dismissed EB-1A Case: Conductive Polymer Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
&mt@hg data deleted to U.S. Citizenship 
pmnt clearly unwarraated and Immigration 
iawsion d pel~~nd prhracg Services 
,xu.--* -+.'?1 
PUBLIC COPY 
("".',, 1 5 
) I*'-) 
,-*,, *.,xa ?A@ *&.t@+' 
FILE: WAC 03 096 5 1 177 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: O 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
s~obert P. Wiernann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 096 51177 
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. 1153(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 qualify 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 intemational 
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. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classifL the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a conductive polymer 
engineer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
intemational 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 membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or intemational 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
WAC 03 096 5 1 177 
Page 3 
The director determined that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the American Chemical Society (ACS) or 
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) require outstanding achievements of their members. 
The petitioner does not contest this conclusion on appeal and we concur with the director. 
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 clmsz~cation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director concluded that the articles that cite the petitioner's articles were not about the petitioner and, thus, 
could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director erred. The petitioner 
submits two articles that cite his work and resubmits a list of articles that cite his work. The plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires published material about the petitioner. Articles that cite 
the petitioner's work are primarily about the author's own work, not the petitioner. As such, we concur with the 
director that these articles cannot be considered published material about the petitioner. Nevertheless, frequent 
citation is an indication of the influence of a particular article. Thus, we will consider the petitioner's citations 
below pursuant to the scholarly article criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientiJc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signijicance in the field 
The director concluded that the reference letters were all from individuals acquainted with the petitioner and 
could not demonstrate that the petitioner's contributions were recognized as being of major significance beyond 
his immediate circle of colleagues. The petitioner does not contest this conclusion on appeal. 
As implied by the director, the reference letters are all from the petitioner's professors, employers, and members 
of his church. - Vice President for Engineering at Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), 
asserts that the petitioner has a unique combination of experience and that he has "greatly accelerated the 
development of alternative memory technology at AMD." Specifically, the petitioner has contributed by 
"modeling the molecular and nano-scale dimensions of these novel memory systems." 
I 
states 
that the petitioner's contributions "are evident in his inventions disclosures and patents in the le o alternative 
memory devices." , Principal Consultant for CTECH Research and a member of the petitioner's 
church, provides nearly identical information. The record, however, contains no evidence that the petitioner has 
patented any innovations. His resume lists four patents "to be submitted." Without evidence that the memory 
technology developed by the petitioner has already impacted the field, we cannot conclude that his work on this 
technology constitutes a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. 
Dr. , the petitioner's supervisor at DBR Group of Companies, discusses three projects on which the 
petitioner worked at that company. While Dr. indicates that the petitioner completed these projects 
successfully, performing one's job responsibilities and contributing to one's employer are not necessarily 
contributions of major significance to the field. Dr. does not explain how the petitioner's work at DBR 
impacted the field such that it can be considered a of major significance to the field as a whole. 
Finally,, Emeritus Professor at the University of Alberta, discusses the petitioner's research while at 
that institution. Professor Bertie asserts that the petitioner measured "the optical properties of mixtures of the 
organic molecule acetonitrile with water and, through development of a theory by computer modeling, their 
WAC 03 096 51177 
Page 4 
interpretation in terms of the structure of liquid water and these mixtures." According to Professor the 
petitioner's external examiner concluded that the petitioner's work "would guide this area of science over the 
next 20 years." The petitioner also measured "the optical properties of pure liquid water in the infiared region 
of the electromagnetic spectrum." Professor asserts that both studies "have met with wide acceptance by 
the international community of spectroscopists." The number of citations and the examples of articles citing the 
petitioner's two articles support Professor assertion. 
As will be discussed below, we find that the petitioner's articles authored while a Ph.D. student suffice to meet 
the scholarly article criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The statute requires "extensive 
documentation" to support eligibility for this exclusive classification. Two widely cited articles, while notable, 
hardly qualify as "extensive documentation" that can support meeting more than one criterion. Moreover, these 
papers were published in 1996 and 1997. A petitioner must demonstrate sustained acclaim at the time of filing. 
Without evidence beyond the petitioner's widely cited articles, such as letters from independent experts who 
were aware of the petitioner's reputation prior to being contacted for a reference, and evidence that the 
petitioner has continued to make contributions to the field as a whole after 1997, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. Even if we were to conclude that the petitioner's articles are sufficient to meet 
this criterion in addition to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), for the reasons discussed above and below, the evidence 
falls far short of demonstrating that the petitioner meets a third criterion. A petitioner must meet three criteria to 
establish eligibility. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarb articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner lists eight published articles and four conference presentations on his cumculum vitae. He 
submitted a copy of one of his articles and a list of 30 articles that cite it. The petitioner also submitted a list of 
40 articles that cite another of his articles. The director noted that publication was typical of Ph.D. graduates 
and concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated the significance of his articles. While we concur with 
the director that the articles that cite the petitioner's work are not published material about the petitioner, 
frequent citation is indicative of the cited article's influence in the field. As such, we find that the petitioner has 
demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salq or other signiJcantly high remuneration for services, 
in relation to others in thepeld. 
The petitioner submitted two Forms W-2 for 2001. The W-2 from Research Institute reflects income 
of $191,650 and the W-2 from reflects wages of $19,3 14. Of the $191,650, $66,647 
represented wages, $10,000 represented a bonus, $13,794.8 1 represented relocation expenses, $19,166.67 
represented ''warn pay," $28,750 represented severance, $16,500 represented "AVP III payout," $26,094.69 
represented "severance av," and other minor compensation amounts. The director concluded that the petitioner 
had not submitted evidence com~arine his income with nthcrc in the same nnsitinn Tln anneal the netitinner 
A petitioner must demonstrate that his remuneration is significant in comparison to others in the field nationally. 
Thus, data for the 75~ percentile base pay in Cupertino, California is insufficient. Moreover, the information on 
Monster.com includes base pay only. The page provided includes links to bonuses and other benefits, but the 
WAC 03 096 51 177 
Page 5 
petitioner did not provide that information. The petitioner's remuneration of $191,650 includes several non- 
salary items, not all of which can be discerned from the notations on the Form W-2. The petitioner's base pay, 
$66,647, does not appear remarkable. The materials provided from Monster.com does not list typical bonuses or 
compensation for relocation expenses, severance pay, and the other items included on the Form W-2. Thus, the 
information from Monster.com does not overcome the director's conclusion that the petitioner does not 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 an engineer 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 an 
engineer, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in 
his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 
the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.