dismissed EB-1A Case: Electro-Optical Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
prnLEC corn 
EAC 03 108 52624 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 3 1 2005 
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. $ 1 153(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 ofice. 
EAC 03 108 52624 
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. 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 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 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. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "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. 5 204.5@)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. Cj 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 comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. tj 
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. tj 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences. The record 
indicates that he is employed as an Electro-Optical Engineerfscientist for Photuris, Incorporated (Photuris). The 
petitioner submitted supporting documents including a support letter from Photuris, his academic credentials, 
curriculum vitae, documentation of two scholarships, one newspaper article mentioning the petitioner, citation 
information for some of his published articles, documentation of 11 patents awarded to the petitioner and his 
EAC 03 108 52624 
Page 3 . . 
colleagues, evidence of his review of manuscripts for three scientific journals, and six recommendation letters. 
The director found the record did not establish the requisite sustained acclaim. On appeal, counsel submits a 
letter and additional evidence including three recommendation letters, updated citation lists for some of the 
petitioner's articles, an updated publication list, two additional patents awarded to the petitioner and his 
colleagues and additional evidence of the petitioner's review of manuscripts for scientific journals and 
conferences. Much of the evidence submitted on appeal arose after the petition was filed and consequently 
cannot be considered. 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. 6 
103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The remaining evidence submitted on 
appeal does not overcome the deficiencies of the petition and the appeal will be dismissed. We address the 
evidence submitted and the petitioner's claims in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to 
the petitioner's case. 
(9 Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion by virtue of his receipt of a scholarship to support his graduate 
studies, a travel grant to conduct research while a doctoral student, and a "Bellcore Special Team Award." The 
record contains a letter from the Technical University of Denmark which affirms that the petitioner was a 
doctoral student at the university from 1990 to 1993 and that "[tlhe Danish state through the University funds 
the study." A second letter from the Danish Research Agency confirms that the petitioner "was granted 50.626 
d. kr. from the Danish Research Agency (formerly: the Danish Research Academy) in 1991, when he was 
studying at Bell Communications Research, New Jersey." These letters document financial funding for the 
petitioner's graduate study and research. Even if prestigious, these scholarships do not meet this criterion 
because only students - not established scientists - receive such funding. 
The record contains no primary evidence of the petitioner's "Bellcore Special Team Award." - 
President of BeLight, Incorporated and the petitioner's former supervisor at Bellcore, explains that the petitioner 
"was actively involved in the implementation of the Bellcore ~ksearch Network (BRN) Testbed for emerging 
optical network applications . . . . This [BRN] was the first such optical network in New Jersey and . . . a s a 
result, in 1993, [the petitioner] received a Bellcore Special Team Award for his work on the [BRN]." M k 
does not explain the eligibility criteria or selection process for this award, which appears to be an internal prize 
honoring outstanding work performed at Bellcore. The record contains no evidence that this award is nationally 
or internationally recognized in the petitioner's field. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classzj?cation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The support letter from Photuris claims the petitioner meets this criterion through his inclusion "in a group of 
internationally renowned Danish opticaI engineers as published in an article appearing in the May 9, 2001 
edition of the Borsen, which is the Danish equivalent of the Wall Street Journal." The record contains a copy of 
this article, entitled "Optical Strength Affected by Brain Drain." The article discusses the loss of Danish-trained 
optical engineers to the United States. The article mentions Photuris as an example of a U.S. company that 
benefited from employing Danish engineers, including The petitioner is mentioned in the 
following sentence: "With h' as recently drawn his younger colleagueho 
EAC 03 108 52624 . 
Page 4 
was recruited from the otherwise successful Danish company Ionas." This article discusses the "brain drain" of 
engineers such as Mr. and the petitioner. It does not document any established association of such 
Danish engineers. 
Photuris' letter also claims the petitioner satisfies this criterion because he was "invited to act as a 
reviewerlreferee for one of the leading Engineering [sic] journals in the world - Electronics Letters of The 
Institution of Electrical Engineers [IEE], published in the U.K." The record evidences the petitioner's review of 
manuscripts for Electronics Letters, but the petitioner submitted no evidence that his review resulted in, or was 
in any other way connected to, his membership in IEE. The petitioner's curriculum vitae states that he is a 
member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Lasers and Electro-Optics Society, but 
the record contains no evidence to corroborate his IEEE membership. Simply going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crajl of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg. Cornm. 1972)). Accordingly, 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 theJieId for which class$cation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The record contains one newspaper article that briefly mentions the petitioner: "Optical Strength Affected by 
Brain Drain," published in the May 9,2001 edition of the Borsen. As addressed under the second criterion, this 
article discusses the loss of Danish-trained optical engineers to the United States. The article is not about the 
petitioner or his work. Rather, the article simply mentions the petitioner in passing in a discussion about the 
petitioner's colleague, 
r 
Moreover, the record conths no evidence that Borsen is a professional, 
major trade publication or a om of other major media. Photuris' letter describes Borsen as "the Danish 
equivalent of the Wall Street Journal," but the record contains no documentation to support this claim. Again, 
simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Id. 
The petitioner also claims to meet this criterion through the citation of his work by other experts in his field. 
Yet citations of an alien's work by other scientists in their scholarly publications rarely meet this criterion 
because the citing articles are primarily about the authors7 own research, not the work of the alien. The record 
contains no copies of articles which cite the petitioner's work or other evidence that such citing articles feature 
or substantively discuss his work, rather than citing it to establish a subsidiary point. The citation of the 
petitioner's wcjrk is more relevant to and is discussed below under the fifth and sixth criteria. Neither the 
Borsen article nor the citations of the petitioner's work constitute published materials about the petitioner. 
Consequently, he does not meet this criterion. 
(iv) 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 alliedBeld of speczjimtion for which classification is sought. 
Photuris' letter claims that the petitioner satisfies this criterion because he was "an external examiner for 
Engineering Ph.D. thesis papers at the Technical University of Denmark in 1998 [and] he also supervised 
Master degree students for the university." The record contains no evidence to corroborate this claim. Again, 
simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. SofJicci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
EAC 03 108 52624 
Page 5 
The record includes evidence that the petitioner has reviewed articles for scientific journals in his field. The 
petitioner submitted an excerpt from an undated edition of Electronics Letters entitled "Referees July 1997 - 
June 1998." The petitioner's name is included in a list of referees who reviewed manuscripts for the journal 
during this time. The 'excerpt also states, "the acceptance percentage [ for Electronics Letters] has for many 
years hovered around the 40% mark. . . . The citation rate for papers published in Electronics Letters is very 
high - over 10,000 citations for the 1995 issues. This is amongst the highest citation rate for any journal and 
higher than that for any other engineering journal." The petitioner also submitted copies of letters and electronic 
mail messages thanking him for his review of ten manuscripts for Electronics Letters between January 1993 and 
July 2002, two manuscripts for the Journal of Lightwave Technology in 1993 and 1999, and four manuscripts 
for IEEE Photonics Technology Letters between 1998 and 2000. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted additional evidence of his review of manuscripts for Electronics Letters and 
Photonics Technology Letters and of his assignment to review papers for one scientific conference in his field. 
We cannot consider this additional evidence because it arose 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), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 at 49. 
Nonetheless, the record demonstrates that the petitioner has consistently reviewed manuscripts for three 
scientific journals in his field from 1993 through 2002. We find this evidence sufficient to meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signzjicance in the field 
etter cites the petitioner's patents, publications and recommendation letters as evidence of his 
eligibility under this criterion. The petitioner also submitted six support letters with the petition and submits an 
additional three letters on appeal. While such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience 
and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because 
they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number 
of individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters 
solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition cany less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has sustained national or international 
acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
~r. Technical Section Lead for Transmission Technology at ho knew the 
petitioner as a graduate student at the Technical University of Denmark, exp ains that the petitioner's "research 
began with his significant work on application of optical amplifiers in fiber-optic telecommunication systems at 
a time where these devices where [sic] just appearing out of research laboratories. Today, optical amplification 
is used in most commercially deployed fiber optic telecommunication systems . . . . The work of [the petitioner] 
has contributed substantially to these developments." Dr. adds that the petitioner went on to do 
"important work on a number of different aspects of WDM technologies for fiber-optic telecommunications. . . . 
[He] contributed groundbreaking work on the use of Rarnan amplification to enable greater capacity and longer 
transmission distances in fiber-optic telecommunication systems at a time where [sic] Raman amplification was 
considered a difficult technology to implement." 
h. Director of Optical Networking Systems at Tellium and the petitioner's former 
supervisor at Bell Copmunications (Bellcore), states that while at Bellcore, the petitioner's "work on noise in 
EAC 03 108 52624 
Page 6 
optical systems and on the spectroscopy of optical amplifiers truly broke new ground, and is still part of the 
Dr. I 
Technical Manager of the , 
who has met the petitioner on severa occasions, affirms that the 
is outstanding and ground-breaking work on interferometric noise 
impairments in optical transmission systems. This was very important work that substantially advanced the 
understanding of optical crosstalk and has been referenced by all subsequent papers on this topic by other 
groups." The record indicates that the petitioner is a co-author of two articles, of which ~r.is the lead 
author, that have been widely cited by other researchers. The first article, published in 1994 in IEEE Photonics 
Letters, has been cited 89 times. The petitioner is one of two co-authors of Dron this article. The 
second article, published in 1995 in IEEE Photonics Letters, has been cited 58 times. The petitioner is the only 
co-author of Dr.on this article. ~r.mwho also worked with the petitioner at Bellcore, affirms the 
importance of his work in contributing to the Bellcore Research Network for which he received a Bellcore 
Special Team Award. However, as discussed under the first criterion, the record contains no corroborative 
evidence of this award. The record also documents two U.S. patents assigned to Bell Communications 
Research, Incorporated (Bellcore) in 1994 and 1995 of which the petitioner is a co-inventor along with Dr. 
d their former colleagues. 
~r.-x~lains that the petitioner went on to do "seminal work on long-distance repeaterless lightwave 
systems employing multiple colors of light" at AT&T Bell Laboratories (AT&T Bell Labs) where he and his co- 
workers "were the first in the world to accomplish this feat. . . . This work was truly visionary." Dr- 
Director of Lightwave Systems Research and a former colleague of the petitioner at AT&T Bell 
Labs, explains that the petitioner '"made significant and record setting contributions to the field of non- 
repeatered DWDM transmission. . . . [and] investigated the influence of interferometric noise on optically 
preamplified receivers as well as exhaustively studied the noise properties of distributed Raman amplifiers and 
the associated transmission limitations." Professor of Electrical Engineering - Systems at the 
University of Southern California, Los Angeles and a former colleague of the petitioner at Bellcore, states that 
the petitioner's "work on un-repatered DWDM transmission systems stands out as exceptional. [The 
petitioner] and his colleagues were able to increase transmission distances beyond conventional thinking by 
applying new methods not seen before including remote pumping of EDFAs and Raman amplification." Dr. 
affirms the importance of this work by stating that the petitioner's research "resulted in extraordinary 
and world-record breaking results for non-repeatered dense WDM systems. . . . This work was the first to utilize 
dispersion-compensating fiber with low polarization mode dispersion to combat the chromatic dispersion of 
optical transmission fibers. Dispersion compensating fiber is now an integral part of all transmission systems, 
both terrestrial and submarine, and is a multi-million dollar business for the American optical fiber industry." 
~r. Optical Layer Architect for Photuris, states that he first worked with the petitioner at AT&T 
Bell Labs where they worked "to investigate the ultimate canabilities of reneaterless submarine communication 
system" and "leapfi-~g" the then leadingcompany in this &a, Alcatel. D;- explains that the petitioner 
"'was an exceptional contributor on the project and our work produced several world record setting results, 
which transformed the field. In the we placed AT&T in front of Alcatel and their internationally 
recognized team of researchers. . . . In particular our research on remote amplification and Raman amplification 
build [sic] an understanding of those concepts and extended the capabilities of such systems tremendously. 
Several patents were filed and later granted securing the intellectual property for AT&T. Today these 
technologies are being exploited commercially and support live data and telecom traffic." Dr. adds that 
he and the petitioner "continued our work on Rarnan amplification extending the application space to include 
terrestial networks. . . . Much of the research we carried out during that time is now the foundation for the 
EAC 03 108 52624 
Page 7 
current state-of-the-art transmission system being marketed by Lucent Technologies (as the system 
manufacturing arm of AT&T became known after its spinoft)." 
The petitioner is one of several co-authors of three articles on Raman amplification, of which ~r.-is the 
lead author. The first article, published in 1996 in ZEE Electronic Letters, has been cited 14 times by other 
researchers. The second article, published in 1997 in IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, has been cited 16 
times., The third article, published in 1998 in IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, has been cited 20 times. The 
record also documents that the petitioner is co-inventor of 9 U.S. patents issued between 1995 and 2001, eight of 
which are assigned to Lucent Technologies Incorporated and one of which is assigned to the AT&T 
Corporation. 
During the petitioner's subsequent employment at Ionas, Dr. states that the company brought "DFB 
fiber lasers fiom being a laboratory curiosity to a reliable and highly specialized roduct. I am sure that [the 
petitioner] was a significant contributor to the success of this company." Dr.- Chief 
Technology Officer of Koheras A/S in Denmark and the petitioner's former colleague at Ionas, explains that the 
petitioner joined the fiber-optic components department of Ionas in 1997 where he worked on developing "new 
types of fiber-optic based DFB lasers and fiber gratings." Dr. affirms that the petitioner "was 
instrumental in transfemng the results from the research environment to full scale production. The fiber 
components department was later spun off as a separate company, KOHERAS A/S, and much of its success can 
be attributed to the invaluable contributions that [the petitioner] made." The record documents one U.S. patent 
assigned to Ionas A/S for "Temperature Stabilization of Optical Waveguides" of which the petitioner is one of 
four co-inventors. On appeal, the petitioner submitted evidence of one additional U.S. patent assigned to 
Koheras A/S, of which the petitioner is a co-inventor, but we cannot consider this evidence because the patent 
was awarded after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition 
cannot be approved at a bre date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 at 49. 
Dr. later recruited the petitioner to join him at Photuris where, he states, "our research and development 
activities have benefited significantly fiom his discoveries; several patent applications have been filed during his 
time with Photuris." ~r.also comments on the petitioner's recent work at' Photuris, which has 
"introduced the use of reconfigurable optical add-drop multiplexers, ROADMs, into the metro-regional market 
space for dense WDM transmission systems. . . . Photuris was the first institution to develop a ROADM and 
build a system around it. . . . Their system is years ahead of any of their competitors, and there is no doubt in 
my mind that [the petitioner] made vital contributions to their end product." 
Dr. ~irector of Strategic ~kchnology Planning at Coming Incorporated, summarizes the 
petitioner's "novel and pioneering" work in the areas discussed above and states that the petitioner "has 
provided substantial co&ibutions to the understanding, techniques, and improved perFo*ance in these 
disciplines, and has established a solid worldwide reputation. In each of these cases the results have had 
enormous impact on commercial deployments of these systems." 
The record indicates that the petitioner has made major contributions to his field in a manner reflective of the 
requisite sustained acclaim. His work has been widely cited by other researchers and has resulted in 12 patented 
inventions fiom 1994 through 2002, the significance and importance bf which are confirmed by support letters 
fiom nine experts in his field. Accordingly, the petitioner meets this criterion. 
EAC 03 108 52624 
Page 8 
(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 submitted a list of 81 of his co-authored articles that were purportedly published in scientific 
journals and conference proceedings in his field (prior to the filing of this petition). Yet the record contains no 
primary evidence of any of these publications. Simply going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The 
petitioner submitted no reprints, copies or excerpts of the petitioner's manuscripts to verify their publication in 
scientific journals. The record provides secondary evidence of the publication of just five yticles through 
citation lists printed from the Web of Science. Yet these five articles do not meet this criterion. The most recent 
of these articles was published in January 1998, five years before this petition was filed. Although the record 
demonstrates that these articles have been widely cited, it fails to document the publication of any of the 
petitioner's articles published after 1998. The petitioner's publication record, as documented here, does not 
reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. 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. 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish the nature of the alien's role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. Where an alien has a leading or critical 
role for a section of a distinguished organization or establishment, the petitioner must establish the reputation of 
that section independent of the organization itself. In this case the petitioner claims to meet this criterion 
through his work at AT&T Bell Labs and Ionas. 
Dr. one of the petitioner's former supervisor's at AT&T Bell Laboratories states, "In 1996 [the 
petitioner] transferred into my department . . . [and] was one of a few key researchers around whom I rebuilt the 
Lightwave Systems ~esearch ~e&rtment at ~kll Labs. . . . me] was a key contributor in our department and I 
believe that he exhibited outstanding performance in comparison with other recognized researchers here at Bell 
Laboratories." While the petitioner may have played an important role in Dr. department, the 
record contains no independent evidence to document the reputation of that department independent of Bell 
Laboratories as a whole. 
Dr. the petitioner's former colleague at Ionas, states that the petitioner worked as "the production 
manager" and in "close collaboration with the engineering research team" in the department of fiber-optic 
components at Ionas. ~r.describes the petitioner as "instrumental" to the development of new 
products, but his letter does not indicate that the petitioner played a leading or critical role for the department or 
for Ionas as a whole. Moreover, the record contains no evidence that Ionas or its fiber-optic department have 
distinguished reputations. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
fix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign'ficantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field 
Photuris' letter claims the petitioner meets this criterion because "[hlis salary at Photuris exceeds $100,000 per 
year plus stock options and any bonuses." The Form 1-140 lists the petitioner's salary as $108,000, but the 
record contains no evidence to corroborate his income. Simply going on record without supporting 
EAC 03 108 52624 
Page 9 
documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
16.5. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner's "current salary is %120.1)00-- for patents 
applied for and other achievements. This is significantly higher than the prevailing wage" (emphasis in 
original). Again, the record does not document the petitioner's current salary, but even if it did, we could not 
consider his increased compensation because it was awarded 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 9 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 at 49. 
On appeal, the petitioner also submits a printout identified by a handwritten note as "OES Wages." The printout 
lists the Level 2 Wage for electrical engineers in three counties of an unidentified state as $83,720. This 
information is not probative. The relevant comparison here is the salaries of electro-optical engineers employed 
in the field of fiber optic telecommunications. The record contains no documentation of the petitioner's salary 
or evidence that his remuneration is significantly higher than other electro-optical engineers or comparable to 
such engineers at the very top of his field. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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 has made major scientific contributions to his field and has judged the work 
of other researchers. However, the record does not establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national 
or international acclaim placing him at the very top of his field at the time of filing. 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. 
5 11 53(b)(l)(A), and his petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.