dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

identifying data deleted 
~.,a-A:~ . 
US Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mais: Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
j and ~mmigration 
-rarr-'ylL= invasion of personal privacy 
 Services 
\ 
I 
PUBLIC con 
 / 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: s@ 2 2 2006 
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: 
This is the decision i5f 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. 
i "- 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
' ~dmhistrative Appeals -- Office 
k 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 4 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualifL for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and exhibits. For the reasons discussed below, counsel has not 
overcome the director's bases of denial. Ultimately, the petitioner was, at the time of filing, an assistant 
professor earning ,$38,523, a position and salary that do not set him apart fiom university faculty 
nationwide,' who has not provided letters fiom experts outside his immediate circle of colleagues or 
evidence that his published articles have been influential in the field. The petitioner's eligibility claim 
primarily hinges on his unique training among the faculty where he 'teaches and the fact that he works 
on a Department of Defense project, which had produced few results as of the date of filing. The 
evidence is simply not indicative of or uniquely consistent with national or international acclaim, the 
statutory standard for the classification sought. Ultimately, the record contains no evidence that the 
petitioner has any recognition outside the instihitions where he has studied and taught as of the date of 
, 
'- 
 filing. The evidence will be considered as it relates to the regulatory criteria below. Pursuant to that 
discussion, we find that the petitioner has failed to establish that he met any of those criteria as of the 
date of filing.2 
Section 203(b) of the Act .states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visits shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through.((=): 
(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, 
8 (ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and , 
r 
I 
Even the petitioner's current position as an associate professor and wages do not set him apart from 
university faculty nationwide. 
As will be discussed below, while the director concluded that the petitioner met the criterion set forth in the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), he erroneously relied on evidence of reviews conducted after the date of 
filing. 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit a 
prospecti~ely the united 'states. , 
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. § 204.5@)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or intemational 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 v'ery top level. 
 , 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an engineer. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5@)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
intemational 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 alied to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. On appeal, counsel asserts that llfilling three criteria meets the 
standard and that the director erred in using a "subjective determination of what was indeed enough to 
qualify for national or international acclaim." The petitioner, however, 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 or consistent'with sustained national or international acclaim if that 
statutory standard is to have any mhing. 
 2. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the dlien's receipt of lesser hationall' or interhationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
While counsel initially asserted that the petitioner's local and academic honors served to meet this 
criterion, counsel abandoned this claim in response to the director's request for additional evidence and 
does not raise this criterion on appeal. We concur with the director that the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classifcation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, a. judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
3 
 The petitloner does not clalm to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
On his cuniculum vitae, the petitioner claimed to be a member of the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME), the Institute of Electrical and Electionics Engineers (IEEE), the American Design 
Drafting Association (ADDA) and the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). The 
petitioner submitted evidence that IEEE is "the world's largest technical professional association, 
connecting more than 360,000 members in approximately 175 countries." The materials submitted for 
ASEE reflect that it has more than 12,000 members, including deans, professors, instructors, students 
and industry representatives. The materials submitted for ADDA reflect that membership "is available 
to any individual, school, institution, company or.. corporation which is involved in the design drafting 
fields." The petitioner submitted no information regarding ASME. 
In the request for additional evidence, the director noted that the petitioner had not submitted any 
evidence that membership is limited to those with outstanding ,achievements. In response, the 
petitioner resubmitted the same materials regarding IEEE, ASEE and ADDA. The director concluded 
that memberships cannot satisfy this criterion "if members are not selected at the national or 
international level, based upon outstanding achievement." 
On appeal, counsel asserts' that engineers can only join IEEE "upon satisfjing IEEE-specified 
educational requirements and demonstrating professional competence in IEEE-desimated fields of 
interest." Counsel notes that membership "is not simply open to the public." Finally, counsel asserts 
that ASEE and ASME have similar requirements. The petitioner submits the bylaws for IEEE which 
. provide that members must either have (a) received a baccalaureate (or equivalent) or higher degree in 
an IEEE-designated field, (b) received a baccalaureate (or equivalent) or higher degree and at least three 
years experience in IEEE-designated fields, (c) demonstrated competence in an IEEE-designated field 
through at least six years of experience or (d) been an executive for six years directing work in an 
IEEE-designated field. A member need meet only one of these requirements. The petitioner does not 
submit the bylaws of ASEE or ASME. 
The fact that IEEE is not open to the public is not decisive. The plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii) provides that the association must require outstanding achievements of its 
members. A professional association that limits membership to professionals working in the field does 
not necessarily require outstanding achievements. Neither earning an undergraduate degree in 
engineering nor working in the field for a specific number of years is an outstanding achievement in 
engineering. We note that lEEE elects fellows, conferred by invitation only in recognition of unusual 
distinction. The petitioner does not claim to be a fellow of IEEE. 
The director's conclusion regarding this criterion is not subjective, but based on the plain language of 
the regulation. We concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that IEEE, or any 
other association of which he claims to be a member, requires outstanding achievements of its 
members. Thus these memberships cannot serve to meet the plain language of the regulation. 
Moreover, while not raised by the director, the record lacks the petitioner's membership cards or other 
primary evidence of membership. The petitioner has not established that such evidence is unavailable 
or does not exist. 
 As such, we need not rely on his self-serving curriculum vitae. 
 8 C.F.R. 
4 103.2(b)(2). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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 specification for which classiJication is sought. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence that he served on four Master theses examining committees 
at West Virginia University (WVU), where he teaches. In response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, the petitioner submitted requests to review seven manuscripts for the International 
Association of Science and Technology for .Development, all of which postdate the .filing of the 
petition. The petitioner also review6 
Also after the date of filing, 1 
the petitioner as an ASME IV 
I Gers fdr an IEEE conference and ASEE after the date of filing. 
division director and professor at WVU, nominated 
ing Technology   valuator. The record contains no 
evidence that the petitioner was actually selected as an evaluator by ASME. Finally, the petitioner 
submitted evidence that he chaired a Master thesis examining committee after the date of filing. 
The director concluded that while review of academic work is an inherent responsibility of faculty at an 
academic institution, the petitioner "appears to be prolific in terms of performing reviews of scholarly 
works submitted to the professional organizations to which'he belongs." Thus, the director appears to 
have concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion based on reviews conducted after the date of 
filing. On appeal, counsel reiterates that the petitioner has reviewed manuscripts for journals and 
conferences. 
Counsel does not question the director's conclusion that serving on a thesis evaluating committee at the 
university where on works is an inherent duty of faculty. We concur with this conclusion. As stated 
above, the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim. Duties that are inherent to one's occupation cannot serve to meet this 
criterion. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner served as aq external advisor at 
universities other than WVU. 
The petitioner must establish eligibility as of the ,date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2@)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Cornm. 1971). Thus, the director erred in considering the 
petitioner's journal and conference manuscript reviews undertaken by the petitioner after the date of 
filing. In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he met this criterion as of the date of 
Jiling. - 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijicance in the$eld. 
5. 
The petitioner submitted reference'letters and published articles to meet this criterion. The director 
concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated the impact of his work. The director noted that 
witness letters alone cannot "form the cornerstone of a successfbl claim:' for the classification sought. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the regulations do not require evidenceof the field's reaction to the 
petitioner's work, but assert that the petitioner's "prolific" work and reference letters adequately 
demonstrate that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
While the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) may not expressly state that the petitioner must 
demonstrate a "reaction" to his work, the regulation does require that the contributions 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. 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. 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. Thus, it is difficult to imagine how the petitioner's work could be considered a 
contribution of major significance without generating any "reaction" in the community. 
We will consider the reference letters below. In evaluating the letters, we consider the following. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791,795 
(Comm. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters fiom experts supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS 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 So@, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
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 fiom independent references who 
were previously aware of the petitioner through his reputation and who have applied his work are far 
more persuasive than letters from independent references who were not previously aware of the 
petitioner and are merely responding to a solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and 
work and provide an opinion based solely on this review. 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. 
All of the faculty at WVU affirm that the petitioner is the only faculty member with his education 
and experience in robotics, expert systems and software development. They firther discuss the 
importance of his projects. Having unique expertise among the faculty at a single university is not 
evidence of the petitioner's national or international acclaim or standing in the field overall. 
Moreover, the petitioner cannot establish his eligibility for the classification sought simply by 
demonstrating his qualifications to work on si 
national or international acclaim in the field. - 
asserts that the ~etitioner was the only aualified ca 
CIS. The classification sought requires 
le petitioner's department head, 
honal search. Determinations of 
shortages, however, fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Matter of New York State 
Dep2. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215,221 (Cornm. 1998). The availability,of other qualified workers is 
simply not a consideration for the classifcation sought. 
Professor and Dean of Engineering at WVU, summarizes the petitioner's 
He is currently involved in Intelligent Vision System Development for 
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) research supported by Department of 
Defense (DOD) under a project entitled, "Smart War Fighting Array of 
Reconfigurable Modules (SWARM)" for the US NAVY. He is a member of a 
research team consisting of faculty members, experts from industries, and 
graduate and undergraduate students at WVU Tech. 
' 
Development of manufacturing process models for District Event Dynamic 
System Optimization of manufacturing process sequences. , s 
Determination of Significance of.the execution speed of various thermal 
analysis techniques using Design of Experiments (DOE) techniques. 
~evelo~ment of an Expert System approach to improve the quality of finite 
element mesh generation. 
Developing mixed numerical & analytical methods to solve the heat transfer 
problem in an axis-symmetric disk to be used with Discrete Event Dynamic 
I. 
System Optimization Program in US Air Force. 
Developing a new Hybrid technology to solve the heat transfer problem of 
complex geometric objects as a new Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) tool. 
m 
does not, however, explain how any of these contributions have impacted the field. 
or examp e, e oes not identify any industry that has adopted or is even considering adopting the 
petitioner's models. He also does not identi@ a paper or presentation that is demonstrably influential, 
such as through wide and fiequent citation. 
, . 
Page 8 - e 
, a professor at WW, indicates that the petitioner submitted three research 
proposals durin his first two years at WVU, one of which was a joint proposal with 
While asserts that the petitioner published his results fiom the first propos 
not explain the significance of this work other than it was funded by the Research Committee of WVU 
Tech. The joint proposal of Defense's Smart War- 
fighting Array of discuss any results 
from this joint third proposal is "still 
under evaluation." While young researcher" he 
does not claim 
another professor at W, provides similar infohation; asserting that the petitioner 
and begun work on the smart vision system for SWARM. 
es not assert that the etitioner's work on this project has already produced a contribution 
of major significance. 
 asserts that the petitioner's teaching and research activities are 
"making an outstanding contribution to this institution, and, potentially, to the state and nation as well." 
(Emphasis added.) This language does not suggest that the petitioner has already made contributions 
of major significance to the field as a whole or that he enjoys national or international acclaim, the 
statutory standard for the classification sought. 
the petitioner's -dissertation advisor at Ohio University, asserts that the petitioner 
conducted research on a number of manufacturing process models, applying finite element methods to 
develop thermal forging models. The petitioner also implemented a hybrid version of numerical 
method to analyze the forging process. Finally, he was successful in developing a numerical code that 
would interface with a commercial code, such as Hypermesh. oncludes that this work is 
"extremely critical technology for the manufacture of machine components." 
that the petitioner presented this work at a conference, he does not allege 
implemented or ci&d. The record lacks evidence that the petitioner's published work has been cited 
and the record contains no letters fiom independent experts in the forging industry who have applied 
the petitioner's work. 
plant engineer fo 
 orth America in Ohio, asserts that he and 
the petitioner shared results. While h 
 er's "ability to find critical information, 
anal-$ze it and act appropriately," he doeinot identify a specific contribution of major significance to 
. -. the field. 
The above letters are all fiom the petitioner's collaborators and immediate colleagues. While such 
-- 
 letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role'in various projects, they cannot 
by themselves establish the petitioner's national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner submitted three published articles and his unpublished doctoral dissertation and Masters 
Thesis. The petitioner also submitted his SWARM research proposal. In response to the director's 
. . 
request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that he had authored two additional 
published articles, both after the date of filing.. A third article appeared in the proceedings for a 2005 
conference. The petitioner also submitted seven chapters of a book he had yet to complete or publish. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted e-mail messages accepting manuscripts for future publication. The 
record contains no evidence that the petitioner's articles have been widely and frequently cited or 
otherwise influential. 
While the4evidence 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 scholarll; articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As stated above, the petitioner initially submitted three published articles and his unpublished doctoral 
dissertation and Masters Thesis. The petitioner also submitted his SWARM research proposal. In 
response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that he had 
authored two additional published articles, both after the date of filing. A third article appeared in the 
proceedings for a 2005 conference, also after the date of filing. The petitioner also submitted seven 
chapters of a book he had yet to complete or publish. Finally, the petitioner submitted e-mail messages 
accepting manuscripts for future publication. As also stated above, the petitioner submitted no 
evidence that his work has been cited or otherwise influential. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established the reception 'of the overall engineering 
comrnuriity. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner had nine articles published or presented prior 
to the date of filing. Counsel concludes that the mere publication of articles serves to meet this 
criterion. 
The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its 
Report and Recommendations, March 3 1, 1998, set ibrth its recommended definition of a postdoct,oral 
appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the 
appointment is viewed as preparatory for a hll-time academic andlor 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 andfor 
research career." This report reinforces CIS'S &sition that publication of scholarly articles is not 
automatically evidence of sustained acclaim; we must consider tHe research community's reaction to 
those articles. 
Without evidence that the petitioner has been even moderately cited or comparable evidence of the 
significance of his work, we cannot conclude that his publication record is indicative of or consistent 
with national or international acclaim. Thus, the.petitioner has not established that he meets this 
I 
criterion. Even if we accepted counsel's assertion that publication in and of itself is sufficient to meet 
this criterion, and we do not in the field of scientific research, the petitioner does not meet the plain 
language requirements of at least two other regulatory criteria, of which he must meet at least three to 
establish eligibility. 
Evidence that the alien has peflormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinmished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to have played a leading or critical role for WVU. As of the date of filing, the 
petitioner was employed there as an assistant professor. As discussed above, several of the faculty at 
WVU assert ,that the petitioner has unique education and experience among the faculty. The director 
concluded that the petitioner's position was not indicative of being at the top of his field. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that the director's finding that the petitioner is highly regarded at WVU demonstrates 
that the petitioner is employed "in a critical capacity for an organization with a distinguished 
reputation." 
We have already considered the petitioner's claimed contributions above. Moreover, the petitioner's 
qualifications for his job and his competence in filfilling his job duties are insufficient to meet this 
criterion. Rather, at issue for this criterion are the nature of the role the petitioner was hired to fill and 
the reputation of the entity that hired him. The director did not question WVU's national reputation. 
Assuming WVU does have a distinguished reputation nationally, we cannot conclude that every 
assistant professor with unique experience and education among the faculty at a university plays a 
leading or critical role for the university as a whole. Specifically, the position of "assistant professor" 
does not set the petitioner apart fiom the majority of the faculty at W, let alone nationwide. Thus, 
we concur with the director that the petitioner does not meet the plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence that the ;lien has commanded a high salary or other si&ficantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
Counsel did not initially assert that the petitioner meets this criterion. The petitioner submitted a notice 
of appointment for the position of assistant professor listing his salary as $38,523 for the period of 
August 16,2003 through May 14, 2004. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, 
counsel asserted that the petitioner was "recently" promoted to associate professor, earning $53,672 for 
the academic year and $5,200 per month over the summer. Counsel further asserts that the petitioner 
earns $1 00 per hour as a consultant. The petitioner submitted: 
1. A Notice of Intent to Renew Appointment, renewing his position as an assistant 
professor for the 2004-2005 academic year, 
2. A May 12,2005 letter promoting the petitioner to Associate Professor effective 
August 16,2005 with an unspecified salary, 
3. A May 13,2005 letter fiorn at ~olumbia ~ll&, Inc. requesting 
the petitioner's consulting services at a rate of $100 per hour,. 
4. A May 2,2005 letter from'~oundin~ Director of the Center for 
Research on Advanced Control of Autonomous Systems and Manufacturing at 
WVU advising that the petitioner earned $5,200 per month working for the 
center from May 16,2004 to July 15,2004, 
5. The petitioner's 2003 Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement reflecting wages of 
$35,717.46, 
6. An earnings statement reflecting year to date earnings of $8,835.18 as of 
February 27,2004, 
7. U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration statistics 
reflecting that the level one and four wages for engineering teachers, 
postsecondary in Central West Virginia are $45,070 per year and $93,3 10 per 
year respectively and 
8. A bank statement for January 1,2004 through March 3 1,2004 reflecting payroll 
deposits of $1,763.1 1 on March 16,2004 and again on March 3 1,2004. 
We note that the petition was filed on May 6,2004. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established comparable wages in consulting work. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner provided evidence that the petitioner's salary "as a 
summer researcher places him in one of the highest levels of wages for other postsecondary, 
engineering researchers." Counsel fiuther asserts that the petitioner's wages as a consultant places him 
''well above the Department of Labor's Level Four wage." The petitioner submitted evidence that level 
one wage for electrical engineers in Central West Virginia is $19.66 per hour or $40,893 per year and 
the level four wage for these electrical engineers is $30 per hour, or $63,544 per year. 
As of the date of filing, the petitioner was earning $38,523, below the, level one wage for both electrical 
engineers and postsecondary engineering teachers. Even the petitioner's alleged salary increase in 2005 
as an associate professor, $53,672 plus the possibility of an additional ,$10,400 during the summer as 
occurred in 2004, is well below the level four wage for postsecondary engineering teachers, his 
occupation resulting in those wages. The record contains no evidence regarding how many hours he 
worked as a consultant or even whether he accepted the consulting work. As such, we cannot 
determine his actual remuneration for that work. Moreover, the statutory standard for the classification 
sought is national or internationhl acclaim. Thus, in order to meet this criterion, the petitioner's wages 
must compare with the highest wages in the field nati~nwide.~ 
In light of.the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets thiscriterion. 
The docurrientation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinky 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, howeve;, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as an 
enpeer 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 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. 
, . 
4 
 The highest ten percent of electrical engineers nationwide earn $108,070 annually and the highest ten 
percent of aeronautics engineers nationwide earn $113,520 annually. 
 U.S. Department of Labor, 
Occupational Outlook Handbook 140 (2006-07 ed.).