dismissed EB-1A Case: Geology / Environmental Engineering

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
identifying dam deleted to 
 Washmgton, DC 20529-2090 
prevent clearly unwarranted U.S. Citizenship 
invasion of personal *VWY 
 and Immigration 
w 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 07 196 51921 
 NOV 10 2009 
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 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. Ej 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
ief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. § 1 153(b)(l)(A). 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. The director also questioned 
whether the petitioner intended to work in his area of claimed expertise upon entering the United 
States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement. 
 For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the 
director's findings. 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating 
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 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 sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a geologist / 
environmental engineer. 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 under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following certificates: 
1. A 1996 Best in Research Publication Award (Senior Author) issued by the 
Philippine Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and the Philippine 
Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (where the petitioner was employed); 
2. A 1994 DOST Outstanding Research Award for Energy/Environment/Earth 
Science issued to the petitioner and 1 1 other individuals; 
3. A 1991 Unit Award Certificate fiom the U.S. Department of the Interior "in 
recognition of Excellence of Service performed in connection with the Unit 
Award granted to [the] Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology" and 
the "U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Crisis Assistance Team" and 
4. 
 A Third Prize 1987 DOST Outstanding Research Award issued to the 
petitioner and one other individual. 
The petitioner responded to the director's request for evidence regarding the significance of the above 
awards. First, the petitioner submitted the full citation for the U.S. Department of the Interior's unit 
award in recognition "of extraordinary efforts to assess the volcanic hazards of Mount Pinatubo, to 
install monitoring equipment and provide warning to the large population of Filipinos and Americans 
living in hazardous areas around the volcano." The petitioner also submitted information about DOST, 
indicating that its outstanding research awards are given "to outstanding research outputs (not to 
individual researchers) of Filipino citizens covering the period 1958 to 2008." Each winner receives a 
cash prize of 20,000 Philippine pesos and a plaque of recognition. While the Institute of Volcanology 
and Seismology is a branch of DOST, the DOST awards are open to all Filipino researchers. 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
The director concluded that the awards preceded the filing of the petition by 13 years or more and, thus, 
could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the regulation does not 
require that the awards be within a decade of the filing of the petition and that his awards reflect 
sustained acclaim from 1987 through 1996. 
We do not read the statutory standard of "sustained" acclaim as requiring acclaim "sustained" over 
several years but not through the date of filing. The requirement that the alien's entry substantially 
benefit prospectively the United States indicates that Congress does not intend for these aliens to 
immigrate to the United States and remain idle. Employment-Based Immigrants, 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (proposed July 5, 1991) (enacted 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 (Nov. 29, 1991)). In a similar vein, it 
can be expected that Congress intended this visa classification for aliens whose currently sustained 
acclaim indicates that the alien will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. We concur 
with the director that awards predating the petition by more than 13 years, in the absence of more 
recent acclaim, cannot serve to demonstrate sustained acclaim as of the date of filing. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence to meet this criterion that is indicative 
of sustained national or international acclaim in 2007. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the jield for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjields. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's conclusion that the petitioner had not 
demonstrated that the associations of which he is a member require outstanding achievements. We 
concur with the director that the record lacks the actual membership requirements of the associations of 
which the petitioner is a member. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence to 
meet this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the jeld for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's conclusion that citations of the petitioner's work 
cannot serve as evidence of published material "about" the petitioner relating to his work. We concur 
with the director's analysis and conclusion. Thus, 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 alliedjield of speciJication for which classification is sought. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's conclusion that the petitioner's participation in 
the widespread peer review process in 1991 and 1992 is not indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim in 2007 when the petition was filed. We concur with the director. 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. 
The petitioner submitted several articles published in journals and conference proceedings between 
1988 and 2000. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted 
evidence that his publications are referenced in other reports, on websites and in other articles. The 
director concluded that the petitioner's publication record was not consistent with a ranking among the 
small percentage at the top of the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that some of his articles appeared in major publications. While we 
acknowledge that we must avoid requiring acclaim within a given criterion, it is not a circular approach 
to require some evidence of the community's reaction to the petitioner's published articles in a field 
where publication is expected of those merely completing training in the field. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
2009 WL 2836453, *6 (9' Cir. 2009). As with the other evidence, the petitioner's published articles 
predate the filing of the petition by 7 years or more. Moreover, the petitioner documented only minimal 
citation of individual articles. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion with 
evidence indicative of sustained national or international acclaim in 2007. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner initially listed team leader and spokesperson responsibilities for his employer and also 
asserted that hls participation as a "resource speaker" at a symposium serves to meet this criterion. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In support of the above assertions, the petitioner submitted a letter from- 
Administrative Officer at the Philippine Institute of Volcanolo 
 and Seismology, asserting that the 
petitioner has been employed at that institute since 1985. confirms that the petitioner serves 
as a "Supervising Science Research Specialist." She then lists his duties, which do not include 
spokesperson responsibilities. The petitioner also submitted a certificate recognizing him as a 
"participant" at a symposium. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the 
petitioner submitted evidence that the institute received a PAGASA Award issued by the Civil Service 
Commission in 1995. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated the nature of his specific role for his 
employer or the period during which he served in such a role. Thus, the director further concluded that 
Page 6 
the petitioner had not submitted evidence indicative of sustained national or international acclaim under 
this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner notes that he received a certificate fiom the U.S. Department of the Interior. 
The petitioner's awards have already been considered above. We note that the unit award recognized 
the petitioner's entire institute, and did not single out the petitioner's leading or critical role within that 
unit. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
does not indicate how many supervising science research specialists are employed by the institute 
or how that position fits within the institute. Without an organizational chart or other evidence 
documenting how the petitioner's position fits within the general hierarchy of the Philippine Institute of 
Volcanology and Seismology, the petitioner cannot establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's conclusion that the petitioner had not 
established that he received a significantly high remuneration due to the lack of evidence of 
comparative salaries in the petitioner's field. The petitioner fails to submit evidence of high end wages 
in his field on appeal with which we can compare his $600 income in 2003, the only income 
documented in the record. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted the necessary initial evidence to meet 
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 as a 
geologist I environmental engineer 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 a geologist I environmental engineer (especially in 
the 1 990ts), but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements currently 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. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue hls or her 
work in the United States. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a work program detailing his experience and similarities between the 
Philippines and California. He identifies areas of seismology in which he is interested and asserts that 
he will write research proposals on these areas. In the request for additional evidence, the director 
quoted the above regulation and requested the evidence required under that regulation. In response, the 
petitioner submitted a new plan once again discussing seismology and mud flow issues in California, 
listing his areas of interest and asserting that he would author research proposals addressing those areas. 
The petitioner notes that he previously worked with the U.S. Geological Survey and asserts that he 
could collaborate with that agency or as a consultant for the State of California. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's statement of what he would do in the United States were too 
vague, with no concrete examples provided. On appeal, the petitioner does not address this issue. We 
concur with the director that the petitioner's plans are insufficiently detailed. He provides no evidence 
that he has already prepared any research proposals or that U.S. or California agencies fund private 
geologists and seismologists rather than industry and university faculty. 
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.