dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical And Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Off?e of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 08 044 5 1808 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 4 ZOOCJ 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 
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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
?c& 
f'berry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 08 044 5 1808 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. 8 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 necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
This petition, filed on March 12, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a professor of electrical and mechanical engineering. The petition was signed by the 
petitioner on September 7,2004 and was accompanied by a September 10,2004 cover letter stating: 
"Please find the hard copies of the initial application documentation, which is also scanned on the 
enclosed compact disk in the PDF format. The content of the documentation is listed in the 
appendix to this letter." The "Appendix to the Cover Letter" document was included, but the 
petitioner did not submit hard copies of any initial documentation or the compact disc. On February 
19, 2009, the director denied the petition stating that it "was submitted without the required initial 
evidence." 
On appeal, the petitioner states that he has received a major, internationally recognized award. The 
petitioner further argues that he has sustained national or international acclaim and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. 
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 United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
LIN 08 044 51808 
Page 3 
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, 
60898-99 (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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5@)(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). On appeal, the petitioner submits a certificate stating that - 
conferred upon him the title of "Honorary Doctor" (1984). The 
petitioner states: "I was promoted together with two & 
I submitted copies of newspapers showing photos of us three during the promotion). 
's a major international honorable award . . . ." The 
record, however, does not include copies the newspapers containing these photographs. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is 
 sufficient forpurposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In this case, there is no evidence showing the international significance of the Honorary Doctorate 
- 
from. Given Congress' intent to restrict thiscategory to 
"that small percentage of individuals who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the 
- - 
regulation permitting eligibility based on a one-time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, 
with only a small handful of awards qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards. See 
H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at 
*6739. Given that the House Report specifically cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one- 
time achievement, examples of one-time awards which enjoy major, international recognition may 
include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and (most relevant for athletics) an Olympic Medal. 
The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement must be 
a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The selection of - 
the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless of the 
nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large and includes a large cash prize. 
While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time achievement 
without meeting all of those elements, it is clear fiom the example provided by Congress that the award 
must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of the top awards in 
that field In this instance, there is no evidence showing that an 
quates to a major, internationally recognized award. 
Barring the alien's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish 
LIN 08 044 51808 
Page 4 
the sustained acclaim necessary to quali@ as an alien of extraordinary ability. A petitioner, 
however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply 
relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets 
a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 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. 8 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
evidence showing that this award equates to a nationally or internationally recognized award for - 
excellence rather than a form of institutional recognition. The plain language of the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that petitioner's awards be nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this 
criterion. In this instance, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's 
honorary doctorate is recognized beyond the presenting university and therefore commensurate with 
a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a dossier which includes his resume, curriculum vitae, and list of 
publications. The petitioner references this dossier as documentation of his "honors, awards, 
recognitions." The petitioner states that he received the following: 
8. 
9. 
The record, however, does not include evidence of the preceding honors. The self-serving claims in 
the petitioner's resume and curriculum vitae are not sufficient to meet the burden of proof for this 
regulatory criterion. As stated previously, going on record without supporting documentary 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
LIN 08 044 5 1808 
Page 5 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the 
regulation. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2@)(1). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2@)(2)(i). According to the same regulation, 
only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may 
the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be 
unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. The petitioner has not established that items 1 
through 9 do not exist or cannot be obtained. Further, his resume and curriculum vitae do not equate 
to secondary evidence or affidavits. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner has 
received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classiJication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum 
education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by 
colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements 
do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The record, however, does not include evidence of the preceding 
memberships. Further, there is no evidence (such as membership bylaws) showing the admission 
requirements for these organizations. The self-serving claims in the petitioner's curriculum vitae are 
not sufficient to meet the burden of proof for this regulatory criterion. As stated previously, 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 I&N Dec. at 165. A petition must be 
filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2@)(1). The nonexistence 
or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
103.2)(2)(). 
 According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates that 
primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence 
and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on 
affidavits. The petitioner has not established that evidence of the preceding memberships does not 
exist or cannot be obtained. Further, his curriculum vitae document does not equate to secondary 
evidence or an affidavit. In this case, there is no evidence showing that the preceding organizations 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the petitioner's field or an allied one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
LIN 08 044 5 1808 
Page 6 
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. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international 
distribution. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would ualify as 4 major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers. 
The petki~ner's brief biographic entry appears on page 327 of the edition along 
with five others. The petitioner has not established that this publication, or any significant portion of 
it, is about him. Further, there is no evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that Men of 
Achievement qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major 
media. Moreover, appearing as one of thousands of other successful individuals in a directory of 
professionals is not indicative of or even consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the3eld. 
On atmeal. the ~etitioner submits evidence that he authored book cha~ters in Stabilitv Domains: 
Computers in Simulation. The petitioner's dossier includes a list of his other publications, but 
documentation of those publications was not submitted. As stated previously, going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
With regard to his publication record, the petitioner states that his "scientific contributions involve 
the fundamental results on the stability theory of nonlinear dynamical systems, on the tracking 
theory of control systems, and on time and the theory of relativity." The regulations contain a 
separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly publications. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We 
will not presume that evidence relating to or even 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 
2 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
LIN 08 044 5 1808 
Page 7 
petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. While the petitioner's work is no doubt of value, it 
can be argued that any research must be shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to 
receive funding and attention from the science and engineering community. Any Ph.D. thesis or 
scholarly research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and 
useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every scientist who performs 
original mathematical or engineering research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has 
inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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, engineering, or mathematics, 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. See also Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) (publications and presentations are insufficient absent evidence 
that they constitute contributions of major significance). While the documentation submitted 
indicates that the petitioner has published his work, the evidence of record does not establish that he 
has made original scientific contributions of major significance in his field. For example, the 
petitioner's evidence does not establish that his findings have had a substantial national or 
international impact in the engineering field, nor does it show that the field has significantly changed 
as a result of his work. Without evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually 
influential, highly acclaimed throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of scientific 
contributions of major significance, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jeld, in profssional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
As discussed previously, the petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he has authored 
books, book chapters, and research articles. While we acknowledge that we must avoid requiring 
acclaim within a given criterion, it is not a circular approach to require some evidence of the scientific 
community's reaction to the petitioner's published articles in a field where publication is expected of 
those merely completing training in the field. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036. As publication of 
one's work is inherent to working as a professor in a university setting,3 we will evaluate a citation 
history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's publications when determining their 
significance to the field. For example, numerous independent citations for a publication authored by 
The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009, provides information about the nature of 
employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See htto://data.bls.gov/cgi- 
binl~rint.~llocoiocos066.htm, accessed on November 23, 2009, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. The 
handbook expressly states that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the 
professor's research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for faculty 
positions require a dissertation, or written report on original research. Id. This information reveals that original published 
research, whether arising fiom research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart fbm faculty in 
that researcher's field. 
LIN 08 044 51808 
Page 8 
the petitioner would provide solid evidence that other scientists have been influenced by his work 
and are familiar with it. On the other hand, few or no citations of a publication authored by the 
petitioner may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field. In this case, there is no 
citation history or other evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's published work has attracted a 
level of interest in his field consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Further, there 
is no evidence showing the number of copies of the petitioner's books in circulation. Accordingly, 
the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualifl as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). 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. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
Beyond the decision of the director, the petitioner has not submitted clear evidence that he will 
continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@)(5). Under Part 6 
of the Form 1-140, Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner did not specifl an address where he will 
work in the United States. Rather, the petitioner states: "Since I do not have any offer, I do not 
know yet the address of the employer." While a job offer is not required for the classification 
sought, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the alien is coming to 
the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from 
prospective ernployer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record does not include such evidence as required by the regulation. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself 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 is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or international 
level. Further, the petitioner has not submitted clear evidence demonstrating that he will continue to 
work in his area of expertise in the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to sections 203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) 
("On appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have 
in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka 
v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
LIN 08 044 5 1808 
Page 9 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.