dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: A@ 1 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. $ 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 
cided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
1 
,4 
4'' Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
L' 
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. 3 1 153(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: 
(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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" trleans 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. fj 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. 
3 204.5(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 classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an assistant professor of 
electrical engineering. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least 
three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in thejield of endeavor. 
I 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 3 
The petitioner initially asserted that his scholarships and National Science Foundation (NSF) grant serve to meet 
this criterion. The petitioner submitted his grant proposal, but no evidence that the grant was approved, 
although he provides a grant number. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner 
submits evidence regarding the review process utilized by the NSF. 
In his discussion of this criterion, the director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted evidence of a 
major international recognized award. We note that a prize or award need not meet that standard for this 
criterion. The director further concluded that the petitioner's academic awards could not serve to meet this 
criterion. On appeal, the petitioner continues to assert that his NSF grant serves to meet this criterion. 
Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, academic 
scholarships and student awards cannot be considered prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
Moreover, competition for scholarships is limited to other students. Experienced experts in the field are not 
seeking scholarships. Thus, we concur with the director that they cannot establish that a petitioner is one of 
the very few at the top of his field. 
Regarding the petitioner's research grants, we reiterate that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the grant 
was actually issued. Regardless, research grants, even competitive grants, simply fund a scientist's work. Every 
successful scientist engaged in research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from 
somewhere. Obviously the past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The 
funding institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. 
Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fund future research, and not to honor or recognize past 
achievement. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jeld for which classfiation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orpelds. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers (IEEE), of which the petitioner is a member, requires outstanding achievements of its members. The 
petitioner does not contest this conclusion on appeal and we concur with the director's analysis and conclusion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
reluting to the alien S work in the jeld for which classlfication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted articles that cite his own published articles. The director concluded that the citations 
were not specifically "about" the petitioner. The petitioner does not challenge this conclusion on appeal, 
although he asserts that citations are relevant to other criteria. We concur with the director's analysis and 
conclusion and will consider the petitioner's citation record below. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an ulliedfield of spec$cation for which classlfication is sought. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's work as a peer reviewer meets thls criterion. Given that the 
petitioner has reviewed articles for several entities, we will not withdraw that conclusion. We note, however, 
that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. Thus, peer 
review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. As 
such, the evidence only minimally serves to meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
The director concluded that the record lacked evidence to support the assertions made in the petitioner's 
reference letters. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he submitted 14 letters from "company leaders, 
distinguished professors, and well-known scientists." He fbrther asserts that the letters were supported by a 
book offer, an invited seminar, citations of the petitioner's work and "numerous review requests from all around 
the world." 
First, we note that the director's discussion under this criterion includes the assertion that even if the petitioner 
"achieved" three criteria, that alone would be insufficient to establish eligibility. While we have concerns with 
the exact wording of the statement, we do not read the director's decision as concluding that the petitioner 
was eligible under the regulations but that the petition was not approvable. A more rational interpretation of 
the director's decision is that the petitioner submitted documentation that related to or addressed three 
criteria, but that the evidence itself did not demonstrate national or international acclaim. A petitioner cannot 
establish eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three 
criteria. In determining whether a petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated 
in terms of whether it is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
We will examine the content of the petitioner's reference letters in detail. We note, however, that the 
petitioner's characterization of the status of his references appears somewhat hyperbolic. We will then 
examine the evidence supporting the assertions in those letters. The petitioner's assertion that his peer 
review duties are evidence of eligibility under the instant criterion is not persuasive. Concluding that 
evidence directly relating to one criterion can serve to meet an unrelated criterion undermines the regulatory 
requirement that an alien meet three criteria and the statutory standard for "extensive evidence." The 
petitioner's published articles are more demonstrably related to this criterion, as researchers typically publish 
their contributions to the field, and will be considered below. As will be discussed below, however, not 
every published article is a contribution of major significance. 
The petitioner obtained his Ph.D. from The Ohio State University. Upon graduation, the petitioner worked as a 
postdoctoral research associate at Yale University and then a research assistant professor at the University of 
Southern California, where he was at the time of filing. 
a research staff member at IBM and formerly a fellow Ph.D. student at The Ohio State 
Un'iversity, explains the nature of the petitioner's work on wireless systems. Specifically, traveling cell phone 
users must be able to switch from base station to base station, otherwise known as "handoff." In addition. cell 
phones must adjust transmission power "so as to keep acceptable and not to interfere with other 
users." The goal is to maximize the number of users and satisfy users. asserts: 
Page 5 
The algorithms that have been developed by [the petitioner] present a paradigm shift in 
integrated handoff/power control by capturing the tradeoff between user satisfactions and 
network overhead, which enjoy the advantages of joint resource allocation, and provide 
significant improvement over the existing methods. 
whileasserts that the petitioner's algorithms have "great potential" for implementation in the next 
generation of wireless networks, he does not identify a wireless network company that has expressed interest in CI 
the petitioner's work. Similarly, whil asserts that the petitioner's designs are applicable to military 
communication and coordination of unmanned air and space vehicles, he fails to provide examples of interest 
from the relevant government agencies. He does not indicate that his employer, IBM, is applying the 
petitioner's work. The petitioner provides similar letters from other former doctoral students at The Ohio State 
University. Such letters are not indicative of any recognition beyond the petitioner's classmates. 
the petitioner's Ph.D. advisor at The Ohio State University, notes that the petitioner's vfrk 
has been published in reputable iournals and asserts that the petitioner's techniques are "readily applicable ' to 
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) as well as having commercial and military applications. That the 
petitioner's work is applicable to real world projects in his field does not elevate that work to a contribution of 
major significance. Every research project has potential applications or it would not be likely to receive funding 
or to be published. Not every funded or published research project is a contribution of major significance. 
one of the petitioner's collaborators at the University of Southern California, asserts that 
the petitioner reformulated and solved a challenging problem in cellular phone network design and developed 
some of the latest and most influential techniques and theories. More specifically, the petitioner applied the 
theory of stability to wireless communication networks, endowing networks with the ability to autonomously 
learn and modify their own behaviors to improve performance and reliability. 
Director of the Center for Systems Science at Yale University, an 
io State University, assert that the petitioner's research is "cutting e 
details of the petitioner's work or explain its significance. 
h- 
senior researcher at the 
National University of Ireland Ma nooth, explains that he met t e petitioner during his visits to Yale 
University. He asserts tham research group is a leading research group and that the petitioner is 
"considered to be his peers," but provides little explanation for the significance of the 
petitioner's work. professor at Anadolu University in Turkey explain how the petitioner's 
work is Systems (ITS), but does not explain the significance of the - - 
petitioner's past accomplishments. 
Dr. Sami Ayyorgun, an employee at Los Alamos Research Laboratory, asserts: 
[The petitioner] has proposed several integrated power control and handoff algorithms that 
offer capacity and coverage advantages for Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) which has 
become the leading technology to be implemented in next generation wireless systems. The 
spectral efficiency and transmission quality in a DCMA system . . . are best achieved by proper 
implementation of power control that regulates the signal to interference ratio at the receiver 
end, and handoff that updates the assigned base station based on channel conditions, and [the 
petitioner's] algorithms provide significance improvement over existing methods. 
Page 6 
oes not provide his job title, explain how he knows of the petitioner's work, or assert that he has 
personally applied the petitioner's work. # 
Naveen Srinivasamurthy, a senior engineer at Qualcomm, praises the petitioner's algorithms as able to improve 
wireless system performance, but does not assert that these algorithms have been implemented or are even under 
consideration for implementation. ~athersserts that the petitioner's algorithms "have 
great potential to be implemented" and have "far reaching implications ranging from commercial to military." - 
As stated above, we cannot conclude that speculation that a be considered to be of 
major significance is sufficient to meet this criterion. Once agai oes not explain how he 
became aware of the petitioner's work or assert that he has 
The petitioner submitted a letter purportedly fro with Aware, Inc. The 
letter, however, is unsigned and has no n associate professor at the 
University of Virginia, praises the how the petitioner's 
work has-impacted the field. 
The petitioner submitted a single letter from an independent member of the telecommunications industry. 
~~ecificall~, the petitioner sub&itted a letter from Murat Saraclar, a senior technical specialist at AT&T. As 
with the other references, howevererely states that the petitioner's algorithms are "likely to be 
implemented in next generation wireless networks7' and that his technologies "have the potential to be used by - 
millions of U.S. consumers." His opinion does not appear to reflect the official opinion of AT&T and he does 
not assert that AT&T has expressed interest in applying the petitioner's work. 
The only reference who claims to be applying the petitioner's results if Ciudad 
Universitaria in Mexico. He explains that he met the petitioner at a conference in 1998. He asserts: 
Among many of [the petitioner's] original contributions, we, at the National University of 
Mexico, are currently investigating his decentralized sliding mode controller design for large 
scale continuous-time systems. He has proposed a decentralized design scheme using a 
decomposition technique that allows information sharing between subsystems. This technique 
has potential applications in automatic power generation control, and automotive and aerospace 
industries. He has also extended his work on sliding mode control to discrete-time systems and 
to a class of hybrid systems. 
Even this letter, however, attests only to the potential application of the petitioner's work. Technology is 
continually advancing; not every original improvement to existing technology is a contribution of major 
significance. 
The petitioner submitted an offer from Kluwer AcademicRlenum Publishers to commission a book on wireless 
networks and a draft of the contents for the book. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, 
the petitioner stated that he had "declined" this offer but was still working on the book for possible publication 
by a different company. While the offer is indicative of Kluwer's evaluation of the petitioner's knowledge in 
his field, it does not necessarily imply recognition of the petitioner's impact in the field. We cannot conclude 
that a book that is in progress and has not been disseminated to the field constitutes a contribution of major 
significance. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he had authored 19 articles published in journals or conference 
proceedings as of the date of filing2 The petitioner also submitted evidence of nine articles that cite his work. 
No article received more than five citations. Five citations is not evidence that the petitioner has been widely 
and frequently cited in his field. While the petitioner also submitted requests for reprints, such requests 
represent an interest in the petitioner's work but are not evidence that the petitioner's work has been applied. 
The record contains insufficient evidence regarding the significance of an "invited paper." 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in publishing 
research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 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. 
See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters.,519 U.S. 202, 209 (1997); Bailey v. US., 516 U.S. 137, 145 (1995). 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. 
As discussed above, with the exception ohe petitioner's independent references do not claim 
to be influenced by the petitioner's work and, for the most part, provide little explanation for how they know 
of the petitioner's work. While we presume these references to be independent, the record lacks the 
curriculum vitae for all of his references. While the record includes numerous attestations of the potential 
impact of the petitioner's work, none of the petitioner's references provide examples of how the petitioner's 
work is already influencing the field. While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented 
researcher with potential, it falls short of establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of 
major significance. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As stated above, the petitioner submitted evidence that he had authored 19 articles published in journals or 
conference proceedings as of the date of filing. The petitioner also submitted evidence of nine articles that cite 
his work. No article received more than five citations. 
The director stated that the articles were coauthored and concluded that the record lacked evidence of the 
petitioner's contribution to each article. The director further concluded that publication is inherent to the 
petitioner's field and that the record lacked evidence of the significance of the articles. 
On appeal, the petitioner notes that he submitted evidence of citations and that he was requested to review other 
manuscripts submitted for publication. 
First, we note that science is a collaborative field and reject the implication that coauthored articles have little 
evidentiary value, especially where the number of coauthors is extremely low, as is the case with the petitioner's 
The record contains other manuscripts, but the pagination of and acceptance dates for these manuscripts is 
not indicative of a published article as of the date of filing. Articles that have not been disseminated as of the 
date of filing are not persuasive evidence of eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak; 14 1&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
articles. In fact, most of the petitioner's articles are coauthored with only a single other researcher. That said, 
we agree that publication is inherent in the petitioner's field and, thus, the petitioner must establish the 
significance of his published articles. 
Specifically, the Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its 
Report and Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral 
appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the appointment is 
viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, 
and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of the 
appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even 
among researchers who have not yet begun "a full-time academic and/or research career." This report reinforces 
our position that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of sustained acclaim; we must 
consider the research community's reaction to those articles. 
As stated above, peer-review is routine in the field as journals rely on peer reviewers to review the more than 
one million articles published annually in scientific, medical and technical peer-reviewed journals. We note that 
the materials from IEEE7s website, provided by the petitioner, invites those interested in serving as a volunteer 
reviewer to submit resumes to the Editor in Chief. Thus, we are not persuaded that the petitioner's peer review 
requests, which we will not dispute serve to meet the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(iv) due to the 
number of requests, demonstrate the significance of the petitioner's own articles. 
We concur with the petitioner that his citation record is relevant to this criterion. Five citations or less for any 
given article, however, is not evidence that the petitioner has been widely and frequently cited in his field. 
Thus, while the petitioner is a prolific writer, we are not persuaded that his publication record is sufficient to 
meet this criterion. Even if we concluded that the petitioner did meet this criterion, for the reasons discussed 
above and below, he would not meet the necessary three criteria. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. In response to the director's request for additional 
evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence of service on program committees and as a session organizer or 
chair. All but one of these responsibilities occurred after the date of filing and cannot be considered evidence of 
the petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(12); AJatter ofKatigbak; 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Comm. 197 1). The petitioner claimed to have sewed as session chair for an American Control Conference in 
200 1, prior to the date of filing. The petitioner also noted his employment at Yale University and the University 
of Southern California. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated his roles were leading or critical. On appeal, the 
petitioner reiterates previous claims that he meets this criterion. 
We have already considered the petitioner's contributions while at Yale University and the University of 
Southern California above. At issue for this criterion, however, are the role the petitioner was hired to fill and 
the reputation of the entity that hired him. Serving as session chair for a single session at a single conference is 
not a leading or critical role for the entity sponsoring the conference or even the conference. While we 
acknowledge the prestige of the universities where the petitioner has been employed, concluding that all 
postdoctoral or even permanent appointments are leading or critical roles would render the phrase "leading or 
critical" meaningless. Not every assistant research professor plays a leading or critical role for the university 
where he works beyond the obvious necessity for a university to employ professors. We note that the 
accomplishments of the other members of the petitioner's department, elaborated in his response to the 
director's request for additional evidence, do not reflect on the petitioner's role even within that department, let 
alone the university as a whole. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets 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 in his field 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 
assistant research professor, 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.