dismissed EB-1A Case: Geoscience

fdentifibg data deleted to 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
pre1,:ez?; c! early cniva-ted 
 OfJice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasion of persona! p;ivacy 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PIJ'BLIC COPY 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: HAY 2 o 2009 
SRC 07 800 22964 
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. § 1153(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. 8 103.5 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). 
V z~ohn F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The petitioner, an engineering consulting firm, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an ernployrnent- 
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 that the beneficiary has earned the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. More 
specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of 
a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary 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 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, 
60898-99 (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. $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@)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on August 3,2007, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a geoscientist specializing in micropaleontology, stratigraphy, and biostratigraphy. 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 the beneficiary's 
eligibility for this classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the beneficiary 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. 8 204.5(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. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
[The beneficiary] has received several esteemed honors. In April 2005, he was the recipient 
of the Outstanding Teaching Assistant Award from the UTD [University of Texas at Dallas] 
School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics. He was the recipient of the Dallas Geological 
Society Scholarship in 2004, the Dallas Gem and Mineral Scholarship in 2001, and 
scholarships by the Society of Iranian American Women for Education (SIAWE) in 2002 and 
2004. In 2003, the SIAWE nominated [the beneficiary] as "The Best Teaching Assistant, 
College of Natural Sciences and Math.'' 
Without documentary evidence to support these claims, the assertions of counsel will not satis@ the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 
n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). In this instance, 
there is no evidence from the presenting organizations showing that the beneficiary actually received 
the preceding honors. A petition must be filed with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 
8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or other unavailability of primary evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, there is no evidence demonstrating 
that the beneficiary's scholarships and other university honors are tantamount to nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. The beneficiary's receipt of 
an award limited to teaching assistants at his university reflects institutional recognition rather than 
national or international recognition. Further, university study is not a field of endeavor, but rather 
training for fbture employment in a field of endeavor. Honors and scholarships limited by their 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
terms to graduate students are not an indication that the recipient "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 beneficiary's 
receipt of such honors offers no meaningful comparison between him and experienced professionals 
in the field who have long since completed their educational training. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classz~cation 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, 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 a portion of the minutes from an August 2, 2007 Board Meeting of the 
Georgia State Board of Registration for Professional Geologists listing the beneficiary's name. This 
incomplete listing does not indicate the nature of the beneficiary's position or his status with the 
Board. For example, the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not indicate whether the 
beneficiary was a licensed board member or whether he was petitioning to fulfill examination 
requirements. On appeal, counsel provides general information regarding the American Association 
of Petroleum Geologists, the Geological Society of America, the North American 
Micropaleontology Section of the Society for Sedimentary Geology, and the American Geophysical 
Union. The record, however, does not include evidence showing that the beneficiary is a member of 
the preceding organizations. As stated previously, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533, 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 
I&N Dec. at 1, 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 503, 506. A petition must be filed 
with any initial evidence required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(l). The nonexistence or 
other unavailability of primary evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, there is no evidence (such as membership bylaws or official admission 
requirements) showing that the preceding organizations require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in beneficiary's field or an allied 
one. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 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 alliedjeld of speciJication for which classiJcation is 
sought. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 
beneficiary'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. !j 204.5(h)(2). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a July 2, 2008 letter fiom the Editor in Chief of Micropaleontology 
Press stating that the beneficiary has served as a reviewer of manuscripts for Micropaleontology since 
September 2006. This letter does not specify the names and dates of the manuscripts reviewed by the 
beneficiary. Even if the petitioner were to submit more substantive evidence of beneficiary's participation 
in the peer review process for Micropaleontology, 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 beneficiary has sustained 
national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as 
a professional obligation of scientists 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 that sets the beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has 
reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial 
number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal in the same manner 
as and m we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted three letters of recommendation. 
, Professor, Department of Geosciences, University of Texas at Dallas, states: 
I first met [the beneficiary] in August 2001, as a Ph.D. Candidate, and we have remained 
colleagues since that time. [The beneficiary] received his Ph.D. degree in Geosciences from 
the University of Texas at Dallas in December 2006. [The beneficiary's] dissertation 
submitted in support of his candidature for the Ph.D. degree, was entitled "Upper Jurassic 
and Lower Cretaceous Radiolaria Biostratigraphy of California Coast Ranges." [The 
beneficiary] served as a Teaching and Research Assistant in the Geosciences Department. 
Here he taught Invertebrate Paleontology, Introduction of Fossils, and Age of Dinosaurs. In 
his Research Assistant role, [the beneficiary's] research included Plankton foraminifera of 
pelagic sediments within Khoy Ophiolites, Northwestern Iran, and Radiolarians of pelagic 
sediments within Khoy Ophiolites, Northwestern Iran. [The beneficiary] possesses 14 years 
experience in geological mapping projects, stratigraphic studies (the study of rock layers and 
layering), and biostratigraphic studies (the study of fossil evidence in the rock layers), 
micropaleontology (the study of microfossils, which are generally not larger than four 
millimeters, and commonly smaller than one millimeter), related fieldlab work, industry and 
academia. 
[The beneficiary] is a widely published author with articles appearing in professional 
publications, such as Micropaleontology, Stratigraphy, Paleogeography-Paleoclimatology- 
Paleoecology, Geology, and The Geological Society of America, and has been a presenter at 
national conferences. His research in the highly specialized field of Ophiolites is 
internationally renowned. Ophiolites are sections of the oceanic crust and the subject upper 
mantel that have been uplifted of emplaced to be exposed within continental crustal rocks.. .. 
[The beneficiary's] research in this specialized field extends around the world, fi-om Iran to 
the Central Georgia area of Twiggs County, where the largest deposits of kaolin in the world 
are found. 
letter states that the beneficiary's research "is internationally renowned," but there is no 
supporting evidence (such as a numerous independent citations) showing that his published findings 
were of major significance in his field. letter also states that the beneficiary is a "widely 
published author." The beneficiary's published work, however, is far more relevant to the 
"authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 204.5@)(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 beneficiary's published work 
under the next criterion. 
University, states: 
I first met [the beneficiary] in 1999 when he was a visiting scientist invited to work in our 
department by -1 (Dr. final semester was Spring, 2004.). 
During his first year of work, I encouraged [the beneficiary] to enroll into our Masters degree 
program in geology. He was accepted into our program and completed the requirements for 
a non-thesis Masters degree in approximately one year and he later applied to graduate after 
matriculating for doctoral studies at University of Texas-Dallas. At GSU, [the beneficiary] 
served the department well as a Teaching and Research Assistant for introductory geology 
courses at GSU. [The beneficiary's] research included: the study of the biostratigraphy of 
planktonic foraminifera in Late Cretaceous pelagic sediments associated with Khoy 
Ophiolite, Northwestern Iran; the biostratigraphy of Late Cretaceous Planktonic Foraminifera 
and pelagic sediments within Sabzevar Ophiolites, North-Central Iran; and, the 
Page 7 
biostratigraphic and paleoenvironmental study of the Twiggs Clay Formation in the Georgia 
Kaolin district, central Georgia, USA. Following completion of his M.S. degree studies, he 
was accepted into the Ph.D. program at University of Texas-Dallas. There, he matured 
tremendously as a scientist and it is gratifying to see that maturation. He is a widely 
published author with articles appearing in professional publications, such as 
Micropaleontology, Stratigraphy, Paleogeography-Paleoclimatology-Paleoecoogy which is 
good level of productivity from a dissertation. 
[The beneficiary's] significant contributions to the scientific field of geology have been the 
result of his work in the specialized areas of stratigraphy (the study of rock layers and 
layering), biostratigraphy (the study of fossil evidence in the rock layers) and 
micropaleontology (the study of microfossils, which are generally not larger than four 
millimeters, and commonly smaller than one millimeter). In addition to his research 
interests, his work in the middle East, Iran in particular prior to his Masters degree work at 
Georgia State, conceivably makes [the beneficiary] a highly sought after individual here in 
the U.S. for the furtherance of our knowledge of petroleum energy in the Middle East. [The 
beneficiary] provides such knowledge for us from his many years of working for the Iranian 
Geological Swey and as a field instructor at Shahood Azad University prior to his work 
here at Georgia State University. That pragmatic experience is directly applicable to 
petroleum resources and this experience provided a solid basis for earning two graduate 
degrees (M.S. and Ph.D.) in geology in the U.S. Thus, I believe that his personal presence, 
his extensive knowledge of Iranian geologic resources (relatable to petroleum resources), and 
his current work in environmental geology, and very strong research record provide many 
important contributions to the United States. 
While the beneficiary'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 scientific research, in order to be accepted for graduation, 
publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. It does not follow that every scientist who performs original research that adds to the 
general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance in the field. 
, Associate Professor - Structural Geology and Geoinformatics, Department of 
Geosciences, Georgia State University, states: 
I have known [the beneficiary] for several years and am very familiar with his qualifications, 
especially his research on ophiolites. While undertaking is graduate studies at GSU, [the 
beneficiary] was selected to serve as a Teaching and Research Assistant based on his 
exemplary record. His research included upper cretaceous planktonic foraminifera 
biostartigraphy of pelagic sediments in different areas of Iran, and a biostratigraphic and 
paleoenvironmental study of the Twiggs County Clay Formation in the Kaolin district of 
Central Georgia. I have been privileged to co-author a publication with [the beneficiary] that 
Page 8 
appeared in the prestigious, peer-reviewed Paleogeography-Paleoclimatology-Paleoecology 
journal (April 2003 volume 193, no 2, pp-311-323 edition) entitled, "Biostratigraphic 
zonation and 40Ar-39Ar ages for the Neo-Tethyan Khoy ophiolite of NW Iran.". . . [The 
beneficiary's] method of separating and sampling the foraminifera, radiolarian, and other 
microfossils in the pelagic rocks of ophiolites has been of great help for geologist in dating 
the sedimentary rocks of Khoy and other ophiolites. [The beneficiary's] method of fossil 
separation simplifies the determination of age of these rocks, and makes it possible to refine 
the understanding of the complex geology of ophiolites. 
[The beneficiary's] significant contributions to the scientific field of geology have been the 
result of his work in the specialized areas of stratigraphy, biostratigraphy and 
micropaleontology, with a significant sub-specialization in ophiolites. All of these special 
areas have significant applications in the field of petroleum geology, and are used in the 
exploration of oil and gas. He is a renowned international leader in this research area, which 
has had a tremendous influence in this highly specialized field. I believe that [the 
beneficiary's] personal presence and very strong research record make him an important 
contribution to the United States. His detailed paleontologic work on the Khoy ophiolite led 
to the discovery of at least two sequences of ophiolites which were unknown before his work. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 beneficiary has performed admirably on 
his research projects and discovered previously unknown sequences of ophiolites, the evidence of 
record does not establish that his work constitutes original scientific contributions of major 
significance in the field. For example, the petitioner's evidence does not establish that the 
beneficiary's work has had a substantial national or international impact, nor does it show that the 
field has significantly changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation are all from professors who worked at the beneficiary's 
educational institutions. While such letters are important in providing details about the beneficiary's 
role in various projects, they cannot by themselves establish the beneficiary's acclaim beyond his 
former superiors and collaborators. Further, 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 
(Cornrnr. 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 fiom 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 beneficiary'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 a geoscientist who has sustained 
national or international acclaim. Without evidence showing that the beneficiary'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. 
Page 9 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the $el4 in profesional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that the beneficiary authored articles in publications such 
as Stratigraphy and Micropaleontology. The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that the 
beneficiary coauthored papers for presentation at scientific meetings of the American Geophysical 
Union and the Geological Society of America. We take administrative notice of the fact that 
authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scientific research. For this reason, we will evaluate a 
citation history or other evidence of the impact of the beneficiary'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 beneficiary'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 this case, there is no citation evidence showing that articles published by 
the beneficiary have attracted a level of interest in his field consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary 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 this criterion are the position the beneficiary 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, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
The letters fi-om, and indicate that the beneficiary was a graduate 
student, teaching assistant, and research assistant at the University of Texas at Dallas and at Georgia 
State University. While the beneficiary performed admirably on his research projects and fulfilled 
his academic requirements, there is no evidence showing that his roles were leading or critical to his 
universities. The beneficiary's subordinate roles were designed to provide research and academic 
training for a future professional career in his field of endeavor. The evidence of record does not 
demonstrate how the beneficiary's role differentiated him from the other researchers at his universities, 
let alone their tenured faculty  member^.^ The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not 
establish that the beneficiary was responsible for h~s universities' success or standing 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 the beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
A comparison of the beneficiary's position with that of his professors indicates that the very top of his field is a level 
above his present level of achievement. 
Page 10 
$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 beneficiary 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). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits two unpublished decisions in which the AAO held that scientific 
researchers had met three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) and thus qualified for 
extraordinary ability classification. Counsel argues that the evidence submitted by the petitioner in 
the present matter is "strikingly similar to that presented in numerous non-precedent decisions issued 
by the Administrative Appeals Office approving cases involving petitions for aliens of extraordinary 
ability in the sciences." We find that the facts of the instant petition are easily distinguishable from 
those in the unpublished decisions. In the unpublished decisions, the AAO determined that the 
aliens satisfied three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.50(3), whereas in the present case 
the petitioner's evidence does not satisfy any of the regulatory criteria. More specifically, with 
regard to the AAO's discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. $5 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (vi) in the 
unpublished cases cited by counsel, we note that those scientists' published findings were widely 
cited by independent researchers in their respective fields. In the present matter, however, there is 
no evidence showing that the beneficiary's research findings have attracted similar a level of interest 
in his field consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Nevertheless, while 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the 
administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.50(5) requires "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 fiom the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue 
his or her work in the United States." The record does not include such evidence. 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary 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 
beneficiary's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Nor is there clear evidence showing that the beneficiary will continue to work in 
his area of expertise in the United States. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the 
beneficiary's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.