dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Science

identiftrtqp datr Qklrd MI 
prevent dUly wnwam 
U.S. Dcpartmcnt of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: CALLFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT () 4 2005 
WAC 05 029 53355 - 
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. 6 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. 
' Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
>Administrative Appeals Office 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualifL for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 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. 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. 
8 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that she 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 an assistant professor of 
computer science. 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, she claims, meets the following criteria.' 
I The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Documentation ofthe ~lien'~v receipr oJlesser nationally or internationuIly recognized prizes or wards for 
excellence in thejeld of endemor. 
The petitioner initially submitted her curriculum vitae listing academic honors and her 1986 "Appointment to 
the Pool for Scientists and Technologists constituted by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research." 
Neither counsel nor the petitioner, however, previously asserted that this evidence serves to meet this criterion 
prior to the appeal. As such, the director concluded that the record did not address this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the beneficiary received awards from her alma mater, the Indian Institute of 
Technology (IIT), in 1990 and 1992. Counsel further asserted that the beneficiary received a research award in 
1996 from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Sharma Prize in 1999 from the 
Institution of Engineers in India. The petitioner submits her own statement attesting to two travel grants in 
1990, one from the Department of Science and Technology for work performed at IIT and the other from CSIR. 
In the same statement, the petitioner asserts that the other "award" from CSIR was "in the form of a temporary 
position as [sic] 'scientist pool."' According to the petitioner, acceptance for the scientist pool is based on an 
entrance examination and a research proposal. Finally, the petitioner references an award at I1T based on her 
academic standing. 
The petitioner resubmits the scientific pool appointment, materials from the Indian Institution of Engineers 
listing the petitioner as a winter 1999 rank holder as "First SECTION A NON-DIPLOMA" and evidence that 
the U.S. television show 60 Minutes has reported on the prestige of IIT. 
The record does not contain the beneficiary's travel grants in 1990, the student research awards claimed by 
the petitioner or the 1992 award referenced by counsel. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 1&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Maner of Treasure Craj? of C'uliforniu, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). Moreover, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Mutter of 
Obazgbenu, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Mutter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Mutter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, I7 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Regardless, academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, 
student awards cannot be considered prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Moreover, 
competition for student awards is limited to other students. Experienced experts in the field are not seeking 
these awards. 
The materials for the scientist pool reflect that the beneficiary was appointed to this pool and given a salary 
for two years or until the beneficiary secured a job, whichever occurred earlier. Thus, this appointment 
appears to be a type of temporary employment for promising but unemployed scientists rather than an award 
for excellence in the field. Even if we accepted the petitioner's unsupported assertion that the appointment 
was based on an entrance exam and research proposal, the appointment is still not recognition for past 
"excellence in the field," as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(i). More specifically, test 
scores are not an accomplishment in the field and a research proposal relates to future work. 
While the petitioner submitted some documentation regarding some type of recognition in 1999 as "First 
SECTION A NON-DIPLOMA," the materials do not reference a Sharma prize and the record is absent any 
evidence regarding the significance or scope of this "prize." 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membershil, in associations in rhe field for which classrficlrtion is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
e-xperts in their disciplines or$eIds. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in the International Society for Computers and 
Their Applications (ISCA). On April 20, 2005, the director requested evidence of any memberships and 
"evidence of the minimum requirements and criteria used to apply for membership in the association(s) in which 
the alien claims membership." The petitioner's response did not address this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel notes the petitioner's participation in conferences sponsored by professional associations 
and concludes that the petitioner "has clearly been [a] distinguished member in prestigious organizations." Even 
if this statement is true, such membership would not necessarily satisfy the plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 3 204,5(h)(3)(ii) for the reasons discussed below. 
The petitioner submits evidence of her membership in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 
(IEEE) and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and evidence that she served on a program 
committee for an lEEE conference and presented her work at a ISCA conference afier the date of filing. The 
petitioner also submits materials regarding the above associations and their journals. 
The petitioner's role with the above professional associations and their general reputation in the field is 
irrelevant for this criterion. It is significant that none of the materials submitted on appeal address the 
requirements for membership in the above associations. Such requirements are the only relevant factor once 
membership is established. according to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Regardless, the regulation put counsel and the petitioner on notice that such evidence is required and the director 
specifically requested the membership requirements of any association of which the petitioner is a member. The 
petitioner did not submit the requested evidence in her response to that request. As such, even if the petitioner 
had submitted the membership requirements on appeal, we would not be able to consider them. Matter of 
Soriano, 19 l&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Mutrer of Obuigbenu, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BI A 1988). 
The record does not reflect that the above organizations require outstanding achievements of their general 
membership. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the ulien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
reluting to the alien's work in the field for which clu.ss~ca~ion is sought Such evidence shall include the 
Me, u'ale, and uuthor of the nzaterial, and any necessary franslution. 
Initially, the petitioner asserted that she has been recognized in a leading Indian newspaper, Financiul Express 
and in Business Sphere. The petitioner submitted the 1995 article "The Search for Heads" published in the 
Finunciul Express. The article includes one section about the petitioner and her company, Allure. While the 
petitioner indicates on her curriculum vitae that she was a software developer for the Allure Computer Center 
from September 1993 to August 1996, the 1995 article quotes the petitioner as characterizing Allure as "a career 
consultant agency rather than a mere placement agency." The articte continues that the petitioner's engineering 
and computer science background "stands her in good stead in providing placements to the people belonging to 
these areas with elan." The May 1992 article in Business Sphere is about Desein Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner is 
pictured on the company's own promotional materials, but the article in Business Sphere does not mention the 
petitioner by name and cannot, in any sense, be considered an article "about" her. 
The director requested evidence of the circulation for any publication that featured the petitioner. The 
petitioner's response does not include such data. Rather, the petitioner asserted that the article actually relates to 
a separate criterion, which we will address below. 
The director concluded that the petitioner was not claiming to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts 
that the circulation data is being submitted on appeal. Such evidence, however, was not included in the 
materials submitted on appeal. Regardless, the director specifically requested such evidence in the request for 
additional evidence. As such, we could not consider such evidence on appeal. Matter of Soriuno, 19 I&N Dec. 
at 764; Matter of Ohaigbena, 19 I&N Dec, at 533. 
For the reasons stated above, the petitioner has not established that Finuncial Express is major media. 
Moreover, the article is primarily about the "corporatization" of the Indian economy, not the petitioner or her 
career placement firm. Significantly, the petitioner seeks employment in the United States as a professor of 
computer science. Thus, even if we were to consider the 1995 article to be about the petitioner, it does not 
relate to her work in the field of computer science. While the article mentions her background in this field, 
the portion of the article relating to the petitioner focuses on her success running a career placement agency. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the aZien7sparticdparion, either individuulfy or on apcmel, us a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an ul/ied$eld of spec$cation for which class@cation is sought. 
The record reflects that the etitioner has refereed articles for the 2003 ISCA 18' lnternational conference. The 
request came from at Winona State University where the petitioner was working at the time. 
More significantly, in 2003, the petitioner was also requested to review a paper submitted to the 16~ 
International Conference on computer Applications in Industry and Engineering (CAINE). The petitioner has 
also consistently reviewed computer programming books for Prentice Hall. 
The director concluded that peer review is inherent to the field and, thus, that the petitioner's peer review 
responsibilities could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel notes that the author of the books 
reviewed by the petitioner is well known in the field and concludes that the petitioner's expertise must be of an 
extraordinary level to review the work of someone acclaimed. 
We concur with the director that peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained 
national or international acclaim. As such, we require evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in her 
field. Such evidence typically includes evidence that the petitioner has reviewed an unusually large number of 
articles or book chapters, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals or book 
publishers, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal or book. 
An editorial position would have been far more persuasive than a reviewer position. That said, the petitioner is 
credited in the book as a reviewer and the other reviewers are individuals employed at 
firms in the United States. The initial e-mail from the editor indicates that the author 
specifically suggested the petitioner as a referee. rief biography at the back of the book does not 
indicate any connection to the petitioner. The pet~t~oner 1s continually requested to review books in her field for -. 
Prentice H&. Thus, we are satisfied that the petitioner meets this single criterion. An alien, however, must 
meet three criteria in order to be eligible for the classification sought. For the reasons discussed above and 
below, the petitioner falls far short of meeting any other criterion. 
Evidence of the alien j. originul scientrfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contribufions of 
mujor sign@cance in the field 
While the petitioner initially submitted reference letters, she did not claim to meet this criterion either 
initially or in response to the director's request for additional evidence. The director concluded that the 
record did not address this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
[The beneficiary] must be measured in the context of her publications. The publications 
where her works appear accept only papers with original scientific contribution of major 
significance. In other words, the mere publications [sic] of her works in the magazine or 
journals is a testament to the extraordinary and original scientific contributions of the alien. 
Counsel is not persuasive. First, the publication of scholarly articles is a separate criterion, which will be 
discussed below. While we do not contest that the criteria are related, original contributions are often 
published in scholarly articles, we will not presume that evidence relating to one criterion automatically 
establishes a second criterion. To conclude otherwise would negate the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence and the regulatory requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria to be eligible for this 
exclusive classification. Second, we will not presume the influence of an article from the journal in which it 
appears. Other evidence demonstrating the influence of the actual article, such as wide and frequent citation 
or letters from independent experts who can establish the influence of the petitioner's work, is required. 
More specificatly, 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. $204.S(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. See Wulters v. Melro. Educ. Enters.,519 US. 202, 209 (1997); Bailey v. US., 516 U.S. 137, 
145 ( t 995). 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 record contains no evidence that any of the petitioner's articles or conference presentations have been 
cited. Thus, the petitioner's publication record alone is not indicative of a contribution of major significance. 
We will, however, also consider the petitioner's reference letters. In examining these letters, we note that 
letters from independent experts are more persuasive evidence of acclaim than letters from colleagues and 
that letters from independent experts who were previously aware of the petitioner's work are more persuasive 
than letters from independent experts who are providing an opinion based on a review of the petitioner's 
credentials. 
The petitioner's letters are all from her students and academic colleagues and merely attest to her skill as a 
teacher and the importance of her area of study. These letters do not attest to any specific contribution to the 
field as a whole or explain how the petitioner's work has influenced the field of computer science. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evideltce of the alien's authorship of .scho/ur/) urticles in the field, in professional or ntajor trude 
publicution.~ or other major media. 
The petitioner listed 1 1 articles published in journals and conference proceedings on her curricutum vitae. The 
petitioner submitted two published articles. She also submitted what appear to be two conferences 
presentations, however the presentation text is not paginated and does not contain the name of the proceedings. 
We acknowledge, however, that the record does contain evidence that the conferences accepted the petitioner's 
work for presentation. Finally, the petitioner submitted a third manuscript, "Applying Data Mining Techniques 
to Risk Analysis," with no indication that it was actually published. On appeal, the petitioner submits seven 
manuscripts. The only two articles that show signs of being published, pagination and the journal title, are the 
same two referenced above, published in Engineering Opfirnizctlinn and copyrighted by the IEEE. 
Even assuming that all 11 articles have been published as claimed, the Association of American Universities' 
Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report und Recommendcrtions, March 3 1, 1998, set forth 
its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the 
acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research 
career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or 
scholarship during the period of the appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of 
one's work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun "a full-time academic and/or 
research career." This report reinforces CIS'S position that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically 
evidence of sustained acclaim; we must consider the research community's reaction to those articles. 
The record contains no evidence that any independent experts have cited the petitioner's work. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display offhe alien's work in the,field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion either initially or in response to the director's request 
for additional evidence. The director concluded that this criterion does not relate to the petitioner's field. On 
appeal, counsel claims, for the first time, that the petitioner does meet this criterion. Counsel relies on the 
petitioner's conference presentations and an alleged book. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner's 
14-page article, "Comparison of Branch and Bound and lterative Heuristic Algorithms for Floor Allocation of 
Activity Clusters in Multistorey Buildings," published in Engineering Optimization has also been published as a 
book. 
Regarding the conference presentations, we note first that the conference presentations referenced by counsel on 
appeal occurred after the date of filing and cannot be considered evidence of the petitioner's eligibility as of that 
date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Mutter ofKutigbuk; 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comrn. 1971). That said, we 
acknowledge that the petitioner may have presented her work at confererices prior to the date of filing. 
Nevertheless, scientific or technology conferences are not artistic exhibits or showcases. Rather, we find 
conference presentations and books to be comparable to the authorship of scholarly articles pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and we have considered the petitioner's conference presentations under 
that regulation above. Considering the same evidence as comparable evidence to meet more than one criterion 
would negate the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three criteria. Thus, we concur with the 
director that conference presentations and books cannot serve to meet this criterion, which clearly relates to the 
visual arts. 
Evidence rhaf the alien has performed in a leading or criticuE role for organizutions or establishments that 
have u distinguished reputation. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner claimed to have played a leading or 
critical role for Allure, asserting that the article in Financial Express characterized Allure as "a leading 
executive search firm." The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that Allure enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, counsel does not challenge this assertion. Rather, counsel asserts, for the first time in this 
proceeding, that the petitioner's faculty positions serve to meet this criterion. The petitioner submits a letter 
from the Institute of Technology and Management inviting the petitioner to serve as a "Distinguished Visiting / 
Consulting Faculty," a letter from California Lutheran University notifLing the petitioner of a $1,050 grant to 
complete a project or travel and letters from universities offering the petitioner assistant professor positions as 
well as evidence of the petitioner's employment in those positions. 
We concur with the director that the record lacks evidence of Allure's reputation nationally in India. As stated 
above, the petitioner has not submitted any evidence that FinanciulExpress is a nationally circulated publication 
and, contrary to the petitioner's assertion quoted above, the article does not characterize Allure as a "leading 
executive search firm." Rather, the article characterizes ABC Consultants, Ltd. in this manner. 
Assuming the universities where the petitioner has worked have distinguished reputations, we cannot conclude 
that every instructor or assistant professor plays a leading or critical role for the university as a whole beyond 
the obvious need for a university to employ competent faculty members, 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien hu,~ commanded a high salary or other sigr@cantly high remunerutionfir services, 
in relation to others in the field 
Initially, the petitioner submitted an April 26,2004 job offer from California Lutheran University listing a salary 
of $68,000, although the accompanying 2004 contract between the petitioner and that university lists her total 
compensation as only $42,656. The petitioner also submitted job offer letters from Winona State University and 
Bowie State University listing a salary of $53,336 and $55,000 respectively. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner asserts that her $68,000 nine-month 
salary plus $6,000 per summer course at California Lutheran University and her $57,263 nine-month salary plus 
$7,730 per summer course at St. Cloud State University serves to meet this criterion. The petitioner compares 
her wages with the median expected salaries for assistant professors in computer science ($61,699) and the 
expected salary for an assistant professor at St. Cloud State University in 200 1-2002 ($47,700). 
The director noted that the information provided by the petitioner indicates that the 75th percentile for assistant 
professors was higher than the wages earned by the petitioner. Thus, the director concluded that the petitioner 
had not established comparatively high remuneration. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner "has commanded a high salary for a faculty [member] who has just 
entered the profession as opposed to those who have been in the field for a considerable length of time." 
Counsel is not persuasive. We will not narrow the petitioner's field to those just starting out. To meet this 
criterion, the petitioner's remuneration must compare with the top remuneration in the field, regardless of 
experience level. Moreover, the petitioner obtained her Ph.D, in 1988, began working as an instructor in India 
in 1996, worked as an assistant professor in India from 1997 to 2001 and began working as an assistant 
professor in the United States in 2001. Thus, as of the date of filing, November 8, 2004, the petitioner was not 
just entering the field. 
2 
We concur with the director that the petitioner's wages were far below the 7!ith percentile nationwide. Thus, 
the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained nationat 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 herself as a computer 
science professor to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the 
petitioner shows talent as an assistant professor of computer science, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her 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. 4 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
- - 
2 We need not address whether a salary comparable with the 75'h percentile of assistant professors would be 
sufficient as the petitioner's salary was below that level.