers was Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 
Northern Illinois University, who coauthored several r 
 ith the petitioner in the 1990's. The 
petitioner also submitted a March 28, 2001 letter from 
 requesting that the petitioner review a 
manuscript "for possible publication in the Biennial Issue on Advances in Electronics Cooling, Journal of 
Electronics Manufacturing." In the preceding instances, there is no evidence that the petitioner's acclaim as a 
research engineer resulted in his being selected as a reviewer. Rather, it would be more reasonable to conclude 
that the petitioner was selected because his former research collaborator, happened to serve in 
an editorial capacity for the Journal of Electronics Manufacturing and as an organizer of the Thermal 
Management of Electronics conference session. 
The petitioner also submitted a July 13, 2001 letter from the Assistant Editor of Computational Methods for 
Heat and Mass Transfer requesting that the petitioner review sample chapters. The petitioner7 s evidence for 
this criterion also included a January 21,2000 letter from a co-organizer of the ASME National Heat Transfer 
Conference 2000, Pittsburgh, requesting that the petitioner review a paper for presentation at that conference. 
Regarding the correspondence dated January 21,2000, March 28,2001, and July 13,2001, the plain language 
of this criterion requires "evidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of others." The 
preceding correspondence indicates that the petitioner was requested to review materials for publication or 
presentation, but there is no evidence showing that he actually completed the requested reviews. 
The director's decision noted that it had "not been shown the (typically anonymous) manuscript reviews are 
indicative of. . . sustained national or international acclaim." We concur with the director and note that peer 
review is a routine element of the process by which articles are selected for publication in scholarly journals 
or for presentation at engineering conferences. Occasional participation in peer review of this kind does not 
automatically demonstrate that the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of researchers who publish 
themselves in scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of numerous 
professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for a publication to ask several 
reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The publication's editorial staff may accept or 
reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without 
evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has served in an 
editorial position for a distinguished journal or that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles for a 
substantial number of j ournals and conferences, we cannot conclude he meets ths criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in thejeld. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support mostly from former colleagues who discuss his work. 
An April 1 1, 200 1 letter fro 
 , Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, WSU, 
states: 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 7 
I have known [the petitioner] for about two years as a Postdoctoral Fellow worlung at the National 
Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University. He also worked in the Mechanical 
Engineering department of WSU in the capacity of an Adjunct Assistant Professor. Before this he 
worked at Kansas State University as a Postdoctoral Fellow for one year. Prior to this he worked as a 
Consultant with the Tata Research Development & Design Centre, India. While working in all these 
positions, he has made significant contributions on a number of outstanding research topics such as 
performance analysis of scramjet propulsion system, design of electronic cooling system, 
development & design of heat exchanger using various techniques and thermal analysis of steel- 
making system. He has shown his extraordinary ability in doing such outstanding research in the field 
of computational fluid dynamics. . . . 
[The petitioner's] scholarly work is clearly evidenced through a long list of conference & journal 
publications and I believe it is a remarkable achevement. He is an outstanding researcher and he has 
not only been working with academic researchers but also with researchers from National 
Laboratories like AFOSR [Air Force Office of Scientific Research] and other laboratories. His work 
is well known internationally in the areas of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Heat Transfer, Fluid 
Dynamics and Thermodynamics. . . . I have become familiar with [the petitioner's] work through his 
outstanding research publications. He has made unique contributions in the field of Computational 
Fluid Dynamics/Computational Magnetohydrodynamics while doing research in the field of 
supersonic aerospace vehicles. . . . 
[The petitioner] has done pioneering research work in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics, 
having developed Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes for analyzinglimproving various thermo- 
mechanical systems. 
Regarding the petitioner's research papers, we note that any technical research, 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 engineering scientist who performs original research that adds to the general pool of 
knowledge or who incrementally improves an existing technology has inherently made a contribution of 
major significance to the field as a whole. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), the 
petitioner'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 or engineering, it can be expected that the 
petitioner's techcal innovations would have already been widely utilized or confirmed by independent 
experts throughout his field. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. Without 
objective evidence showing that the techmcal papers coauthored by the petitioner have significantly 
influenced his field, we cannot conclude that hls work qualifies as an original contribution of major 
significance. The petitioner must demonstrate not only that he has published and presented original work, but 
also that it has impacted the field such that it can be considered indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 8 
An April 3, 2001 letter from , Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, 
WSU, states: 
[The petitioner] is an outstanding researcher in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics. His idea 
and method of doing research work in the area of fluid flow and heat transfer is quite impressive and 
unique. He has developed numerical techniques for analyzing problems related to fluid flow and heat 
transfer using well established algorithm and schemes in the area of propulsion system, electronic 
cooling and power systems. 
More importantly, he is one of the few Thermal Analysts and Computational Fluid Dynamists who 
has done pioneering research work in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics. He has successfully 
developed the Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes for analyzing various mechanical systems for 
the improvement of their efficiencies. His work in the area of Computational Fluid Dynamics, Fluid 
Mechanics and Heat Transfer is well known by peers both in this country and abroad due to his 
significant contribution on these subjects and extraordinary ability of doing excellent research work. 
He has a proven track record in a series of conference/joumal papers. 
A March 3 1, 2001 letter from , Professor of Physics, WSU, states: "[The petitioner's] 
publications reflect his pioneering work and his remarkable contributions in his field of expertise." 
As stated previously, coauthored several research papers with the petitioner in the 1990's. Dr. 
Majumdar's March 30,2001 letter of support states: 
[The petitioner] has been worlung in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) since the last 
5 years beyond his Ph.D. He has performed outstanding research work through the extensive 
development of various complicated scientific software in the area of electronic cooling, heat 
exchanger, steel-mahng, magnetohydrodynamics using different CFD techniques. I have been closely 
worlung with him in the field of electronic cooling. He has published several important journal papers 
and numerous conference papers. He has established his credibility in the field of Computational 
Fluid Dynamics through his outstanding research in his field of expertise. Lately, he has shown his 
exceptional ability and unique slulls in magnetohydrodynamics while conducting research as a 
Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State 
University. 
An April 1 1, 2001 letter of support from 
 , Senior Research and Development Engineer, 
Advanced Structure Development 
 jet Inc., Wichita, Kansas, states: 
[The petitioner] has been employed as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the National Institute for 
Aviation Research (NIAR) at Wichita State University. He has excellent expertise in Computational 
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and Thermal Analysis. 
He has developed successfully, the Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes, to improve efficiencies of 
various mechanical systems. His pioneering research work in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Fluid 
Mechanics, and Heat Transfer is well known to his peers in this country and abroad, due to hs 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 9 
significant contribution on these subjects and extraordinary ability of doing outstanding research 
work. He has published approximately 25 technical papers for conferences and journals. 
An undated letter from , Director General, Hypersonic System Research Institute, St. 
Petersburg, Russia, states: 
I have seen both of [the petitioner's] papers on Magnetohydrodynamics presented in 31" AIAA 
Plasamadynarnics and Lasers Conferences & 39' AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 
Reno, January, 2001. I was present in the conference where he presented his paper entitled 
"Numerical Study of Scramjet Inlets with Finite Rate Chemistry." No doubt, hs work on a complex 
research field like Magnetohydrodynamics is outstanding. [The petitioner] is one of a few researchers 
in the world who have made significant theoretical/analytical/experimental/numerical contributions in 
the research on Magnetohydrodynamics. [The petitioner] has done pioneering research work in the 
simulation of two dimensional scramjet inlets numerically using electromagnetohydrodynamics 
equations with variable conductivity, bi-temperature model and finite rate chemistry. 
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's research papers have had, the very act of 
publication or presentation is not as reliable a gauge as is the citation history of the published work. If a given 
article in a prestigious journal (such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.) 
attracts the attention of other researchers, those researchers will cite the source article in their own published 
work, in much the same way that the petitioner himself has cited sources in his own articles. Numerous 
independent citations would provide solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by the 
petitioner's work and are familiar with it. If, on the other hand, there are few citations of an alien's work, 
suggesting that that work has gone largely unnoticed by the greater field, then it is reasonable to conclude that 
the alien's work is not nationally or internationally acclaimed as a contribution of major significance. In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted "Web of Science" citation indices 
showing that hls most fi-equently cited article was cited only five times. In this case, the limited number of 
independent cites to the petitioner's articles is not adequate to demonstrate that his research has had a nationally 
or internationally significant impact or that it rises to the level of a contribution of major sigmficance in his field. 
The record includes evidence showing that the petitioner has coauthored research papers for presentation at 
scientific conferences such as those sponsored by the AIAA. In the fields of science and engineering, we find 
that acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a conference. The record 
includes no documentation demonstrating that the presentation of one's work is unusual in the petitioner's 
field or that the invitation to present at conferences where the petitioner spoke was a privilege extended to 
only a few top engineers. Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to present new 
work, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and 
sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. 
Participation in such events, however, does not elevate the petitioner above almost all others in his field at the 
national or international level. The record includes no evidence distinguishing the petitioner from others in 
his field such as evidence showing that his presentations had significantly higher rates of attendance when 
compared to those of the other conference participants or that the petitioner has served as a keynote speaker at 
a national or international engineering conference. 
LIN04088 50124 
Page 10 
Nevertheless, the research papers coauthored and presented by the petitioner relate to the "authorship of 
scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory 
criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly 
articles and original contributions of major significance, 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. We will fully 
address the research papers coauthored by the petitioner under the next criterion. 
An April 24, 2001 letter from fi Bloomfield Distinguished Professor of Aerospace 
Engineering and Executive Director of the National Institute for Aviation Research at WSU, states: 
[The petitioner] has been working as a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the National Institute for 
Aviation Research (NIAR) for past [sic] two years. [The petitioner] has been worlung in the research 
program entitled "Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)/Computational Magnetohydrodynamics" .... 
During hs association with us in past two years, he has already made important contributions to the 
project. . . . The work is of interest to the U.S. Airforce [sic]. 
The record, however, includes no evidence fi-om an official of the United States Air Force indicating that this 
branch of the U.S. armed forces finds the petitioner's work to be of major significance. 
An April 10, 2001 letter from 
 Tata Research Development and Design Centre, India, 
states: 
[The petitioner] worked at the Tata Research Development & Design Centre in hdia as a Senior 
Research Scientist for about 3 years. . . . During his service with the Tata Research Development & 
Design Centre, [the petitioner] successfblly completed the project on Steel-making and played the key 
role in bringing forth two projects from the Tata Iron & Steel Company (TISCO - a pioneering steel 
industry of India) based on the successful completion of his earlier project assignments. He has 
shown extraordinary ability in the development of the two dimensional process model incorporating 
fluid flow, heat transfer and chemical compositions starting f?om online purging to casting for that 
project. 
Since then, [the petitioner] has continued hs excellent research at Northern Illinois University in the 
related area of electronics cooling. It was solely to his credit that the Tata Research Development and 
Design Centre collaborated with Northern Illinois University in the area of Electronic Cooling. He 
has contributed significantly in the area of Computational Fluid Dynamics, particularly in the area of 
electronic cooling, power plant and computational magnetohydrodynamics. [The petitioner] has 
shown his unique ability in investigation and improvement of the design of scramjet inlets, electronic 
cooling & power plant. I have no hesitation in saying that he is one of the very few persons I know, 
who has been able to develop a couple of three-dimensional models (compressible/incompressible) in 
complex geometry for various applications, such as electronic cooling, heat exchanger and 
magnetohydrodynamics . 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 11 
A March 17,2003 letter from Senior Chemical Engineer, Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Des 
Plaines, Illinois, states: 
[The petitioner] is highly regarded at GTI for his contributions as a member of a team advancing 
GTI's METHANE de-NOX (MdN) technology for the reduction of gaseous emissions in stoker 
combustion systems. [The petitioner] actively participated on a project evaluating the potential 
benefits of MdN technology for a major producer's paper mill situated in Louisiana. 
Specifically, [the petitioner] successfully led the work and in a timely manner completed the 
configuration of a CFD model for an existing 200,000 pound per hour biomass spreader-stoker boiler. 
During this development, I worked closely with [the petitioner] regarding stoker combustion issues. 
He was a quick learner about stoker-boiler systems and lately has been doing work on GTI's super- 
boiler project. [The petitioner] built a 3D grid for the stoker geometry using Fluent code and then 
generated simulations for model validation purposes with actual plant data. Based on simulation 
results, [the petitioner] hrther adjusted and tuned model parameters until simulation results compared 
favorably with actual data. 
The 
proj 
letters from 
 an- indicate that the petitioner performed admirably on 
ects for Tata and GTI, but there is no evidence showing that the work attributable to him has had a 
substantial national or international impact beyond these companies such that it can be considered an original 
contribution of "major significance in the field." 
Aside from, who met the petitioner at a scientific conference, the individuals offering 
letters of support in this case are limited to individuals from institutions where the petitioner has worked or 
those with whom he has collaborated on engineering projects. With regard to the personal recommendation 
of individuals with ties to the petitioner, the source of the recommendations is a highly relevant 
consideration. These letters are not first-hand evidence that the petitioner has earned sustained acclaim for 
his contributions outside of his affiliated institutions. The statutory requirement that an alien have "sustained 
national or international acclaim," however, necessitates evidence of recognition beyond direct acquaintances of 
the petitioner. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1,795 (Comm. 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 795-796. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien 
in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance that one would expect of a research engineer who has sustained national 
or international acclaim. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been 
unusually influential or highly acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that hs work rises 
to the level of a contribution of major significance. 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 12 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of articles appearing in publications such as Steel 
Research, Journal of Heat Transfer, and Journal of Electronics Manufacturing. The petitioner also submitted 
citation indices and copies of articles citing his work demonstrating some measure of interest in hls published 
re~earch.~ Therefore, we find that the petitioner's evidence is adequate to minimally satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perfiormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
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 submitted documentation indicating that he has held research positions at Kansas State 
University, WSU, Northern Illinois University, and Tata Consultancy Services. The petitioner's appellate 
brief states that he "was employed at University of Illinois at Chicago from April 2002 to April 2003," but the 
petitioner does not claim to have performed in a leading or critical role for the university. 
In addressing the petitioner's evidence, the director's decision stated: 
While Kansas State University and Wichita State University undoubtedly have distinguished 
reputations in engineering research, the record lacks evidence differentiating the petitioner's role from 
that of other researchers holding similar appointments, let alone more senior faculty in the 
organization. The record does not demonstrate that the petitioner held a senior office within the 
organizations, or was otherwise responsible for the organizations' success or standing to a degree 
consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." In the context of scientific research, 
participation in most research projects is inherently important but not necessarily qualifying in scope 
or impact to meet this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "In my petition, I claimed that I played a critical role for the project 
sponsored by Air Force Office for Scientific Research (AFOSR) for Wichita State University." The record, 
however, includes no evidence from an official of the AFOSR indicating that the petitioner's role was leading 
or critical to its operations. While the letter of support from of WSU indicates that the 
While sufficient to minimally satisfy this criterion, the petitioner has not shown that his publication record and citation 
history elevate him to a level above almost all others in his field or that his published research findings have earned him 
national or international acclaim. According to the "Web of Science" citation indices submitted by the petitioner, the 
greatest number of cites to any single article authored by him was five. 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 13 
petitioner worked "with researchers from National Laboratories like AFOSR," Is letter does not 
state that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for the AFOSR. 
When comparing the roles and responsibilities of the petitioner with those of his superiors from WSU and 
Northern Illinois University who have offered letters of support, it becomes immediately apparent that the 
importance of their roles and responsibilities far exceeded that of the petitioner. While we accept that these 
universities have earned a distinguished reputation, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's role was 
of significantly greater i 
 hat of the other researchers employed by these universities (including 
tenured professors such as 
 . Thus, we do not find that the petitioner's roles at WSU or Northern 
Illinois University were tantamount to a "leading or critical role" for either university. 
As stated previously, the petitioner submitted a letter of support from 
 of the Tata Research 
Development and Design centre! 
 letter states that the petitioner "successfully completed the 
project on Steel-making and played the key role in bringing forth two projects from the Tata Iron & Steel 
Company . . . based on the successful completion of his earlier project assignments," but there is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for Tata beyond these particular projects. 
Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's role was of significantly greater importance than 
that of the other researchers employed by Tata Consultancy Services. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate hs receipt of a 
major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to 
establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Other comparable evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(4) states: 
 ''V the above standards do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility." [emphasis added]. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
In this category, I would like to claim . . . that my work is extraordinary because I have been worlung 
in the same field since the last 10 years beyond Ph.D. for developing/modeling of different types of 
CFD tools for design and development of different types of industrial systems (like power plant, steel 
malung, electronic cooling, propulsion system, combustion) for real-world applications in 
multidisciplinary areas (e.g., chemical, mechanical, metallurgy & aerospace). As one industrial 
system is different from the other, an extraordinary ability is required to modeVdevelop different CFD 
tools based on physical understanding & complexity of each system. 
  his letter fails to identify its author's job title. 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 14 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence," but only if the 
ten criteria "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference 
in the petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of these criteria, the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Nevertheless, we do not find that a statement from the petitioner discussing hs prior work experience in 
developing and modeling CFD tools for industrial systems is "comparable" to the strict documentation 
requirements in the regulations setting forth the ten criteria. We find that the petitioner's reliance upon his 
personal observations about his prior work experience rather than specific evidence of his achievements and 
recognition is misplaced. Pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, the classification sought requires 
"extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim, and the petitioner cannot arbitrarily 
replace such evidence with a lengthy statement detailing his work on various CFD applications. The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act provides that the "intent 
of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in hs regulation by 
requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 
Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). We find that evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the 
petition is of greater probative value than a self-serving statement written by the petitioner in support of his 
petition. 
As stated previously, the director also determined the petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that he would 
continue work in hs area of expertise in the United States. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 hs or her 
work in the United States." 
In response to the director's request for evidence and again on appeal, the petitioner submitted a statement 
detailing his plans on how he intends to continue his work in the field of Computational Fluid Dynamics in 
the United States. We fmd that the preceding statement by the petitioner is adequate to demonstrate he intends to 
continue work in his area of expertise in the United States. While we agree with the director that the record 
initially lacked clear evidence indicating how the petitioner intended to continue his work in the United States, 
we find that the detailed statement submitted by the petitioner in response to the director's request for evidence 
and again on appeal is adequate to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5). We, therefore, withdraw the 
director's finding on this issue. 
Nevertheless, we find that the petitioner has not satisfied at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
4 204.5(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 acheved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small 
percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set hun 
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)(i) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
LIN 04 088 50124 
Page 15 
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.