dismissed EB-1A Case: High Pressure Physics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rrn. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 148 52420 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: ; 2 20n: 
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: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
,/ Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
, 
EAC 03 148 52420 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont 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 1 153(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 requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "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. 5 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences, specifically 
in the area of high pressure physics. The record indicates that the petitioner is a Research Associate in the 
Department of Physics at Haward University. The petitioner submitted supporting documents including copies 
of his academic degrees, excerpts of some of his published articles and abstracts, evidence of the citation of his 
work by other researchers, his membership in two scientific associations, his participation at various scientific 
conferences, two letters requesting the petitioner to take part in the doctoral thesis examination of a student at 
Uppsala University in Sweden, and five recommendation letters from scientists in his field. The director 
determined the evidence did not establish that the petitioner had achieved the sustained acclaim requisite to 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. On appeal, counsel submits a brief, printouts of electronic 
mail messages requesting copies of one of the petitioner's articles, a scientific journal article that mentions the 
petitioner's research, an untranslated article about the petitioner from an Indian newspaper, and two electronic 
EAC 03 148 52420 
Page 3 
mail messages inviting the petitioner to speak about his work. Counsel's claims and the additional evidence 
submitted on appeal do not overcome the deficiencies of the petition and the appeal will be dismissed. The 
evidence submitted and counsel's contentions are addressed in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria 
relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted seven documents as evidence of his eligibility under this criterion. First, the record 
contains a "Certificate of Honour" awarded to the petitioner in 1987 by the Rotary Club of Ludhiana North, 
India for his performance on his college examination and a document certifying that the petitioner received an 
A- on the "Informatics Computer Systems Aptitude Test for Programming Proficiency conducted on All India 
level" in 1990. These certificates demonstrate recognition of the petitioner's academic achievements 16 and 13 
years prior to the filing of this petition. Yet prizes or awards for academic excellence do not meet this criterion 
because only other students - not established scientists - are eligible for and receive such honors. 
Second, the petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. R.G. Sharma, Head of the Cryogenics Division of the National 
Physical Laboratory in New Delhi, India, stating that the petitioner "won the best paper and presentation award 
in Cryogenics Conference (SNSC - 97) held at IIT [Indian Institute of Technology] Kharagpur" and a check 
made out to the petitioner on December 12, 1997 from the Sixteenth National Symposium on Cryogenics. A 
handwritten note above the photocopy of the check states, "Award for best paper and best presentation of 
research paper (oral presentation) at IIT Kharagpur (W. Bengal)." Even if this award was a nationally 
recognized award for excellence in the petitioner's field, it alone would not satisfy this criterion because it was 
granted nearly five years before the petition was filed and consequently does not reflect the requisite sustained 
acclaim. 
Third, a "Certificate of Achievement" from the Physics Machine Shop of Harvard University verifies that the 
petitioner completed 30 hours of instruction in the safe operation of machine tools. This safety certification 
issued by the machine shop of one department of a private university is clearly not a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for scientific excellence. 
Fourth, the record contains two letters informing the petitioner that he was selected for summer scholarships to 
work on specific research projects at the Department of Physics at Uppsala University in Sweden in 2000 and 
2003. The petitioner submitted no documentation of the selection criteria for these summer scholarships or 
other evidence that they constitute nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes, rather than financial 
support for academic study. 
In her determination that the petitioner did not meet this criterion, the director noted the lack of documentation 
establishing the significance of the submitted documents. On appeal, counsel contends the director "regard[ed] 
the record as incomplete, documentation is needed, therefore under the USCIS regulations, said documentation 
should have been requested by way of a RFE [Request for Evidence]." Although 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(8) 
requires the director to request additional evidence in instances "where there is no evidence of ineligibility, and 
initial evidence or eligibility information is missing," the director is not required to issue a request for further 
information in every potentially deniable case. If the director determines that the initial evidence supports a 
decision of denial, the cited regulation does not require solicitation of further documentation. In this case, the 
director did not deny the petition based on insufficient evidence of eligibility. 
EAC 03 148 52420 
Page 4 
Furthermore, even if the director had committed a procedural error by failing to solicit further evidence, it is not 
clear what remedy would be appropriate beyond the appeal process itself. The petitioner has in fact 
supplemented the record on appeal, although notably not with evidence relevant to this criterion. Hence, it 
would serve no useful purpose to remand the case simply to afford the petitioner the opportunity to supplement 
the record with new evidence. 
The record indicates that the petitioner has been recognized for his academic achievements, received two 
summer scholarships, obtained a safety certification, and received an award for best paper and best presentation 
at a national conference in his field nearly five years before his petition was filed. None of the evidence 
submitted documents the petitioner's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized honors reflective of the 
requisite sustained acclaim in his field. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classtfication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
The petitioner submitted copies of his membership certificates for the Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society 
(Sigma Xi) and the American Physical Society (APS). The director stated, "it does not appear that outstanding 
achievements were a requirement for the granting of [these] memberships." On appeal, counsel claims that such 
evidence should have been requested through an RFE. Yet there is no need to issue an RFE when the required 
documentation is clearly stated in the regulation: "membership in associations . . . which require outstanding 
achievements of their members." 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3)(ii). On appeal, counsel states that membership in 
Sigma Xi "involves a process in which 2 members review the candidate's qualifications," but the record 
contains no documentation of this selection process. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the 
assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). The record is devoid of any 
evidence that outstanding achievements are prerequisite to membership in Sigma Xi or APS. Accordingly, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
We note that on page nine of his appellate brief, counsel also claims that the petitioner has been elected to "the 
NJ Academy of Sciences." The record is devoid of any corroborative evidence to support this claim. Again, the 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Id. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
On appeal, counsel claims the petitioner meets this criterion through the citation of his work by other 
researchers. However, citations of an alien's work in dther scientists' publications rarely meet this criterion 
because the citing articles are primarily about the authors' own research, not the work of the alien. The 
petitioner submitted evidence that six articles of which he is the lead author have been cited a combined total of 
19 times by other researchers (not including self-citations) and that nine articles of which he is a co-author have 
been cited a combined total of 39 times by other researchers (not including self-citations by the lead authors). 
EAC 03 148 52420 
Page 5 
The record contains no evidence that the citing articles substantively review or discuss the petitioner's work, 
rather than cite it to establish a subsidiary point. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted an article from an Indian newspaper accompanied by an incomplete and 
uncertified English translation. Because the petitioner failed to submit a certified translation of the article, we 
cannot determine whether it supports his eligibility under this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. The 
petitioner also submitted an additional article on appeal that was published in the June 2004 edition of Current 
Science. We cannot consider this article because it was published over a year after the petition was filed. The 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). The record thus contains no evidence of published material about the petitioner and 
his work and he consequently does not meet this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alliedfield of specification for which cIassiJication is sought. 
The record contains a letter dated November 15, 2002 from Rajeev Ahuja, Associate Professor in the 
Department of Physics at Uppsala University in Sweden, inviting the petitioner to "take part in Licentiate thesis 
examination of one of my Ph.D. student [sic], for a period of two weeks, starting from 24th of Jan., 2003 to sth of 
Feb., 2003." A second letter dated January 24, 2003 is entitled "Invitation Letter," is addressed to the petitioner 
fromd states, "My dissertation will be on 10' of Feb. between 10:OO - 12:00, your attendance as my 
opponent will be very The petitioner submitted no evidence that he actually accepted these 
invitations and evaluated dissertation. 
The director noted that while Professor Ahuja's invitation "indicates [the petitioner] has expertise in the field, 
the evidence provided does not show that he is preeminent in the field." On appeal, counsel queries, "But where 
is stated [sic] that such participation has to demonstrate preeminence in the field?" The director's comment 
reflects her understanding that the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 
204.5(h) must depend 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. 3 204.5(h)(2). 
On page 15 of counsel's initial brief, he also states that the petitioner is a "referee for international journal[,] 
Physical review B" and on page nine of his appellate brief, counsel claims the petitioner is a "Physics Review B 
reviewer." The record is devoid of any evidence of the petitioner's review of manuscripts for any scientific 
journal. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. at 534; Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1; Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
The record contains evidence that the petitioner was invited to participate in the dissertation examination of one 
doctoral student at Uppsala University, but the petitioner submitted no evidence that he accepted this invitation 
and actually judged the student's work. Moreover, the evaluation ofjust one student's dissertation defense does 
EAC 03 148 52420 
Page 6 
not demonstrate judgment of other scientists' work in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. 
Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientgfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major sign$cance in the field. 
On pages five and six of his initial brief, counsel claims the petitioner meets this criterion through his 
"breakthrough discoveries" in four areas: 1) high temperature superconductivity, 2) high pressure and high 
temperature mineralogy, 3) high pressure and high temperature crystallography, and 4) high pressure and low 
temperature physics. Evidence in the record relevant to this criterion includes copies of the petitioner's 
abstracts, excerpts from some of his published articles, citation of his work by other researchers, and five 
recommendation letters written by his supervisors and colleagues. On appeal, counsel contends that "[slince all 
of these witnesses are extraordinary, it follows that [the petitioner] is also extraordinary." An alien's 
extraordinary ability is not demonstrated through mere association with "extraordinary" individuals. While 
recommendation letters from such individuals provide relevant information about an alien's experience and 
accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do 
not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of 
individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by 
an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major 
contributions that one would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. 
Accordingly, we review the petitioner's support letters as they relate to other evidence of his contributions. 
Professor Ahuja of Uppsala University states that he has known the petitioner as a collaborator since 1998. 
Professor Ahuja explains that the petitioner has "carried out ground breaking research on high temperature 
superconductors, the key to revolutionizing nearly every technology; metallic hydrogen as a %el and a high 
temperature superconductor; simulating the core conditions of the earth in a laboratory so that quantitative 
measurements can be made and theoretical studies on different materials." Peter Lazor, Associate Professor in 
Mineralogy at Uppsala University, who also collaborated with the petitioner during his stay at the university, 
describes one example "of the many breakthrough discoveries" that the petitioner has made: "The problem was 
how to carryout a High-Pressure Raman study on nanocrystalline CeO2 Consider that this is a nanocrystal, that 
is, one billionth of a snowflake. It is under ultrahigh pressure and the scattered radiation (Raman) has to be 
collected so that the information that it contains can be determined. [The petitioner] accomplished [sic] and its 
publication in a scholarly journal was widely hailed." Although a submitted printout from the IS1 Web of 
Science website lists the petitioner as the lead author of an article entitled "High-Pressure Raman Study on 
Nanocrystalline CeOz ," the printout shows that this article has been cited only twice by other researchers in the 
two years since its publication and the filing of this petition. 
The petitioner's research on simulating the earth's core conditions is further discussed by Leonid Dubrovinsky, 
Professor of Earth Sciences at Beyreuth University in Germany, who states that he has known the petitioner for 
the last five years, during two of which the petitioner worked under his supervision at the University of Uppsala. 
Professor Dubrovinsky explains that "[iln order to stimulate conditions in the core of the Earth, [the petitioner] 
participate [sic] in development of the methods in the field of high pressure and high temperature mineralogy 
using diamond anvil cells. . . . [The petitioner] contributed in design and fabrication of the graphite assemblage, 
which has become a standard in our field and has led to a wealth of data." 
EAC 03 148 52420 
Page 7 
Bradford M. Clement is a professor of Earth Science at Florida International University (where the petitioner 
obtained his second doctoral degree) and is also the Associate Program Director of the Ocean Drilling Program 
at the National Science Foundation. Professor Clement states, "In this laboratory, the objective was to 
determine the effect of high pressure and high temperature on the morphology, structure and phase 
transformations of minerals. [The petitioner's] accomplishments in this field are a great achievement. He has 
attained a status that only the top few percent reach." 
Finally, Isaac F. Silvera, Professor of Physics at Harvard University and the petitioner's current supervisor, 
explains that the petitioner is "now working on an effort to first pressurize hydrogen to greater than two million 
atmospheres and then for a short period of time heat it to temperatures of thousands of degrees with a pulsed 
laser, to catalyze the sample to make the transition into the metallic state. Already new methods of laser heating 
have been developed as this research progresses. This pioneering work is being sponsored by NASA where it 
has been determined that, if produced, metallic hydrogen will be the most powerful rocket fuel in nature . . . . 
These applications as well as the putative superconductivity will have enormous widespread technological 
implications because not only as a source of energy [sic], but also because of the incredible technological 
possibilities for a room temperature superconductor." Professor Silvera does not state that the petitioner has 
actually succeeded in producing metallic hydrogen and does not indicate that the petitioner is leading this 
research or that he personally developed the "new methods of laser heating." 
The petitioner's personal statement contains a list of 25 articles published in scientific journals that he has co- 
authored, but the record documents only 19 of these articles through excerpts from four articles and citation 
information for 18 articles. The evidence shows that the petitioner is the lead author of six articles which have 
been cited a combined total of 19 times by other researchers (not including self-citations) and that nine articles 
of which he is a co-author have been cited a combined total of 39 times by other researchers (not including self- 
citations by the lead authors). Of the petitioner's first-authored articles, the manuscript entitled "Stability 
Estimation in YBCO by Stepwise SRD and Kinetic Parameters Through TGA," published in Physica C in 1994 
has been cited seven times in the nine years since its publication and the filing of this petition. The other three 
articles of which the petitioner is the lead author have only been cited between one and three times each. This 
publication and citation record indicates that the petitioner has contributed to his field primarily through his 
contributions to research projects led by other scientists. The record does not demonstrate that the petitioner's 
contributions have garnered recognition of him by other experts in his field in a manner consistent with the 
requisite sustained acclaim. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that he participated in various scientific conferences and was on the 
organizing committee for the 2003 National Conference on Materials, Components and Applications in India. 
The record is devoid of any evidence that the petitioner's conference presentations or organization were 
exceptionally well received or recognized by other scientists as major contributions to his field. In sum, the 
record does not corroborate the major significance of the petitioner's contributions as described in his support 
letters. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other nzajor media. 
As discussed above under the third and fifth criteria, the petitioner submitted evidence that he has co-authored 
19 articles that have been published in scientific journals. He is the lead author of six of these articles. 
However, frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does not 
EAC 03 148 52420 
Page 8 
necessarily indicate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. To 
demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim, evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of 
consistent citation by independent experts or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant 
impact in his field. 
In this case, the petitioner is the lead author of six articles which have been cited a combined total of 19 times 
by other researchers (not including self-citations) and a co-author of nine articles which have been cited a 
combined total of 39 times by other researchers (not including self-citations by the lead authors). Of the 
petitioner's first-authored manuscripts, the article entitled "Stability Estimation in YBCO by Stepwise SRD 
and Kinetic Parameters Through TGA," published in Physica C in 1994 has been cited seven times in the 
nine years since its publication and the filing of this petition. The other three articles of which the petitioner 
is the lead author have been cited between one and three times each. On appeal, the petitioner submitted 
printouts of 15 electronic mail messages from scientists in the United States and abroad requesting copies of 
his first-authored article, "Recovery of Superconductivity in the Water Degraded YBCO Samples," that was 
published in 1998 in Physica C. Of the petitioner's co-authored articles, only one has been cited more than 
10 times. The article entitled "Insitu X-Ray Study of Thermal Expansion and Phase Transition of Iron at 
Multimegabar Pressure" which was published in 2000 in Physical Review Letters has been cited 19 times 
including four self-citations by the lead author. The remaining eight articles of which the petitioner is a co- 
author have been cited between one and seven times each. Two articles of which the petitioner is a co-author 
were published in Science, but the petitioner submits no citation information for the article published in 1999 
and the record shows that the second article has only been cited four times (not including self-citations by the 
lead author) in the four years since its publication and the filing of this petition. 
On appeal, counsel twice claims that the petitioner's papers "have been cited over 240 times," yet the record 
documents only 58 citations of the petitioner's work. The petitioner's publications and the citation of his 
articles show that his work has been recognized in his field, but the evidence does not document a publication 
and citation record consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that huve a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner is a research associate in the Department of Physics at Harvard University. The petitioner's 
supervisor, Professor Silvera, explains that the petitioner "rose to the top" of an "intense international search" to 
work on the production of metallic hydrogen in Professor Silvera7s laboratory. Professor Silvera also notes that 
"there is a shortage of people trained" the field of high pressure physics in the United States. While Professor 
Silvera clearly values the petitioner's contributions, he does not describe the petitioner as performing a leading 
or critical role for his laboratory, the Department of Physics or Harvard University as a whole. The record also 
contains no evidence that Professor Silvera's laboratory or the Department of Physics have distinguished 
reputations independent of their affiliation with Harvard University. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet 
this criterion. 
The record documents the petitioner's previous employment at the University of Uppsala in Sweden, but the 
letters of Professor Ahuja, Professor Dubrovinsky and Professor Lazor do not specify the petitioner's position or 
his exact role at that university. The record also contains no evidence that the University of Uppsala has a 
distinguished reputation. 
EAC 03 148 52420 
Page 9 
On appeal, counsel stresses that the petitioner has "conducted research at APS (Argonne National Lab) Chicago, 
SRS (Daresbury Laboratories, Warrington, UK), ~ationbl Synchrotron Light Source, Brookhaven National 
Laboratory, New York, European Synchrotron Research Facility (ESRF) Grenoble France." The petitioner's 
personal statement also references his work at some of these institutions, but the record contains no evidence of 
the petitioner's affiliation with any of these institutions or documentation of the reputation of these 
establishments. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of Calzj, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1 153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner has made valuable contributions to his field as evidenced by his support 
letters, publications and the citation of his work by other researchers. However, the record does not establish 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a scientist placing him at the very 
top of his field. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), and his 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. 4 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.