dismissed EB-1A Case: Crop Science

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N. W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
1damaldag-b 
prevent dearly 
invask,n of permal- 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
* 
FILE: EAC 03 033 54574 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: SEP 0 2 2005 
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 
your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
I 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
i 
EAC 03 033 54574 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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 in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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 bysustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), must depend 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. 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. $204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences as a crop 
scientist and plant breeder. The petitioner submitted supporting documents including eight letters of 
recommendation, his academic credentials, a letter of congratulations from the Ministry of Higher Education 
and Scientific Research of the Government of Burkina Faso, a certificate of recognition from the International 
Institute of Tropical Agriculture (TITA), and letters verifying his employment with IITA, the Centro 
Znternacional de Agicultura Tropical (CIAT), and the Semi-Arid Food Grain Research and Development 
Program (SAFGRAD). The director determined the petitioner had made valuable contributions to these 
organizations, but found the record did not establish that the petitioner had achieved the requisite sustained 
EAC 03 033 54574 
Page 3 
acclaim. On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and new evidence including copies of ten of his co-authored 
scholarly articles, evidence of one citation of his work by another scientist, documentation of his salary, and an 
article about his work in Burkina Faso. 
On appeal, the petitioner also submits an affidavit from his prior counsel attesting that "[tlhe first time 
visa petition was filed with the VSC, it contained over 100 pages of initial evidence," but that 
counsel never received a receipt notice for this petition. Prior counsel states he then "contacted the VSC . . . 
[blut the VSC could not locate the file. At the suggestion of the VSC, Can-Am [counsel's firm] filed an 
abbreviated petition on November 4,2002, containing only basic evidence; the VSC reasoned that we would be 
able to augment the petition upon its issuance of an RFE." The director denied the petition 
RFE and prior counsel contends that "[all1 the evidence the VSC claims to be missing from 
petition was contained in his first filing." However, neither prior counsel nor the petitioner -. 
of the documents originally filed was not included with this petition. For example, the petitibner and his prior 
counsel do not state that they did not retain copies of the documents previously filed or that such copies were 
subsequently lost or destroyed. Moreover, the petitioner has in fact supplemented the record on appeal, thus 
remedying any procedural error that might have been committed by the director by failing to issue an RFE. 
We address the petitioner's claims along with the evidence submitted initially and on appeal in the following 
discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(i) Documentation ofthe alien's receipt of lesser national& or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner did not initially claim eligibility under this criterion. On appeal, he claims he meets this criterion 
through three documents related to his work on the cowpea in Burkina Faso. The first document is a 
"Congratulations letter for services rendered" dated February 15, 1988 from Clement 0. Ouedraogo, Secretary 
of State of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research of the Government of Burkina Faso. 
Secretary Ouedraogo describes the accomplishments of the program between the Government of Burkina Faso 
and the IITA to develop drought and pathogen resistant varieties of the cowpea and states, 
within the frame of this program implementation, we truly valued your intellectual 
capacities, the values you put on human relations, your view on cooperation, your relation with research 
structures and your good terms with National Researchers. These qualities enabled you to largely 
contribute to this program's implementation, its consolidation and, above all, [its] achievement[s]. 
Consequently. on behalf of the Government and the people of Burkinabk, I wish to express my gratitude 
for the services you have rendered and our most sincere congratulations. 
This letter indicates that the petitioner's work was ly valued by the government of Burkina 
Faso. Yet the record does not establish that Secreta letter of gratitude and congratulations is 
equivalent to a nationally recognized award or prize for excellence in the petitioner's field. Moreover. the letter 
was written in 1988, fo&teen-years prior to the filing of this petition, aid does not in itself reflect'sustained 
acclaim. 
The second document cited as evidence under this category is an excerpt from the "Draft Report of the External 
Programme Review of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture" dated October 1983. The excerpt 
states, "The Panel was impressed by the work on Stnga resistance in cowpea. The discovery is clearly a 
EAC 03 033 54574 
Page 4 
breakthrough in IITA cowpea research." This reference does not name the petitioner or identify him with the 
cited discovery. Moreover, such recognition in an internal draft report is (even if attributed to the petitioner) not 
equivalent to a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for scientific excellence. 
Finally, the petitioner cites a "certificate of recognition" awarded to him by the IITA on July 24, 1987. This 
certificate was presented to the petitioner "for 10 years of dedicated service in furthering the Institute's primary 
objective of helping to improve the quantity and quality of food production, through research and training, for 
millions of people in the humid and subhumid tropics of the world." While this document verifies the 
commendable work that the petitioner performed for IITA, it does not constitute a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for scientific excellence. Rather, the certificate simply recognizes the petitioner's 
dedicated service to his employer. In addition, the certificate was issued 15 years prior to filing and does not 
reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classrJication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
On appeal, the petitioner states that he is an active member of the American Society of Agronomy, the Crop 
Science Society of America, and a life member of "Asia Agri-History." Yet the record contains no corroborative 
evidence of the petitioner's membership in any of these organizations and no documentation that outstanding 
achievements are prerequisite to membership in any of these organizations. Simply going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Comm. 1972)). Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classiJcation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits copies of ten of his co-authored scholarly articles as evidence of his eligibility 
under this category. However, published materials by the alien are not published materials about the alien, as 
required by this regulatory criterion. The petitioner's publications are more relevant to and will be discussed 
under the fifth and sixth criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner also submitted an article entitled "Convincing Farmers Step by Step: Cowpea 
Research in Burkina Faso" that was published in the April 1988 edition of IRDC Reports. The record shows 
that IKDC stands for the International Development Research Centre, a public corporation of the Canadian 
government which supports research to adapt science and technology to the needs of developing countries, and 
that the cowpea program on which the petitioner worked in Burkina Faso was partially funded by IRDC. The 
article identifies the petitioner as the leader of the program and repeatedly quotes the petitioner and discusses his 
work. The submitted copy of IRDC Reports further demonstrates that the magazine is published quarterly in 
four languages and distributed internationally. Hence, IRDC Reports can be considered a professional trade 
publication in the petitioner's field. However, the article was published 14 years prior to filing and does not 
demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
EAC 03 033 54.574 
Page 6 
of the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska - 
he worked with the etitioner for eight years in Africa for CIAT on a program "to 
improve common bean production." ates that the petitioner "successfully bred and selected 
numerous bean lines with resistance tolerance to various biotic and abiotic stresses. Six of these lines were 
released in Malawi. two in Zambia. and two in Angola. . . . These multivle releases bv researchers and - 
governmental institutions of several countries is evidence of truly outstanding performance.' 
further explains that unlike "[s]ome breeders [who] are content to merely release varieties - - 
sectors for dissemination of the seed[,] [the petitioner], releasing [sic] that commercial seed enterprises were not 
interested in bean seed, went beyond releasing varieties. He organized many small scale farmers to multiply 
large amounts of seed and then worked with various organizations to disseminate seed throughout the major 
bean growing areas. Once farmers had the seed and recognized its value, it quickly spread from farmer to 
farmer during the subsequent years. A paper has been published in a scientific journal which presents and 
analyzes this seed dissemination strategy. The strategy has gained recognition throughout the Region as a 
means of making good quality seed widely available to small scale farmers at affordable costs." 
Other documents in the record corroborate these comments. The record shows that from 1991 to 1999, the 
petitioner was the plant breeder and site coordinator of the CTAT's Bean Project in Malawi. The petitioner 
submitted copies of three articles of which he is a co-author concerning his-work on bean crops that were 
published in scientific journals between 1997 and 2000. In addition, an excerpt from the 1997 Annual Report of 
the Bean Improvement Cooperative lists the petitioner as one of three co-authors of a paper entitled 
"Community Based Basic Bean Seed Multiplication in Malawi." The petitioner also submitted an excerpt from 
an undated edition of Genetic Stocks and Releases entitled "New Bean Varieties Released in Malawi," of which 
the petitioner is a co-author and that states, "In November 1995 the Bean Improvement Programme in Malawi 
released the following six bean varieties . . . . All of the varieties originated from CIAT in Colombia." 
The record also documents the si ificance of the petitioner's work on the cowpea in Burkina Faso. In a letter 
dated January 18, 1988, airector General of IITA, states that beginning in 197'7, the 
petitioner "successfully established the National lmprovement Program" in Burkina Faso and released "a 
cowpea variety named KN-I adopted to the Sudan and Northern Guinea Savanna areas." In 1983, m 
explains that the petitioner's program "was integrated into 1ITA's activities in the SAFGRAD project, with a 
regional mandate serving up to 26 African c~untries.'~ explains that the petitioner "did extremely 
useful work in drought, 3qa, insect disease resistance and combining these resistances together in acceptable 
agronomic and seed quality technologies. He identified a cowpea variety resistant to different physiological 
strains of Sfqy which is a major parasite in the important cowpea growing areas of West Africa, and he 
initiated a breeding program to inco orate this resistance into otherwise desirable and well adapted cowpea 
varieties in the region." dso notes that because of the petitioner's progress and leadership, "the 
donor, IDRC, funded the project for more than ten years, an unusually long period for them." 
The importance of the petitioner's work on the discussed by S.R. Singh, Director of the 
Grain Legume Improvement Director of Research for Semi-Arid Food 
Grain Research and Development 
Agronomy Specialist at the 
Plant Breeding at Louisiana in India and the United 
States. The record contains copies of two articles co-authored by the petitioner that relate to his cowpea work 
and were published in scientific journals in 1984 and 1989. In addition, the petitioner's work was featured in 
the IRDC Reports article discussed above under the third criterion. 
EAC 03 033 54574 
Page 7 
Professor and rther note a broader impact of the petitioner's work in Africa. 
Professor Manjit states that the petitioner's work in Malawi "had a lasting impact on a icu ture in Africa. . . . 
He promoted beans as a source of protein to alleviate hunger and starvation in Africa." etas that the 
petitioner's "research efforts have promoted and furthered the agronomy and development of beans as a source 
of rotein to alleviate hunger, starvation, and malnutrition in many parts of the world, especially in ~frica."m 
34k 
tates his belief that the petitioner's breeding work "has made a real and positive contribution to the 
Ive 1 oods of many small farmers in southern Africa and left a legacy that will remain an example to all 
breeders of crops for small farmers." Yet the record contains no corroborative evidence that the petitioner's 
work has been similarly valued in his field at large, outside of the opinions of these three experts. 
Of the petitioner's later workesearch Scientist with the Shur-Gain company in Canada, 
explains that he served as consultants to the Bangladesh Jute Research Institute (BJRI) 
from 1999 to 2000. ates that he "was impressed by the way [the] petitioner proposed the use of 
gamete selection useful and desirable genes from different species of jute using inter and 
intra-specific crosses. He presented his report to a large gathering of scientists from BJRI and outside, who 
wholeheartedly endorsed his proposal and recommendations." The record is devoid of any other evidence 
regarding the petitioner's work in Bangledesh or demonstrating that his BJRI report constituted a major 
contribution to his field. 
The record thus indicates that the petitioner has made valuable contributions to his field, particularly through his 
research on cowpeas in Burkina Faso and bean seed dissemination systems in Malawi. However, the record 
does not establish that his work has been recognized as making major contributions to his field in a manner 
consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. While his contributions are highly valued by the authors of his 
recommendation letters, the record contains no evidence that his published articles have been widely cited by 
other researchers or that his work has been featured in major publications in his field or other major media other 
than the single article from IDRC Reports. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner initially submitted a "Publication List" with his petition, but no evidence of his published work. 
On appeal, he submits copies of nine articles, which he has co-authored that have been published in scientific 
journals in his field between 1971 and 2000. The petitioner also submitted a tenth article that was published in 
2004. We cannot consider this article because it was published after the petition was filed. The petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 
(Comm. 197 1 ). 
While notable, the petitioner's articles alone do not satisfy this criterion. Frequent publication of research 
findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does not necessarily indicate the sustained acclaim 
requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Evidence of publications must be accompanied 
by documentation of consistent citation by independent experts or other proof that the alien's publications have 
had a significant impact in his field. In this case, the petitioner submitted evidence that only one other research 
team has cited his work (in the article published in 1997 in Euphytica). In addition, several of the petitioner's 
recommendation letters note the significance of the petitioner's article on been seed dissemination systems in 
EAC 03 033 54574 
Page 8 
Malawi that was published in the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture in 2000, but the record contains no 
evidence that this article has been consistently cited by other researchers or otherwise recognized as particularly 
significant by scientists in his field outside of the petitioner's immediate colleagues. Accordingly, the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion by virtue of his work for IITA and CIAT. The record indicates that 
the petitioner was employed by IITA as an agricultural scientist from 1976 to 1988 and again from 2000 to 
2002. A letter from Paul Watts, Director of the Corporate Services Division of IITA, states that IITA is a non- 
profit organization sponsored by the World Bank, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural 
Research, and three agencies of the United Nations (the Development Program, the Food and Agricultural 
Organization, and the Environment Program). The record further shows that the petitioner was em 1 - ed as an 
agricultural scientist for ClAT from 1991 to 1999 in Malawi. A letter from -erente 
Administrative of CIAT, explains that CIAT is a non-profit agricultural research center established in 1986 in 
Colombia under an agreement between the United ~atibns ~eielo~ment Program and the International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development. 
While IITA and CIAT may have distinguished reputations, the record does not demonstrate that the petitioner 
performed a leading or critical role for these organizations as a whole outside of the specific projects to which 
he was assigned. The evidence submitted indicates that although the petitioner's work was professional, 
successful and highly valued by IITA and CIAT, the a leading or critical rile for either 
organization. The petitioner submitted a letter from Division Director of IITA, informing 
him of his "very high quality performance in year 2 [and] merited an overall 
iv a leading or critical rile for either 
Division Director of IITA, informing 
[and] merited an overall 
rating of 'Very Good"' and for which the petitioner received an $800 increase in his annual salary in 2001 .- 
irector General of IITA, specified the petitioner's contributions to the Institute in his letter, as discussed 
above under the fifth criterion. Yet, mtates in conclusion that he "want[s] to emphasize [the 
petitioner's] excellent performance and the significant contribution he made while in the service of IITA." 
These two letters attest to the value IITA placed on the petitioner's work, but they do not demonstrate that he 
held a leading or critical role for work on IITA projects in Burkina Faso 
and Rwanda. Similarly, the letters o the importance and significance of 
the petitioner's work for CIAT that the petitioner performed a 
leading or critical role for CIAT outside of that assignment. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijicantly high remunemtion for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner did not originally claim eligibility under this criterion. On a eal h submits evidence of his 
income in 1998 and 2001. The aforementioned letter from of JITA states that the 
petitioner's salary would be increased to $65,800 beginning January @ An earnings statement dated 
November 30, 2001 indicates that the petitioner's gross pay through that date was $67,650.01. The petitioner 
also submitted a letter from CIAT stating that his total remuneration for 1998 exceeded $100,000. Yet the 
record contains no evidence that the petitioner's income was significantly higher than other scientists similarly 
employed in his field or comparable to such scientists at the very top of his field. Consequently, the petitioner 
EAC 03 033 54574 
Page 9 
has not shown that he meets this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner is an agricultural scientist who has made commendable contributions 
through his work for international agricultural development organizations. However, the record does not 
establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a scientist placing him at 
the very top of his field. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1 153(b)(l)(A). 
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.