dismissed EB-1A Case: Computational Science

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
. c. >,-rC-" jd<,*r,fr&T-P , ,;a%i&: 
- 2' \ +:. ? 
U. S. Citizenship 
I . i'/ . *tr\P 
) and Immigration 
> \*!j 
c FILE: WAC 03 105 53946 Oftice: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JU( 24 Paazd 
- 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficia 
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 : 
Thts is the dec~sion of the Admlnlstrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
orrglnally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Dlrector 
,; Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 105 53946 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to quali@ for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. fj 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. 
(j 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 classifL the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a researcher and lecturer in 
computational science. 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 Iesser natiotzally or internationallv recognized prizes or mtlards for 
e,~cellence in the field of endeavor. 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
WAC 03 105 53946 
Page 3 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he was an "Excalibur Scholar" for the 1993-1994 academic year. The 
program, initiated by the British government and supported by British industry, provides scholarships in Great 
Britain for "second degree students from Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union." The 
petitioner also received honors recognizing his presentations at young scientist or student conferences. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established the significance of the award and noted that they 
appeared academic in nature. The petitioner does not challenge this conclusion on appeal. 
We concur with the director. Scholarships and honors limited to students or young scientists cannot serve to 
meet this criterion. Experienced experts in the field are not seeking scholarships and do not compete for 
student or young scientist honors. Thus, such recognition cannot establish that a petitioner is one of the very 
few at the top of his field. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Doclrrnentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jeld for which classijcatzon is sought, 
~lhich require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their dzscijdines or$elds. 
The petitioner submitted evidence establishing his membership in the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and 
Exploration; the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum and the Institution of Mining and 
Metallurgy. The petitioner also submitted evidence that he was a speaker at a conference hosted by the Mineral 
Economics Society. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the above associations were exclusive rather 
than open to all professionals in the field. The petitioner does not challenge this conclusion no appeal. We 
concur with the director. The record lacks evidence that any of these associations require outstanding 
achievements of their members. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materiuls about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relaling to the alien's work in the field for which classijkation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessav translation. 
The petitioner submitted a list of 11 articles that cite a book authored by Julius Rubenstein who, in the preface, 
acknowledges the petitioner's participation in writing five of the 11 chapters. The petitioner also submitted a 
review article that cites the petitioner's 1986 article. The director concluded that articles which cite the 
petitioner's work are primarily about the author's own work, not the petitioner. As such, they cannot be 
considered published material about the petitioner. On appeal, counsel notes that the petitioner's work reported 
in the 1986 article was characterized as "substantial" in the review article. Counsel continues: 
However, it is critical to add that citations of works of [the petitioner] by other scientists proves 
the works are not just useful, but are the basis for hrther research and, therefore, have made a 
significant contribution in the area. Citation of a scientist's work is widely recognized in the 
scientific community as major evidence of the importance of the scientific results. Further, the 
language of the 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5((h)(3) does not explicitly state that citations must be 
accompanied by evidence demonstrating national or international renown; implicit in the 
citations is the value of [the petitioner's] work to other scientists as they pursue their ow-n 
research. 
WAC 03 105 53946 
Page 4 
We do not contest the value of citation evidence. Frequent citation is certainly evidence of the influence of the 
cited material and will be considered below as it relates to other criteria, but it cannot serve to meet the plain 
language of this criterion. While the regulation cited by counsel may not require additional evidence 
demonstrating national or international renown, it does explicitly require that the published material be "about 
the alien.'' We concur with the director that articles that cite the work of others are not primarily about the work 
cited. Moreover, the petitioner only "participated" in the writing of five out of 11 chapters in the book for which 
citations arc provided. The record does not establish that the works cite the chapters to which the petitioner 
contributed. 
Regarding the review article, it summarizes the advances reported in at least 13 articles. The review devotes a 
single paragraph to the petitioner's work. Thus, it is not published material primarjly about the petitioner. 
Moreover, published in 1987, it reports on work published by the petitioner in 1986, nearly 17 years before the 
filing of the petition. As such, it is not evidence of the petitioner's sustained acclaim as of the date of filing. 
Evidence ofthe alien's partic@ution, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an ulliedfield of specifcation for which classzfication is sought. 
ead of the petitioner's research group at the Complex Research and Design Institute 
affirms that the petitioner "supervised, directed 
graduate students during his eight years of work as Senior Research Fellow." 
~etitioner's former coauthor2 and an associate editor of the International 
affirms that the petitioner "assisted in reviewing some papers submitted to this most prominent 
journal in the field." The language abstracts that purportedly review the work 
of others. The translations accompanying these abstracts are not certified. The director concluded that the 
petitioner's reviews serve meet this criterion. 
The evidence submitted to meet any given criterion need not establish national or international acclaim by 
itself, but still must be evaluated as to whether it is indicative of or uniquely consistent with such acclaim. 
Duties that happen to relate to a criterion but are inherent to the alien's occupation are not persuasive 
evidence to meet that criterion. 
As noted above, the petitioner have coauthored two articles. Being asked to review articles 
by a coauthor is not international acclaim. Moreover, 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 f eld; not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. The 
record lacks evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has 
reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of 
journals, or sewed in an editorial position for a distinguished journal. 
In addition, supervising, directing and reviewing theses at an institution where the individual is already 
employed is not necessarily indicative of national or international acclaim. Nevertheless, directing theses is not 
inherent to the occupation of senior research engineer. Thus, the petitioner's direction of theses is more 
persuasive in this position than it would be for a professor. 
appellate letter attempting to disassociate himself from the petitioner will be discussed below. 
WAC 03 105 53946 
Page 5 
The petitioner, however, left the Institute of Solid Fuels Preparation in 1993. The record does not establish the 
period during which the petitioner reviewed articles for the International Journal on Mineral Processing. As 
such, it is not clear that these duties are indicative of national or international acclaim as of the petition's fiIing 
date in 2003. 
Finally, none of these duties relate to the petitioner's current field of computational science. In light of the 
above, the evidence relating to this criterion is weaker than implied by the director's decision. Even if we were 
to affirm the director's conclusion that the petitioner meets this criterion, for the reasons discussed above and 
below, the petitioner does not meet at least three criteria. 
Evidence of the ulien 's original scient$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJicnnce in rhe$eld. 
The petitioner relies on his patents, letters of recommendation, entries in the Encyclopedia of Separation 
Science and his participation with the book authored by en to meet this criterion. The director 
concluded that the letters were from the petitioner's immediate circle of colleagues and that the petitioner's 
patents resulted from collaboration with others. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the curriculum vitae of the petitioner's references establish their expertise in the 
field and challenges the director's conclusion that all of the references were from the vetitioner's immediate " 
circle of colleagues. The petitioner submits a letter fiom that the petitioner was the 
lead scientist for his patented innovations and a book. The petitioner also 
submitted unsigned letters fro-d are unsigned, they have 
no evidentiary value. Finally, the petitioner affirming that they have 
never collaborated or worked with the petitioner. now claiming to have never worked in the 
same institution as the petitioner, does not explai lmm e I n that he had "worked in close cooperation 
with [the petitioner] since his undergraduate and graduate research in Moscow, Russia, where we had a 
aboration in the development of the dispersion model of column flotation." We further note that 
as coauthored articles with the petitioner. That said, the reference letters warrant further 
discussion. 
Vice President of Technology for Enventure Global Technology, asserts that the petitioner "was 
ply the fractal geometry principles to solve [the] universal problem of wide variations in 
metallurgical results separating materials with similar chemical and mineralogical composition." This work 
relates to mineral flotation and the separation of particles based on their surface properties. further 
asserts that the petitioner '-has also [made] remarkable contributions to [the] environmentally important topic of 
deep cleaning of oil-contaminated wastewater using flotation technology in combination with conventional 
treatment stages." 
associate professor at Concordia University, asserts that the petitioner "is one of the few 
people in the world who have clear and detailed knowledge of the physical aspects of particle-bubble attachment 
and d namics of phase separation in collection and cleaning zones of column cells of different designs." m. d xplains that these processes "comprise the basis of flotation, the cornerstone for coal preparation, 
mineral processing, and water treatment." In addition, these processes "are also becoming widely used in other 
areas such as materials recycling, pharmaceutical and food industries." 
- 
continues: 
WAC 03 105 53946 
Page 6 
[The petitioner] was the first in the world to successfully apply and numerically solve 
dispersion equations to describe dynamics of multiphase mass transfer for several components 
(free and attached particles, bubbles, entrained fines, etc.) in a flotation cell at low-intensity 
turbulence. He also made a substantial impact into research of flotation rate distribution and its 
effect on overall separation curve of complex flowsheets containing multiple recycles and 
conditionindregrinding stages. 
- f the Institute of Complex Development of Mineral Resources asserts: 
[The petitioner] was the first to use finite difference and finite element methods to calculate 
flow of all components in column floatation cells under various initial and boundary conditions. 
This opened a new way to optimize geometrical parameters of the apparatus and prove that 
traditionally used tall columns are not the optimal solution for a wide range of applications. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
claim. Evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials 
prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international 
acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
The record establishes that the petitioner patented his innovations in the field. While we acknowledge that 
science and technology are collaborative fields and we withdraw the director's concerns regarding the 
collaborative nature of the patents, the petitioner must demonstrate the significance of his patents. This office 
has previously stated that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of 
influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of ,"Jew York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 21 5,221 n. 7, 
(Corn. 1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. 
Some of the petitioner's references describe his innovations as "novel flotation devices," but do not provide 
examples of their use in the field. The record does not indicate that anyone has licensed or marketed the 
petitioner-s patented devices. Thus, the impact of the devices is not documented in the record. 
In addition, several references attest to the significance of "Column Flotation: Processes, Designs and Practices" 
as the first comprehensive text on this technology. They affirm its use as a textbook by several graduate 
institutions. These references hrther note that the book has been published in English, Russian and Spanish. 
The record supports this claim. The author of this book, however, is identified as Julius Rubenstein. The 1 1 
chapters are not individually credited to different authors. Rather, the end of the preface provides: 
I am especially grateful to [the petitioner] who participated in writing a number of chapters 
(2,4,7-9) and for preparing the English version of the manuscript. 
On appea-redits the petitioner as a coauthor of the book oes not explain why 
the petitioner 1s not formaIIy credited as a coauthor and is merely the at the end 
of the preface. We note that authorship credit on the cover of a book or on the contents page garners 
significantly more recognition in the field than a one-sentence dedication at the end of the preface. 
Ultimately, the record contains little in the way of specific evidence to show what major improvements the 
petitioner has wrought in his field of endeavor. While the petitioner has published useful research and 
WAC 03 105 53946 
Page 7 
patented his inventions, it can be argued that the petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and 
there would be little point in publishing research which did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the 
field. The record lacks evidence that the petitioner's arti d frequently cited. As stated 
above, the record lacks evidence that the I 1 articles that ci book cite chapters in which the 
petitioner participated. Similarly, it is not clear that everyone who holds a patent for a useful invention has 
inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field. 
In addition to his research in the field of flotation. the petitioner also established a consultina company. Richard , . - 
Central Eurasian Mineral industry specialist with the U.S. Geological Survey, aise&s that the 
petitioner founded and managed Research Group Infomine and authored "he first in-de th industry reports of 
base and precious metals supply and demand in Eastern Europe and Central Eurasia. db" rther asserts 
that the petitioner's reports "are widely used by leading metal analysts and mining and investment companies 
worldwide in analyses of metal and industrial mineral markets and defining investment opportunities." Mr. 
concludes that the petitioner "has a unique combination of in-depth knowledge of metallurgical 
I technologies, broad data analysis skills using modern computer-based methods, and a good understanding of 
economic principles." 
d. 
professor at the Moscow Steel and Alloys Institute, provides additional information 
regar mg Research Group Infomine. Specifically, while there, the petitioner "created and maintained [a] 
database of technical and economical information on mining, energy and metallurgical companies in the former 
USSR. The group is widely recognized by Western commodity market analysts as a leading provider of 
independent studies of Russian base industries." 
further explains that the petitioner's "broad cotnpqter skills allowed [him] to create and maintain 
the complicated database of [a) huge collection of heterogeneous geological, technological, production and trade 
information having complex multi-layer relations.'' 
a managing consultant with Resource Strate ies attests to the quality of the mineral reports he 
received from Research Group Infomine. Similarlyirector of asserts that - 
"continues to use [the petitioner] and Infomine as a source of accurate and detailed information relating to metal 
and minerals in the [Commonwealth of Independent States]." 
These letters establish that the petitioner formed a successfbl company that produced accurate original reports 
and data for the mining industry. The record is not persuasive that the petitioner's ability to form a company 
capable of producing accurate reports and satisfying its customers is necessarily a contribution of major 
significance to the field. Moreover, the petitioner indicated on his curriculum vitae that his association with the 
company ended in 1993, nearly ten years before the petition's date of filing. As such, his association with this 
company cannot be considered evidence of sustained acclaim as of that date. 
Finally, while the encyclopedia to which the petitioner contributed entries appears to be a comprehensive tool 
for the field, the petitioner has not established that every entry constitutes a contribution of major significance to 
the field. 
More significantly, the petitioner does not seek to enter the United States to continue his work in mining 
engineering. The petitioner works for the University of California, San Diego. His first project with the 
university was to work on the design of a database for the National Partnership for Advanced Computational 
WAC 03 105 53946 
Page 8 
Infrastructure (NPACI) and the Computation Science Resource Community (CSRC). The database serves as a 
repository for gathering information where members can add and peruse a collection of educational subject 
matter. The information included in the database includes assignments that can be accessed by students and 
other materials and comments. The petitioner is currently working in the Student Information Management 
SystemsIRelational (SIMS/R) Department researching and developing "relational database solutions for the 
student information system including the degree Audit Reporting System (DARS). 
Only one reference attempts to relate the petitioner's previous engineering work with his current computer 
science work. Specifically states: 
His extensive computer experience made logical his transfer into the area of computational 
science, an emerging field at the edge of computer science, fundamental science and applied 
mathematics. I have always noticed his inclination and rare ability of "popularization" of 
complex scientific and engineering problems. I feel his work at [the] Education Center on 
Computational Science and Engineering is a good match for his set of extraordinary skills and 
interests. 
While the petitioner has clearly used his computer skills to advance his work in mineral engineering, we do not 
find that computational science is the field in which he has made the most contributions. 
In light of the above, we find that the petitioner has not demonstrated contributions of major significance, and 
even if we concluded that his contributions were of major significance, they were not in the field in which he 
now seeks employment. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articIes in tlze field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented authorship of 19 articles and three entries in the Encyclopedia of Separation 
Science and his "participation" in the writing of five chapters of a popular textbook. All of the English-language 
articles, encyclopedia entries and the book focus on mining and flotation physicslengineering. The petitioner 
also presented his work at several conferences. Only one of the conference presentations related to 
cornputationa1 science. 
The director's analysis under this criterion is confusing, first concluding that the petitioner meets this criterion, 
but then stating that the publication of scholarly articles "may have little value" if inherent to the field. The 
director once again expressed concern that the articles resulted from collaborations. Finally, the director 
concluded that conference presentations cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel notes that collaboration is routine in the field of science and s letter in which 
he affirms that the petitioner was the lead author for his articles. The 
publisher has agreed to publish his new book Publication after the date of filing is not evidence of the 
petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Mutter of Kafigbak; 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Comm. 197 1 ). 
We concur with counsel that collaboration itself does not diminish the petitioner's published work. We hrther 
note that the petitioner is the sole author of some of the articles. Moreover, we typically view conference 
WAC 03 105 53946 
Page 9 
presentations as comparable evidence relating to this criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(4). Of more concern is the lack of evidence of the impact of the petitioner's published work. We 
concur with the director that publication ,is inherent to the field of research. Thus, we must consider the reaction 
in the field to the petitioner's articles. 
The record satisfactorily establishes tha-book has been well received. As discussed above, 
howeve the etitioner is not a credited author of the book or any of the chapters in the table of contents. While 
- escribes the petitioner as a coauthor, that characterization is not persuasive in light of the lack 
of auth~rship credit in the book itself. We find that the book is far more persuasive evidence of Dr. 
staGre in the field. While the petitioner contributed to the book, we will not infer the petitioner's 
his affiliation with a renowned member of the field. 
Further, as stated above, the record lacks evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles. Specifically, the 
record lacks evidence that the petitioner's articles have been widely and frequentIy cited. 
Finally, the petitioner's publication record is far more extensive in the field of mineral engineering than 
computational science, the field he proposes to pursue in the United States. 
In light of the above, we withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner has never claimed to meet this criterion and the director did not address it. We simply note that 
the petitioner's references, and the petitioner on his curriculum vitae, attest to the petitioner's founding and 
management of Research Group Infomine. Several of the petitioner's references also attest to the success of this 
company. Independent assessments of the company, such as journalistic coverage of it, would be more 
persuasive evidence of the company's distinguished reputation than the attestations of satisfied c~ients.~ 
Moreover, according to his curriculum vitae, the petitioner ended his affiliation with the company in 1993, 
nearly 10 years prior to filing the petition. As such, his role with this company is not evidence of sustained 
acclaim as of the date of filing and, thus, cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
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 
computational scientist 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 flotation and mineral engineer, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his proposed field of employment, computational 
3 
While the record does contain an article referencing Research Group Infomine, the articIe contains no 
byline and was included in the record as an article authored by the petitioner. The petitioner's coverage of 
his own company cannot serve to establish the distinguished reputation of that company. 
WAC 03 105 53946 
Page 10 
science. 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. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.