dismissed EB-1A Case: Geometric Dimensioning And Tolerancing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
ide~tifyinq &a drleted to 
orevent clearly unwarranted 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Oflce of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
LIN 07 040 50900 
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. 9 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 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. 4 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-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. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
L) 
Fohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The petitioner filed two separate appeals dated June 3, 2008 and June 9, 
2008, which the director deemed to be untimely. The director considered the appeals as motions to 
reopen or reconsider and affirmed denial of the petition. The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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 that the petitioner had not established 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics whch 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, 
60898-99 (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, filed on November 24, 2006, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing. The petitioner received his Ph.D. 
in Mechanical Engineering fiom Arizona State University in December 2005. At the time of filing, 
the petitioner was working as a software engineer for Unigraphics Corporation. 
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, internationally 
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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the 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. 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. 
$ 204.5(h)(2). 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 thejeld of endeavor. 
The director's April 28, 2008 decision incorrectly stated that the petitioner submitted evidence 
showing that he "has won 'Best Paper' awards." While the petitioner's curriculum vitae and a letter 
from his research supervisor, , Professor in the Department of Mechanical and 
Aerospace Engineering, and Director of the Design Automation Lab, Arizona State University, state 
that the petitioner was "nominated" for a "Best Paper Award," there is no evidence from the 
presenting organization showing that he actually received such an award. 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 (Cornm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). A petition must be filed with 
any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other 
unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. !.j 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
In this instance, there is no evidence establishing that the petitioner received a Best Paper Award or 
that the award was nationally or internationally recognized in his field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classijkation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 4 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a 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. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is 
not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements rather than the association's overall 
reputation. 
The petitioner submitted certificates showing that he has been a member of the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) since 2005. The record, however, does not include evidence (such 
as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) showing that the ASME requires 
outstanding achievements of its members. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a March 7, 2008 e-mail 
informing him of his election to full membership in Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society. The 
petitioner also submitted information from Sigma Xi's internet site stating that the Society has nearly 
60,000 members and that "[flull membership is conferred upon those who have demonstrated 
noteworthy achievements in research." The petitioner was elected to full membership in Sigma Xi 
subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time 
of filing. 8 C.F.R. $8 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 
1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this membership in this proceeding. Nevertheless, 
there is no evidence showing that "noteworthy achievements" are indicative of a level of 
accomplishment tantamount to "outstanding achievements." 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner holds membership in an organization 
requiring outstanding achievements its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in his field or an allied one. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied$eld of speciJication for which classiJication is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability 
must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight 
given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends 
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. 204.5(h)(2). 
Page 5 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. In response to the director's request for 
evidence, the petitioner submitted e-mails showing that he reviewed one paper for Computer-Aided 
Design in 2006 and four papers for Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering in 
2003 and 2004. We cannot ignore that 
 the chairman of the petitioner's Ph.D. 
dissertation committee, served as editor for the preceding journals and assigned the petitioner to 
perform the reviews. 
 The petitioner has not established that performing manuscript reviews 
delegated to him by his research supervisor is indicative of sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of his field. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he reviewed four papers for the 2008 ASME 
International Design Engineering Technical Conferences (IDETC) and Computers and Information 
in Engineering Conference (CIE) and two papers for Computer-Aided Design in 2007. The 
petitioner performed these reviews subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the paper reviews from 2007 and 2008 in 
this proceeding. The petitioner's response included a March 3, 2008 letter fiom an editorial board 
member of Computer-Aided Design asserting that the petitioner has reviewed four papers for the 
journal since 2006; however, as discussed, the record includes supporting evidence in the form of an 
e-mail showing only one reviewed paper for that journal as of the petition's filing date. 
The petitioner also submitted a November 14, 2002 letter fiom - Lloyd Noble 
Chair in Cardiovascular Research, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, discussing the general 
importance of the peer review process and stating that "internationally recognized scientific journals 
rely on proven authorities to referee submitted publications." While we agree with that 
serving as a peer reviewer requires expertise in one's field, we note that peer review is a routine 
element of the process by which articles are selected for publication in scientific journals. 
Occasional participation in the peer review process does not automatically demonstrate that the 
petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Reviewing 
~ - 
manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of researchers who publish themselves in 
scientific journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of numerous 
professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for a publication to 
ask several reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The publication's editorial 
staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish or reject 
submitted papers. Without evidence pre-dating the filing of the petition that sets the petitioner apart 
fiom others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, 
received independent requests fiom a substantial number of journals (as opposed to requests 
originating mostly fiom his research supervisor), or served in an editorial position for a distinguished 
journal in the same manner as 
 we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signz~cance in the field. 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted several letters of recommendation in support of the petition. We cite 
representative examples here. 
[The petitioner] worked with me in for [sic] about 4 years, from 2001-2005. I also served as 
the Chair of his Ph.D. dissertation committee. 
 [The petitioner's] research project was 
supported by the National Science Foundation . . . . [The petitioner's] work is related to the 
development of mathematical models to predict the interaction and accumulation of assembly 
errors in precision devices. He used these models to develop algorithms for computer 
implementation of software for aiding designers. This software has drawn wide range of 
interest fkom companies like Honeywell Aerospace, Intel and General Electric. Using [the 
petitioner's] software, it is now possible for the first time to see the prediction errors by use 
of traditional manual or computer based methods. 
Even at a relatively young age, [the petitioner] has published about 9 technical papers, two of 
which were in leading academic journals. . . . His work has been presented at the past 3 
research conferences of National Science Foundation and the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers. 
In the same manner as 
 several other individuals providing recommendation letters discuss 
the petitioner's published and presented work. The petitioner's research publications and conference 
abstracts are far more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
9 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct 
from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original 
contributions of major significance, USCIS 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 and presented work under the next criterion. 
Assistant Professor of Engineering, Arizona State University, states: 
I met [the petitioner] when he joined the Design Automation Lab at Arizona State University 
in August 2000. I served as a member in his Doctorate Degree Committee as part of the 
mechanical engineering design faculty. Besides reviewing his research proposal (doctorate 
candidacy exam), dissertation, and final defense, I have also been in close contact with his 
advisor, 
 and understand his research and academic exploration. . . . [The 
petitioner] has impressed me tremendously during the five years at ASU, and I wish to 
emphasize the following original scientific contributions and accomplishments: 
He performed independent research which was fund [sic] through two National 
Science Foundation grants DM1 1 9821008 and DM1 1 0245422. I would emphasize 
that he is capable of performing independent work which is not always the case for 
graduate students. 
Page 7 
He has written eight technical papers from his dissertation, including two journal 
papers to the Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering. 
He developed comprehensive computer-aided tolerance analysis systems, including 
the neutral CTF-graph (constraint-tolerance-features graph) based representation 
model for all different types of tolerances. This research is the first effort in 
developing automatic tolerance charts, implementing orignal algorithms of variation 
based tolerance analysis, and creating a comprehensive comparison study. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or published research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool 
of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical & Automation Engineering, 
Chinese University of Hong Kong, states: 
[The petitioner] has been mainly digging into the sub-area of electronic geometric 
dimensioning and tolerancing (e-GD&T), one of the most complex yet critical aspects for 
automatic product design. The novel and lean e-GD&T model, i.e. Super Constraint- 
Tolerance-Feature Graph Based Model, contains all the necessary but no redundant data (e.g. 
constraints, tolerances, features, assembly hierarchy, etc.) for GD&T representation, 
specification, validation, analysis and optimization. This is the best model that has ever been 
proposed. Furthermore, [the petitioner] has developed a generic GD&T framework based on 
such an original model. In the framework, three different popular types of tolerance analysis 
methods have been implemented for run-time comprehensive comparison, and the research 
findings are extremely exciting. 
[The petitioner's] research work has been published in more than 10 high quality papers in 
international journals (e.g. JCAD, JCISE) and conferences (e.g. DETC, CIRP), and these 
papers have been widely cited by researchers from academia as well as from industry. 
In support of 
 statement, the petitioner submitted a list showing an aggregate of five cites 
to his body of published work. This listing of only five citations prepared by the petitioner, 
however, does not adequately corroborate 
 assertion that the petitioner's work has been 
"widely cited by researchers from academia as well as from industry." 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. While the petitioner has earned the admiration of 
those offering letters of support, the record lacks evidence showing that his work constitutes orignal 
contributions of major significance in his field consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. For example, the record does not indicate the extent to which his work has impacted others 
Page 8 
in his field nationally or internationally, nor does it show that the field of geometric dimensioning 
and tolerancing has significantly changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner's research superiors and professional 
contacts are not sufficient to meet this criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, while not 
without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Cornmr. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. See id. at 795-796. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent 
experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance that one would 
expect of an engineering researcher who has sustained national or international acclaim. Without 
evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, highly acclaimed 
throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, we 
cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jeld, in profesional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he authored two articles in Journal of Computing 
and Information Science in Engineering. The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he 
coauthored articles published in various ASME conference proceedings. We take administrative 
notice of the fact that authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scientific and engineering research. 
For this reason, we will evaluate a citation history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's 
articles when determining their significance to the field. For example, numerous independent 
citations would provide solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by the 
petitioner's work and are familiar with it. On the other hand, few or no citations of an alien's work 
may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field. In response to the director's 
request for evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence of five articles that cite to his published 
work. While these citations demonstrate a small degree of interest in his published articles, they are 
not sufficient to demonstrate that his articles have attracted a level of interest in his field consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At issue for t2.lls 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 
Page 9 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for two National 
Science Foundation Grants at Arizona State University and for Unigraphics Corporation. With regard 
to the petitioner's role for Unigraphics Corporation (now defunct as it was acquired by Siemens), 
there is no evidence showing that Unigraphics Corporation had a distinguished reputation or that the 
petitioner's role for the company as a software engineer was leading or critical. We note that the 
record does not include a letter of support from Unigraphics Corporation or Siemens discussing the 
nature of the petitioner's duties or the importance of his role to the company's operations. 
While the petitioner performed admirably on his National Science Foundation funded research 
projects at Arizona State University, there is no evidence showing that his role as a Ph.D. student and 
research associate was leading or critical for the university. This subordinate role is designed to 
provide research training for a future professional career in the field of endeavor. The petitioner's 
evidence does not demonstrate how his role differentiated him fiom the other researchers in his 
department, let alone its tenured faculty.* The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not 
establish that he was responsible for the success or standing of Arizona State University's Department 
of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role" and indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner 
has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that 
must be satisfied to establish the national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien'of 
extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence 
to meet each criterion separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even 
in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
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 international 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 a national or international 
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. 
-- 
A comparison of the petitioner's position with that of his superiors (such as 
 and and of the other 
individuals offering letters of support indicates that the very top of his field is a level above his present level of 
achievement. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.