dismissed EB-1A Case: Device Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 08 800 00050 
 AUG 2 5 2009 
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. 3 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, whlch is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed 
below, we uphold the director's decision in this matter. We reach this decision by considering the 
evidence under the individual regulatory criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) and in the aggregate. 
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 into the lJnited States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 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. $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. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a senior device 
engineer. 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, 
internationally 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 qualifj as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
The petitioner initially submitted academic awards, published articles, evidence of citations of those 
articles, professional association and honor society memberships, evidence of manuscript review, 
reference letters and other evidence. On August 20,2008, the director issued a notice of intent to deny 
the petition (NOID). In response, counsel submitted a brief and additional evidence. On September 30, 
2008, the director issued the final notice of denial. The instant appeal followed. Throughout the 
proceeding, the petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria under 
8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion through his receipt of an Outstanding 
Masters Student certificate from Louisiana Tech University, graduate assistantships from the same 
university and scholarships from Zhejiang University. The NOID advised that academic awards for 
which only students compete cannot be considered lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the petitioner's field. Counsel did not challenge this conclusion in his 
response. 
 The director's final notice of denial reiterated the concerns stated in the NOID. 
 The 
petitioner does not address this criterion on appeal. 
We concur with the director that academic recognition and scholarships that reflect academic 
accomplishments and for which the most accomplished and renowned members of the field do not 
compete cannot serve to meet this criterion. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orJields. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence of his membership in Sigma Xi and information confirming 
that membership is conferred upon individuals who have shown a "noteworthy achievement." The 
materials continue, however, that membership generally requires two first-authored, refereed papers or 
patents, one of which can be a Ph.D. thesis. A welcome letter addressed to the petitioner advises that 
Sigma Xi has 65,000 active members. The petitioner also submitted his membership card for the 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
American Physical Society (APS). The APS materials submitted indicate that membership classes 
include teachers, other persons professionally trained in physics and engaged in its advancement, 
persons engaged in lines of work related to physics and persons who are not professionally engaged in 
either physics or related lines but whose interest and activity in the science would make them desirable 
members. Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence of his memberslup in the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The materials about IEEE do not address membership criteria but reveal 
that it has more than 370,000 members. 
The NOID advised that the evidence submitted did not establish that the petitioner's memberships were 
qualifying. In response, counsel focused on Sigma Xi, noting that membership is by "invitation only." 
While the petitioner submitted evidence supporting counsel's assertion, the Sigma Xi materials further 
state: 
An individual who has shown noteworthy achevement as an original investigator in a 
field of pure or applied science is eligible for election to Full Membership. This 
noteworthy achievement must be evidenced by publication as a first author on two 
articles published in a refereed journal, patents, written reports or a thesis or 
dissertation. 
The director did not discuss this criterion in the final decision. On appeal, the petitioner reiterates that 
his Sigma Xi membership should serve to meet this criterion and further asserts that he has been 
nominated to membership in the American Chemical Society (ACS), "the most prestigious chemical 
society in the world." The petitioner submitted a blank application for membership addressed to the 
petitioner signed by the Chair of the ACS Membership Affairs Committee and the Director of the 
Division of Membership and Scientific Advancement as nominators. The member categories on this 
form reveal that regular members must have a degree in chemical or related sciences, certification as a 
teacher of chemical science or relevant work experience. 
A degree, teacher certification or life experience are not outstanding achievements. The membership 
promotion of sending the petitioner a pre-signed application does not overcome the fact that the actual 
membership requirements for ACS are minimal. Similarly, the petitioner has not established that APS 
or IEEE has exclusive membership requirements rather than being open to members of the profession. 
Finally, while Sigma Xi may require what it defines as "noteworthy" achievements, ths membership 
cannot serve to meet this criterion. The materials submitted reveal that a noteworthy achievement can 
include a published article, a patent or a thesis or dissertation. We are not persuaded that these are 
outstanding achievements in science, which typically requires a thesis or dissertation for an advanced 
degree and whose members must typically publish original work to continue in the field. Moreover, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field judge 
the accomplishments of prospective members as opposed to merely confirming the nominee's 
authorship of the necessary thesis, dissertation, published article or patent. 
Page 5 
In response to the NOID, the petitioner submitted a letter fiom 
 an associate professor at 
Louisiana Tech University, where the petitioner obtained his Ph.D. 
 notes that more than 200 
members of Sigma Xi are Nobel Laureates and that "many more have earned election to the National 
Academies of Sciences and Engineering." 
The prestige of the Nobel Prize is not in dispute. It remains, however, that the petitioner is not a 
recipient of the Nobel Prize. Thus, its significance is irrelevant. That Sigma Xi includes members who 
have won the Nobel Prize does not impart that distinction to the vast majority (99.7 percent) of its 
members who have not been so recognized. Similarly, the petitioner has not documented that he is a 
member of the National Academy of Sciences or the National Academy of Engineering. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the Jield for which class$cation is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence that the petitioner's articles are consistently cited. The 
petitioner also submitted printouts of computer files purportedly showing downloaded web pages 
listing the petitioner's work under "Current Articles on Nanodevices" on the University of Minnesota's 
website, on the foreign language online TND Newsletter and on a third foreign language website. The 
petitioner did not provide certified translations, or any translations, of the foreign language material 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner also submitted 
evidence that his articles are available at various websites. 
The NOID advised that the published material must be primarily about the petitioner and, thus, 
citations cannot serve to meet this criterion. In response, counsel asserts that citations should be 
considered under this criterion because they demonstrate the dissemination, impact, importance and 
exposure of the petitioner's work in the field. Counsel also asserts that the petitioner was featured in 
the TND Newsletter and the Chinese Journal Materials Science and Engineering of Powder Metallurgy 
which "reference his accomplishments concerning Self-assembly of metallic nanowires fiom aqueous 
solution." Counsel focuses on the TND Newsletter, asserting that it is a publication of the Korean 
Century Frontier Research and Development Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner's "contribution was one of the first listed in the Nano-Electronics 
Forum section and was one of only two research data figures in that section." The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
The director reiterated that in order to meet this criterion, the published materials must be primarily 
about the petitioner and appear in major media. The director concluded that the petitioner had not 
submitted such evidence. On appeal, the petitioner reiterates the assertions of counsel in response to 
the NOID and notes that one of his articles is listed as one of the top 20 most accessed articles in Nano 
Letters in 2005. 
We do not contest counsel's assertion that citations are relevant evidence of the petitioner's recognition 
in the field. Such evidence, however, is more appropriately considered in evaluating the impact of the 
petitioner's contributions and scholarly articles pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 55 204.5(h)(3)(v), (vi), and cannot 
meet the plain language of this criterion. Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires that the published material be "about the alien" relating to his work. Compare 8 C.F.R. 
6 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) (requiring published material about the alien's work). We will not interpret 
"published material" as including a single sentence or footnote. Rather, the phrase refers to complete 
materials, such as an article. Articles that cite the petitioner's work are primarily about the author's 
own work or, in the case of a review, recent work in the field. It cannot be credibly asserted that these 
articles constitute published material about the petitioner relating to his work or even published 
material about his work. 
Inclusion of the petitioner's articles on lists of recent articles in the field or frequently accessed articles 
also cannot credibly be asserted to constitute published material about the petitioner relating to his work 
or even published material about his work. It is not even self-evident that a list constitutes published 
material "about" any particular subject. Significantly, the requirement in the regulation that the 
petitioner provide the author of the published material suggests that the regulation contemplates 
journalistic coverage of the petitioner rather than an Internet link or listing. The TND Newsletter lists 
the petitioner's work under a foreign language heading of undocumented meaning. The heading 
includes at least five projects. In another section, the petitioner's work is the fourth of at least five 
projects under another foreign language heading. We are not persuaded that these listings constitute 
published material about the petitioner relating to his work. Finally, the fact that the petitioner's work 
can be accessed on the Internet does not rise to the level of published material about the petitioner in 
professional, major trade journals or other major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speciJication for which classEfication is sought. 
The petitioner initially submitted a manuscript review request from Chemistry of Materials addressed 
to the petitioner's Ph.D. advisor,, and mail message to the 
petitioner thanking him for his comments on the further confirms that he and 
the petitioner reviewed a manuscript for Nano Letter. A request for assistance by or a collaborative 
review with the petitioner's Ph.D. advisor is not indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim. The petitioner also submitted requests addressed to him to review manuscripts 
for the Journal of Nanoparticle Research and the Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. 
The NOID advised that the petitioner had not established that his participation in the widespread review 
process sets him apart from others in his field. In response, counsel asserted that the petitioner judged 
the work of others as a peer reviewer and that his job did not require him to serve as a peer reviewer. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his participation in the peer review 
process was qualifjring under this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that his expertise was 
relied upon by prestigious journals, for which he ensured the accuracy and overall quality of the 
manuscripts reviewed. 
The evidence submitted under this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 (S.D. Tex. 
March 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 "1 1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 
26, 2005). 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 field and, by itself, is not indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner 
apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that 
credits a small group of elite reviewers, received independent requests from a substantial number of 
journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign gficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted reference letters, his published articles, citation record, "Report of Invention 
Fonn" and a Declaration for Utility or Design Patent Application. The director concluded that the 
petitioner had not demonstrated that his original research and innovations constitute contributions of 
major significance in the field. On appeal, the petitioner notes articles that have built on his work, 
prestigious laboratories that have requested reprints of his work and the submission of reference letters 
from independent members of the field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. 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 regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorslup of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). As discussed below, the director found that the petitioner meets this criterion and we 
concur with that determination. We will not presume, however, that meeting the scholarly articles 
criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would 
render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that 
a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
Regarding the patent disclosure and application, as stated above, 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 New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 n. 7, 
(Cornm'r. 1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case 
basis. Id. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the 
final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. 
USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are the most persuasive. Ultimately, 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 petitioner obtained his Ph.D. from Louisiana Tech University in 2005. The petitioner then worked 
as a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Virginia through April 2007. At the time of filing, the 
petitioner was a senior device engineer with Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. 
discusses the petitioner's micro/nanoelectronics and micro/nanomanufacturing research at 
Louisiana Tech University. 
 Specifically, according to 
 the petitioner focused on the 
fabrication of electrically-conductive nanowires. - explains the importance of miniaturization 
of electronic components in the electronics industry and the limitations on miniaturization due to costs 
and the laws of physics. further explains that the integration of nanotechnology with silicon 
technology is necessary for the growth of the semiconductor industry. 
asserts that the petitioner "was directly involved in discovering that highly-ordered metallic 
nanowire arrays can self-assemble without a template from aqueous solution." The petitioner "was also 
directly involved in the successful fabrication of single metallic nanowires at predefined locations 
between microelectrodes." 
 notes that this work is published and speculates that there "is 
excellent potential for this technology to result in real economic benefit." Finally, states 
that the petitioner "successfully metallized aligned DNA molecules with palladium, cobalt, and nickel, 
forming conductive nanowires." While notes that this work was published and represents 
an original contribution to nanoscience, he does not explain how it has impacted the field. 
- a professor at the University of Virginia, discusses the petitioner's work in Dr. 
laboratory. According t- the petitioner worked on fabricating electronic devices from 
viral and cytoskeletal templates. 
 explains that the petitioner's contributions to this work 
included "the application of biological and molecular genetic principles to fabricate hierarchical 
systems based on molecular-scale components, with precise dimensions and predictable and 
reproducible performance, in a way that can be scaled to billions or trillions of integrated devices, all at 
- 
a iow cost." , a senior scientist at the University of Virginia, explains the technical 
obstacles that the petitioner overcame to make this project successful. 
Vice President of Technology Development at Silicon Storage Technology, asserts 
that the petitioner's expertise is necessary for the company's development of the next generation of 
flash memory devices with a dimension below 100 nanometers. 
The petitioner also submitted more independent letters. 
 a professor at the University 
of Minnesota, explains that the petitioner assembled nanowires between microelectrodes patterned on 
silicon dioxide substrate, where the electric field is the strongest, thereby achieving highly conductive 
- .. 
and uniform nanowires and allowing the creation of direct interconnection at an ambient temperature. 
rn 
asserts that this work "is vitally important to the future of semiconductor device integration." 
further asserts that his own team has cited the petitioner's work, which inspired them to solve 
the problem of selective positioning of nanotubes by way of an electric field. 
 also affirms the 
great potential of the petitioner's biomimetic nanosystem work. 
We acknowledge the submission of evidence that the petitioner is a named inventor on a patent 
application, but the record lacks evidence of any interest in licensing this innovation or other evidence 
of its impact in the field. 
The record also contains evidence that the petitioner's article on self-assembly of metallic nanowires 
from aqueous solution in Nano Letters was one of the twenty most accessed articles in that journal in 
2005. This journal is the top ranked nanoscience journal by impact factor. Nevertheless, the fact that 
the petitioner's article was accessed does not mean that the petitioner's work was subsequently utilized. 
We acknowledge that this same article had been moderately cited as of the date of filing. The petitioner 
also submitted evidence that four of his other articles have been cited minimally or, in one case, 
moderately. The petitioner submitted two electronic mail messages from other researchers, one 
confirming the author's successful use of the petitioner's methodology, the other requesting reprints of 
the petitioner's work. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a 2006 article by a German research team noting that the petitioner 
had demonstrated "that metallic nanowires with a diameter of approximately 100 nm can be directly 
grown fi-om an aqueous solution by DEP" and asserting that the authors would be demonstrating that 
"the conditions for the direct growth of wires from an aqueous palladium salt solution can be controlled 
by the electrical field to obtain considerably thinner wires which exhibit one-dimensional electrical 
behavior." The authors later note that some of their initial work is in agreement with the petitioner's 
results and that they subsequently obtained considerably thinner wires. Another team at Oklahoma 
State University notes that the petitioner had demonstrated directed wire growth fiom palladium acetate 
in solutions containing only dissolved salt and reports that the authors built on the previous work of the 
petitioner and others to demonstrate a methodology for electrochemical growth of single crystal indium 
wires from aqueous solutions of indium acetate. 
The petitioner's research is clearly original with applications in his field. According to the Department 
of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, available online at 
http://www.bls.aov/oco/ocos027.htm#nature (accessed August 6,2009 and incorporated into the record 
of proceeding), engineers develop new products. Materials engineers create and study materials even at 
the atomic level. Id. We are not persuaded that every materials engineer involved in the steady 
progression of nanoscience has made a contribution of major significance. 
The record does not establish the type of widespread impact indicative of a contribution of major 
significance. Thus, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. Even if we 
concluded that the citations and high access record of the petitioner's work was sufficient to meet this 
criterion, for the reasons discussed above and below, the evidence falls far short of meeting a third 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director considered the petitioner's publication and citation record and concluded that the petitioner 
meets this criterion. We affirm that conclusion. 
Finally, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is 
consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The petitioner relies on his professional association and honor societv membershivs. service 
x, 
as a peer reviewer, publications, citation record and the praise of his eers. 
 is a fellow of the 
Institute of Physics and an editor of Sensors and Materials. 
 served as a proposal review 
panelist for the National Science Foundation and is an editor for the Journal of Nanoscience and 
Page 11 
Nanotechnology. Thus, the top of the petitioner's field appears to be significantly higher than the level 
he has attained. 
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 
senior device 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 a senior device 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.