dismissed EB-1A Case: Industrial Business

yu'3LIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 2 5 lm 
WAC 05 055 50599 
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. 
3 Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(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. Specifically, the director concluded that 
the petitioner meets only two of the regulatory criterion, of which an alien must meet at least three to be 
eligible for the classification sought. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, we concur with the director's 
analysis. Specifically, while the evidence is persuasive that the petitioner meets two of the regulatory 
criteria, the evidence falls far short of meeting an additional criterion. 
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 to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
Page 3 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a researcher in the 
field of industrial business. 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, she claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence of academic recognition and an honorable mention for a 
presentation at a conference. The director concluded that this recognition did not amount to a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for past excellence in the field. Counsel does 
not challenge this conclusion on appeal and we concur with the director. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classzfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted several book chapters, reports and articles that reference her work and an 
article on demand based software that includes quotes from the petitioner. Specifically, Chapter 13 in 
the "Handbook of Quantitative Supply Chain Analysis" reviews 10 quantitative approaches to 
modeling conflict in multi-channel distribution systems, including one set forth in a working paper by 
the petitioner. The chapter, at page 56 1, provides: 
Because much of the research in this area is quite recent, many of the papers to be 
discussed have not yet appeared in the open literature, and are available as working 
papers only. Our including a paper in this review does not mean we believe it to be 
completely correct, or that it will eventually pass peer review and appear in print. 
The 38-page chapter includes one page on the petitioner's approach. The petitioner submitted no 
evidence regarding the significance of this book. 
A document entitled "Best Practices in esourcing" on Bearingpoint letterhead cites the petitioner's 
work, but the record contains no evidence that the document was published, let alone in major media. 
The petitioner submits a report by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNDO) 
on international subcontracting which includes 14 case studies on subcontracting use by a 
Subcontracting and Partnership Exchange (SPX). The 47-page report explains on page 6 that SPXs are 
used to provide assistance to developing countries. Prior to analyzing the 14 SPX case studies, the 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 4 
report reviews six general subcontracting case studies apart from the main text of the report. In a half 
page analysis of the petitioner's case study, the report concludes that she "did not consider the problems 
entailed for subcontractors and suppliers by e-procurement and these should be considered to determine 
its net effects." The petitioner submitted no evidence regarding whether the report is an internal report 
or whether it was published. The record contains no evidence regarding the number of such reports 
UNIDO issues or the number of case studies it references annually. 
Finally, the article on demand based management software that quotes the petitioner was posted on 
website. The article does not credit the petitioner with developing or inspiring the 
software. Moreover, while the Internet materials about the magazine reflect that it is published by 
and based in New York, the petitioner did not submit any evidence 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted seven additional 
journal articles that briefly cite her work. Two of these articles postdate the filing of the petition and an 
additional article is authored by the petitioner's current supervisor. 
The director concluded that the evidence submitted to meet this criterion did not set the petitioner apart 
from others in her field. On appeal, counsel reiterates the previously submitted evidence. We concur 
with the director. 
The articles that merely cite the petitioner's work are not "about" her relating to her work. Rather, they 
are either a review of work in the field in general or the author's own work. The book chapter and 
UNIDO report provide a somewhat more extensive discussion of the petitioner's work, but the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that either is major media. While we do not question the prestige of the 
United Nations, the petitioner must demonstrate that the specific report reviewing her case study itself 
was not only published, as opposed to an internal report, but constitutes major media. Moreover, as 
stated above, the report concluded that a major factor was not included in the petitioner's analysis. As 
also stated above, the article on demand based management software is not "about" the petitioner 
relating to her own work and the record lacks evidence establishing that the magazine in which it 
appeared is major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. That said, we do 
not conclude that the evidence discussed above has no evidentiary value. Rather, it is relevant to the 
significance of the petitioner's scholarly articles pursuant to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a 
criterion the petitioner meets. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speczfication for which classzfication is sought. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a letter from Director of the Tuck School of 
Business at Dartmouth and Editor of the Supply Chain Management Department of the journal 
Production and Operations Management. In his letter, he asserts that the petitioner "is currently 
serving on my 
 [sic] of the scholarly academic journal, Production and Operations 
Management." 
 asserts that in this role, the petitioner evaluates the research within her 
field, providing 
 ack to the iournal. The petitioner also submitted a list of 100 members 
- d 
of the journal's editorial review board. An e-mail 
 the petitioner advises that 
the editorial review board "acts as referees for 
 that the petitioner would 
be requested to review four to six papers per year 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence regarding 
the reputation of the journal and lists of its departmental and senior editors. The petitioner is not a 
departmental or senior editor. The petitioner also submitted three requests from 
 to review 
manuscripts and a letter from 
 an associate editor for the 
petitioner review a manuscript. 
The director concluded that manuscript reviews were inherent to the petitioner's role as an editor and 
could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's role with the 
journal Production and Operations Management is not inherent to her main job with Stanford 
University. We concur with the director's ultimate conclusion, if not the exact reasoning. 
While references an editorial board and the journal Production and Operations 
Management lists the petitioner asof an editorial review board, the number of such 
members, the duties described ir :-mail notice and the existence of departmental and 
senior editors with the journal re. r simply served as a referee or peer reviewer for the 
j oumal. 
We cannot ignore that peer reviewed journals rely on many professionals to review submitted articles. 
Thus, peer review is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that she 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, we cannot conclude 
that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign zficance in the field. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner was submitting letters from "several high-ranking 
professors researchers and executives in the field." Counsel further noted the petitioner's conference 
presentations. 
The letters submitted, while from experienced members of the field. are all from the petitioner's 
immediate circle of colleagues. CO-director of the Stanford Global subply Chain 
Page 6 
Management Forum, discusses the petitioner's work as Director of Research with that forum. 
asserts: 
She was a key leader on projects like: (1) Return on Investment Models for RosettaNet; 
(2) Supply Chain Transformation and Values, sponsored by Accenture; (3) E-business 
models at Nokia and STMicroelectronics; and (4) Distribution strategies at Toyota. 
further asserts that the petitioner "has also been a key contributor to new teaching methods and 
innovations in teaching media." As an example 
= 
mentions a collaboration between Stanford 
and a university in the Netherlands. 
 Finally, 
 notes the petitioner's work on seminars, 
roundtables and forums. - does not, however, explain the impact of the four projects identified, 
provide examples of universities other than Stanford that have adopted the petitioner's teaching 
methods or state how the impact of the seminars, roundtables and forums exceeds that of other such 
common gatherings and exchanges of ideas. 
a professor at Stanford, praises the petitioner's research and managerial 
abilities and claims to have found the petitioner's seminars valuable. further asserts that 
the petitioner published "managerial reports that significantly contributed to the scientific knowledge 
within this field." does provide a specific example, asserting that a course taught by the 
petitioner analyzed supply chain analysis and produced recommendations to improve a company's 
performance that the company adopted. While this statement establishes that the petitioner is 
competent in producing usehl information, it does not establish that the etitioner's research has 
implications beyond the company that commissioned the research. FinallyI) asserts that 
the petitioner's case studies are used at Stanford "as well as other leading institutions throughout the 
United States." 
 oes not identify any of these other leading institutions and the record 
contains no 
 at these institutions confirming their use of the petitioner's case 
studies and their significance. 
vice President of RosettaNet, asserts that RosettaNet commissioned Stanford 
to study Intel and one of its suppliers. The petitioner led a group of students at Stanford to complete the 
V 1 
study. asserts that the study was eventually downloaded 8,000 times and-that the 
petitioner subsequently developed calculator models "so that new trading partners could conduct a 
- - 
costhenefit analysis before implementing the RosettaNet standards." 
 asserts that 
these models were used "by the communitv and are instrumental to set-growth on a 
U I 
 - 
global basis."  ina all^,- ;raises the petitioner's case study about STMicroelectronics 
and its implementation of RosettaNet collaborative forecasting processes. The record does not contain 
letters from companies nationwide attesting to their use of the petitioner's models or published 
materials promoting the models or discussing their impact. 
asserts that the petitioner's work "on RosettaNet Standards and Multi-channel Distribution 
Networks have led to important insights and breakthroughs for US firms like Intel." does 
not appear to represent Intel and the record contains no evidence from Intel explaining how the 
Page 7 
petitioner's work on the above standards impacted their business and whether that impact goes beyond 
Intel, for whom the standards were developed. 
Finally, a Partner at Tefen, provides general praise of the petitioner's work at 
Tefen and their subsequent collaboration. oes not identify a specific contribution that 
has impacted the field. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, CIS 
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; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
Calfornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are the most persuasive. Ultimately, evidence in 
existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared 
especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international 
acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
The petitioner also relies on her publications and conference presentations. We note that evidence of 
published scholarly articles is a separate criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and find that 
conference presentations are comparable to scholarly articles. We cannot conclude that meeting one 
criterion is presumptive evidence of meeting a second criterion if the regulatory requirement that an 
alien meet at least three criteria is to have any meaning. 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. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of business research, it 
can be expected that the results would have already been applied in the business world. Otherwise, it 
is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has published her research and the companies for whom the 
research was prepared have utilized the results. While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, 
it does not follow that every business researcher who performs original research and case studies that 
Page 8 
adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to 
the field as a whole. 
As discussed above, the petitioner provides no independent letters or other evidence establishing the 
significant impact of her case studies and other research on the field as a whole. 
Evidence of the alien 3 authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner meets 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 herself as a 
business researcher to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a business researcher, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her 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. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.