dismissed EB-1A Case: Environmental Science And Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FLE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: sp 2005 
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. 3 1 153(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. 
id 5 Robert P. Wiernann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 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. 5 1153(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: 
(I) 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" 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. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on December 5, 2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
in environmental science and engineering. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a Postdoctoral 
Research Associate in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences at Washington State University. The 
petitioner earned a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of Oklahoma in April 2002. 
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 pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
We note here that the plain wording of this criterion requires "nationally or internationally recognized" prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field. The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition 
and achievement associated with his awards. 
The petitioner submitted the following award certificates: 
1. "Third Class" Heilongjiang Provincial Government Science and Technology Award (1994) 
2. "Second Class" Heilongjiang Construction Committee Science and Technology Award (1994) 
3. "First Class" Heilongjiang Construction Committee Science and Technology Award (1993) 
The above awards constitute provincial recognition rather than national or international recognition. 
The petitioner also submitted the selection criteria for the Heilongjiang Provincial Government Science and 
Technology Award. The selection criteria for this award confirm that it is provincial in scope. Upon review 
of the selection criteria, we cannot ignore that the Heilongjiang Provincial Government also presents a 
"Supreme" Science and Technology Award. "Item No. 14" of the selection criteria states: 
Heilongjiang Science and Technology Awards are awarded once a year. Heilongjiang Supreme Science 
and Technology Awards have no class and are awarded to no more than 2 persons. There can be 
vacancy for these awards based on the actual situation. Heilongjiang Science and Technology Awards 
are classified into first class, second class and third class. Total annual awards should not exceed 300. 
From this information, it is apparent that the petitioner's "Third Class" Heilongjiang Provincial Government 
Science and Technology Award represents the lowest level of recognition out of the four award categories 
cited above. 
We concur with the director's finding that the petitioner's recognition at the provincial level falls short of the 
regulatory standard. 
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, the 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. Finally, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the American Geophysical Union and the American 
Society for Microbiology. The record, however, contains no evidence of the bylaws or official admission 
requirements for these organizations showing that they "require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by national or international or international experts." 
The director's decision stated: "Membership in a broad-based professional society does not satisfy this 
criterion because membership is not limited only to those scientists or engineers with outstanding 
achievements in the field." The petitioner's appellate submission does not challenge the director's finding in 
regard to 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 classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted correspondence showing that he reviewed multiple manuscripts for Biotrchnology 
Progress, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vadose Zone Journal, Soil Science Society of America 
Journal, Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, Langmuir, Letters in Applied Microbiology, Journal of 
Environmental Quality, and Environmental Science and Technology. Occasional participation in the peer review 
process for a limited number of journals is not presumptive evidence of sustained national or international 
acclaim. In this instance, however, the evidence shows that the petitioner has performed numerous reviews for a 
large number of respected journals. Therefore, while we acknowledge the director's observation that the 
petitioner did not serve in an editorial capacity for the above journals, we find that the petitioner's evidence is 
adequate to minimally satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted six letters of support from current and former colleagues. 
Associate Professor of Soil Physics. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington 
State University, states: 
[The petitioner] has applied his expertise in surface thermodynamics to colloid transport. [The 
petitioner] is currently working to predict colloid transport in the vadose zone based on colloid surface 
thermodynamic properties. In his pioneer work, he quantified the adhesion free energy of colloids to 
the liquid-gas interface and related this interaction free energy to colloid transport. As far as I know, he , 
is the first to have quantified these interactions and applied [sic] to colloid transport. 
The plain wording of this criterion requires not only that the petitioner's research findings be "orieinal." but - u, 
that they are of "major significance in the field." We acknowled-bservation that that the 
petitioner was possibly one of the first scientists to quantify the adhesion free energy of colloids to the liquid- -. 
gas interface and relate this interaction free energy to colloid transport. However, of far greater relevance in 
this proceeding is the importance to the overall field of the petitioner's work. In this case, the petitioner has 
not provided adequate evidence showing that this work was widely recognized throughout his field as a major 
contribution. The petitioner must show not only that his discoveries are important to his superiors at 
Washington State University, but throughout the greater research community as well. 
rofessor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, states: 
I came to know [the petitioner], his research work, and his exceptional ability in my capacity as a co- 
principal investigator of an Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP) project funded by 
the Department of Energy. [The petitioner], a postdoctoral research associate, is a major participant on 
this project. Since May 2002, [the petitioner] has been working in the area of colloid-facilitated cesium 
transport. . . . [The petitioner's] research involves the investigation of the mechanisms of the transport 
of leaked cesium, the major radioactive inventory at the Hanford site. He has demonstrated that colloids 
formed when the caustic and high ionic strength tank waste contacted sediments can affect Cs migration 
rates. His work has shown that the effect is small relative to ion exchange mechanisms so that "'CS is 
unlikely to reach groundwater before it is dissipated by radioactive decay. His extraordinary research 
work will help to save countless expenditures on Cs cleanup while the money can be used to attack 
more critical issues. 
He is also a leading scientist working on the role of bacterial surface thermodynamics on organism 
transport. This becomes an increasingly important issue as the country prepares to deal with the 
potential effects of a biological weapons attack. Currently, he is introducing his pioneer surface 
thermodynamic theory to the general colloid transport problem. [The petitioner's] extraordinary 
background gives a new insight into the mechanisms of colloid transport. His research holds 
tremendous promise in the quest to Hanford cleanup. As [the petitioner] has consistently taken a highly 
innovative and exciting approach to his research, there is no doubt in my mind that [the petitioner] is 
destined to succeed in his field. 
The plain language of the statute, however, calls for evidence showing that the petitioner already enjoys major 
success and national acclaim for his research achievements.bservation regarding the "promise" 
of the petitioner's work is not adequate to establish that his work is already nationally or internationally 
acclaimed as a major contribution. Furthermore, the nature o- comment that the petitioner "is 
destined to succeed in his field" is certainly no indicator that the petitioner is already "one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(2). With regard to 
the witnesses of record, many of them discuss what may, might, or could one day result from the petitioner's 
work, rather than how his past efforts already rise to the level of a contribution of major significance. Such 
observations are not adequate to distinguish the petitioner's contributions from those of established 
environmental engineering professionals (such as tenured professors). The petitioner seeks a highly 
restrictive visa classification, intended for aliens already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for 
individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. 
Associate Professor of Bioenvironmental Engineering and Science, University of 
Oklahoma, states that he served as the petitioner's Ph.D. advisor. He further states: 
We have worked together towards the understanding of bacterial interactions with the surrounding 
environments and tried to use these interactions to predict bacterial transport in the subsurface. [The 
petitioner] proposed a model to quantify the interactions between bacteria and the surrounding 
environment and we applied this model in our experiments. After publishing our research work in 
Environmental Microbiology, we have received tremendous requests for reprints of the paper. Our 
research group has become the leading group and [the petitioner] has become a leading scientist in 
bacterial surface thermodynamics and transport. Later, we published our continuous work in the 
Journal of Environmental Engineering, Environmental Science Engineering, and other internationally 
renowned journals and our work has drawn significant attention. 
In support of statements, the petitioner submitted citation indices showing that two of his 
articles had been cited an aggregate of eight times. The petitioner also submitted correspondence reflecting 
an aggregate of nine reprint requests for two other articles. Requests for reprints do not indicate that the person 
requesting the reprint has already read and evaluated the article. Therefore, such requests are not sufficient to 
demonstrate the petitioner's significant impact in the environmental engineering field. Numerous independent 
citations, however, would provide solid evidence that other scientists have been influenced by the petitioner's 
work and are familiar with it. If, on the other hand, there are only a few citations of the petitioner's work, 
suggesting that that work has gone largely unnoticed by the greater field, then it is reasonable to conclude that 
his work is not nationally or internationally acclaimed as a contribution of major significance. In this 
instance, the limited number of cites to the petitioner's articles is not sufficient to show that his work has had 
a significant national or international impact. 
Besides bacterial surface thermodynamics and transport, [the petitioner] has also investigated the 
degradation of recalcitrant contaminants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
devoted considerable effort over the last two decades to advancing the understanding of appropriate 
applications of bioremediation. Remedial activities have been conducted on groundwater, soil, 
sediments, and landfills with a range of contaminants, including chlorinated solvents, polycyclic 
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), petroleum hydrocarbons, oils, and many others. [The petitioner's] 
studies have provided an optimistic future for the biodegradation of environmentally persistent 
contaminants, and also provided guidelines for the development of new and innovative bioremediation 
strategies and technologies to address recalcitrant contaminants and increasingly challenging site 
conditions. 
Los Alamos National Laboratory, states: 
[The petitioner] is currently working with me on an Environmental Management Science Program 
(EMSP) project, funded by the Department of Energy. 
The Department of Energy (DOE) wants to speed cleanup of contaminated sites around the nation, and 
the Hanford Nuclear ReserLation is of the highest priority. Waste tanks at the Hanford site contain 
approximately 54 million gallons of waste-byproducts of four decades of production of plutonium for 
nuclear weapons. A total of 67 out of a total of 177 underground waste tanks at the Hanford nuclear 
reservation are suspected of leaking. Radioactive cesium 137 has been found in the soil at the tank 
farms deeper than previously estimated, and it is estimated that contamination in soil goes as deep as 
130 feet beneath the surface through natural or man-made pathways. [The petitioner] has conducted 
experiments demonstrating that cesium migration is facilitated by in situ formed colloids. His 
understanding of the mechanisms of cesium transport will aid in prevention of leaked cesium to reach 
the groundwater. Much of the toughest work for cleanup of Hanford lies ahead and will be a costly and 
complex job that will take several decades to complete. 
While the petitioner has performed admirably on the Hanford project, there is no evidence demonstrating that 
his individual work on this local project is nationally recognized as a major contribution in the field of 
environmental science and engineering. 
Professor, Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering. Cornell 
At Cornell, [the petitioner] studied soil microbial activities, particularly those related to nitrogen and 
phosphorus availability. He has quantified the growth of soil microorganisms and elucidated the 
mechanisms of carbon and nitrogen fixation. These data are used to effectively reduce soil erosion and 
maintain or enhance crop productivity. This should be of great value to policymakers, resource 
managers and consulting firms. 
[The petitioner] also has expert knowledge in composting. Compost is one of nature's best mulches and 
can be used in addition to fertilizers. . . . Understanding how to make and use compost is of public 
interest, as the problem of waste disposal becomes increasingly difficult. [The petitioner] examined 
optimal conditions in terms of heat, moisture, air, and materials to speed up the composting process. 
Results of his research brings significant benefits to farmers and contributes to the solution of waste 
disposal. 
The record, however, does not show the extent to which the petitioner's findings have influenced the fanning 
industry. For example, there is no quantitative evidence showing that the petitioner's research results have 
enhanced crop productivity in the U.S. on a national scale. 
enior Research Scientist, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, states: 
Thus far in his short career (Ph.D. granted in 2002) [the petitioner] has already published 15 papers in 
internationally recognized journals and given numerous presentations at international conferences and 
symposia. His pioneering work on using surface thermodynamics to quantify bacterial interactions with 
their surrounding environment and relating these interactions to bacterial transport was published in the 
journal Environmental Microbiology. [The petitioner] has since published a series of papers on 
bacterial surface thermodynamics and transport in porous media, which has established his reputation as 
a leading researcher in this field. 
We accept that petitioner's research has yielded some useful and valid results; however, it is apparent that any 
manuscript, in order to be accepted in for publication or presentation, must offer new and useful information 
to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every scientist or engineer whose scholarly research is 
accepted for publication or presentation has made a major contribution in his field. Nevertheless, published 
work falls under the next criterion. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and 
distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for published work and contributions, Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (CIS) clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. If evidence 
sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the requirement that an 
alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. We will fully address the petitioner's published works 
under the next criterion. 
We cannot ignore that all six of the letters of support were written by individuals who have supervised the 
petitioner's research or collaborated on projects with him. With regard to the personal recommendation of 
individuals affiliated with the petitioner's research projects and educational institutions, the source of the 
recommendations is a highly relevant consideration. These letters are not first-hand evidence that the 
petitioner has earned sustained acclaim for his contributions beyond his research supervisors and 
collaborators. If the petitioner's reputation is primarily limited to his immediate circle of colleagues, then he 
has not achieved national or international acclaim, regardless of the expertise of his witnesses. An individual 
with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce ample unsolicited materials 
reflecting that acclaim. 
In regard to the petitioner's conference presentations, we note that in the fields of science and engineering, 
acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a conference. The record 
contains no documentation demonstrating that the presentation of one's work is unusual for recent Ph.D. 
graduates or that the invitation to present at conferences where the petitioner spoke was a privilege extended 
to only a few top environmental engineering scientists. Participation in scientific conferences and symposia 
of the petitioner's kind is routine and expected in the scientific community. Many professional fields 
regularly hold conferences and symposia to present new work, discuss new findings, and to network with 
other professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored by professional associations, businesses, 
educational institutions, and government agencies. Participation in such events, however, does not elevate the 
petitioner above almost all others in his field at the national or international level. The record contains no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's conference presentations commanded an unusual level of attention in 
comparison to other conference participants or that the petitioner has served as a keynote speaker at a national 
or international engineering conference. 
Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential or highly 
acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that his work rises to the level of a contribution of 
major significance. 
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 evidence of his co-authorship of articles appearing in publications such as 
Environmental Microbiology, Biodegradation, Environmental Engineering Science, Joumal of 
Environmental Engineering, Colloids and Surfaces B, Joumal of Colloid and Interface Science, 
Environmental Engineering Science, and Research in Microbiology. 
...- 
Page 9 
We do not find that publication of scholarly articles is presumptive evidence of sustained national or 
international acclaim; we must also consider the greater scientific community's reaction to those articles. 
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's published work has had, the very act of 
publication is not as reliable a gauge as is the citation history of the published works. In this case, the 
petitioner submitted citation indices showing eight cites to his published articles. While the citation indices 
provided by the petitioner demonstrate a small degree of interest in his published work, he has not shown that an 
aggregate total of eight citations over a research career spanning more than a decade elevates him to a level 
above almost all others in his field at the national or international level. We accept that the petitioner has 
authored several published papers over the last several years, but the weight of this evidence is diminished by a 
lack of evidence showing that the greater field regards the petitioner's published findings as especially 
significant. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three 
of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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 intemational 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 the national or intemational level. 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.