dismissed EB-1A Case: Industrial Engineering

ideat@kq data &W to 
pIIvartclurly unwuraxlted 
h&of ped privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: uu 1 1 2008 
EAC 06 043 53578 
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 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. 
#JCLY~+ J~A- 
' obert P. iemann, Chief 
q1 Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and 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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or intemational 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. 
9 204.5(h)(3). More specifically, counsel asserts that the evidence of record satisfies the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. $9 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and (vi). Counsel cites to an AAO decision and argues that the 
"preponderance of evidence standard is indisputably satisfied in this matter." 
For the reasons discussed below, we do not find that the petitioner has established eligibility by a preponderance 
of the evidence. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Pnority 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 ths subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics whch has been demonstrated by sustained national or intemational 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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seelung 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. tj 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. 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. 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on November 14, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in industrial engineering, operations research, and management science.' More specifically, the 
petitioner's work focuses on "research and development of new e-business [electronic-business] 
methodologies and supply chain management." At the time of filing, the petitioner was the Vice President for 
Research and Technology at ac2 Solutions, Inc., an information technology company located in Hazlet, New 
Jersey. In a November 9,2005 letter accompanying the petition, counsel states: 
[The petitioner's] work involves the development of advanced analytical models and computer 
algorithms for optimizing supply chain parameters with respect to management issues. It also 
involves applying mathematical modeling and computer science techniques . . . to develop innovative 
decision support technologies in order to improve business operations. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Counsel's November 9,2005 letter addresses this regulatory criterion stating: "[The petitioner] was awarded two 
Invention Achievement awards for his patent applications (with one patent already issued) and was nominated for 
biographical reference in Who's Who in Science and Engineering." 
The petitioner submitted a May 2002 certificate issued by IBM, his employer at that time, stating: "IBM presents 
to [the petitioner] a First Patent Application Invention Achievement Award for: Method and Structure for Bid 
Winning Probability Estimation and hcing Model." A document accompanying this certificate, also dated May 
2002, states: "An award payment of $1500 will be added to the pay statement of 05/30/02." 
The record includes no evidence of the petitioner's receipt of a second IBM Invention Achievement Award, 
although a second award is listed in the petitioner's resume. Nor is there evidence showing that the petitioner was 
nominated for biographical reference in Who's Who in Science and Engineering (also listed in his resume). 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Further, with regard to the 
1 
 The petitioner earned a Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1996. 
Page 4 
petitioner's "nomination" for biological reference in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, there is no 
evidence that a mere nomination for inclusion in this extensive directory of professionals constitutes a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner also submitted a June 25, 2001 letter and an accompanying "Stock Option Award Agreement7' 
reflecting that IBM granted the petitioner 1,000 Nonqualified Stock Options as a part of the company's 
"Long-Term Performance Plan." 
With regard to the Invention Achievement awards and Stock Option Award presented to the petitioner by IBM, 
we find that these financial incentives reflect company recognition rather than national or international 
recognition. The petitioner has not established the awards he received from his immediate employer are 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
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 classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the 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, proficiency certifications, 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 evidence showing that he is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers (IEEE) and the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS). In 
response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted information from the IEEE's internet site 
stating: 
Member grade is limited to those who have satisfied IEEE-specified educational requirements and/or 
who have demonstrated professional competence in IEEE-designated fields of interest. For admission 
or transfer to the grade of Member, a candidate shall be either: 
(a) An individual who shall have received a three-to-five year university-level or higher degree (i) 
fiom an accredited institution or program and (ii) in an IEEE-designated field 
(b) An individual who shall have received a three-to-five year university-level or higher degree from 
an accredited institution or program and who has at least three years of professional work experience 
engaged in teaching, creating, developing, practicing or managing in IEEE-designated fields; or 
(c) An individual who, through at least six years of professional work experience, has demonstrated 
competence in teaching, creating, developing, practicing or managing within IEEE-designated fields. 
Meeting minimum "educational requirements" and demonstrating "professional competence" are not tantamount 
to "outstanding achievements." The record includes no evidence showing that the IEEE or the INFORMS 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts 
in the petitioner's field or an allied one. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national or international level fi-om a local publication. Some newspapers, such as the Nav 
York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national 
distribution, unlike small local community papers.2 
Counsel's November 9, 2006 letter addresses this regulatory criterion stating: "[The petitioner] is a widely cited 
author. His supporter's [sic] letters refer to this . . . ." Contrary to counsel's assertion, none of the initial letters of 
support accompanying the petition state that the petitioner "is a widely cited author." Without documentary 
evidence to support the claim that the petitioner's work is widely cited, 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 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 response to the director's request 
for evidence, the petitioner submitted a February 5,2007 letter from Dr. Markus Ettl, Research Staff Member, 
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, stating that the petitioner's "paper 'Demand Forecasting Today' . . . 
has been frequently cited in others' articles." The petitioner's response, however, includes a "Citation List" 
documenting only two publications citing to this paper that existed as of the petition's filing date, November 14, 
2005.~ 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 
articles citing the petitioner's work that were published subsequent to November 2005 in this proceeding. 
Nevertheless, regarding the publications listed by the petitioner that merely reference his work, we note that 
the plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien." In this 
case, the journal articles citing the petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' work, not the footnoted 
material identifying the petitioner. With regard to ths regulatory criterion, a footnoted reference to the alien's 
2 
 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, for 
instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
The "Citation List" submitted in response to the director's request for evidence was prepared by the petitioner and was 
unaccompanied by copies of the actual publications citing his work. 
work without evaluation is of minimal probative value. There is no evidence showing that the citations listed 
by the petitioner discuss the merits of his work, his standing in the field, any significant impact that his work 
has had on the field, or any other aspects of his work consistent with his sustained national or international 
acclaim. The citation list submitted by the petitioner is more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and will be further addressed later in this decision. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedJield of speclJication for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that he served as a session chair for the program on Supply Chain 
Modeling and Analysis at the INFORMS Annual International Conference in November 2002 and for the 
program on Data Envelopment Analysis Supply Chain Applications at the INFORMS Annual International 
Conference in October 2003. The petitioner also served as a panelist for a session at the Global Automotive 
Conference (GAC) in April 2002. A February 5, 2007 letter from h Global Advanced- 
Leadership Center, states that his organization hosts the GAC and t at pane ists ju ge the quality of the 
submitted technical talks." The petitioner also submitted a September 3, 2004 letter from - 
wt;p.s:tioner review a Professor of Industrial Engineering, Arizona State University (ASU), requ 
candidate "for promotion to associate professor with tenure." The letter fro 
The university requires the evaluation by outside referees of the research and scholarly endeavors of 
candidates for promotion. In order to assist us with our deliberations, we are asking you to write a 
confidential letter, giving your personal assessment of the quality of research, publications, 
productivity, and other contributions to the profession. . . . It would be most helpful to know if you 
feel that this individual would likely be granted tenure and promotion at your institution or other 
institutions comparable to ASU. 
The petitioner's evidence also included documentation that he provided peer review services for publications 
such as the International Journal of Services Technology and Management, Journal of Operations Research, 
and IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance iq the field. 
As evidence that he meets this regulatory criterion, the petitioner submitted several letters of support. These 
letters discuss the petitioner's qualifications, activities in the field, patents, publications, presentations, and 
results from various projects on which he worked, but they fail to establish that specific work attributable to 
petitioner constitutes scientific or business-related contributions of major significance in his field. 
Since joining ac2 Solutions in May, [the petitioner] has been engaged in cutting-edge research in the 
field of operations research and management science. He has taken a leadership role in several 
research and development projects including: developing a statistical outlier detecting and adjusting 
method (completed); quadruple exponential-smoothing forecasting model (completed); multi-server 
heterogeneous-skill-set queuing simulator (on-going) and its server-skill-requirement optimization 
model (on-going). He has applied his broad knowledge base and unique expertise in statistics, 
demand forecasting, simulation, stochastic modeling, queuing theory and optimization theory to 
develop statistical and optimization models addressing the most challenging problems in call center 
workforce management. His research work has been critical in our development of state of the art 
software solutions. I am confident that he will equally succeed in leading research and development 
work for our new supply chain management project: Production Scheduling for Aircraft Depot 
Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul. Our management decided to apply for a U.S. patent for the 
quadruple exponential smoothing model that [the petitioner] has worked on. [The petitioner] has 
exceptional analytical and communication abilities and extremely advanced modeling skills. His 
work is not only beneficial to our company but also to U.S. manufacturing and service industries as 
our software solutions have generated tremendous business success to our clients in U.S. 
= s letter includes no specific examples of instances where the petitioner's work for ac2 Solutions has 
provided significant benefits to "U.S. manufacturing and service industries." While the petitioner has clearly 
earned the admiration of his employer, there is no evidence showing that work attributable to him has had a 
substantial impact beyond his employer and its clients such that it can be considered a business-related 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
, Emerson Electric Professor in Total Quality and Chair, Industrial Engineering 
Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, states: 
I have had the pleasure to be [the petitioner's] academic advisor for his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in 
Industrial Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison from 1988 to 1996. 
[The petitioner's] thesis at UW-Madison focused on the development of analytical models for the 
design of setup time and batch size reduction in the group technology-based flexible manufacturing 
flow line work-cells. . . . In his research, he developed an analytical model that is used to determine 
the optimal reduction scheme for a work-cell with a given budgetary constraint. He also developed 
an analytical model based on queuing theory and stochastic differential equations to characterize and 
evaluate the work-cell's performance. By applying the calculated reduction scheme, the work-cell's 
throughput rate is maximized and the inventory level is minimized under the budgetary constraint. 
These models are pivotal for manufacturers to optimally allocate their budget for implementing setup 
time and batch size reductions in their manufacturing facilities. The impressive results of his 
research, particularly the derivation of stochastic differential equations, are clearly a measure of 
Roger's strong theoretical ability in system analysis and modeling and his research capability in 
deriving in-depth research results. Some of the petitioner's research results are published in the 
March 10, 1999 issue of the prestigious International Journal of Production Research. 
Page 8 
Associate Professor, Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management Department, 
National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, and Fulbright Visiting Professor, Industrial Engineering and 
Operations Research Department, University of California-Berkeley, states: 
I have known [the petitioner] for the last 10 years, since we were graduate students in the Industrial 
Engineering Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. We both received our Ph.D. in the 
summer of 1996. . . . [The petitioner's] dissertation work and other research projects he conducted as 
part of his research assistantship with his academic advisor () were extremely 
outstanding. 
With regard to the petitioner's research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, s letter mostly 
repeats the information provided by 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, presentation, 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. 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's work has earned the admiration of his superiors and professional 
acquaintances, there is no evidence showing that it constitutes a contribution of major significance in his field 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. For example, there is no supporting evidence 
showing that the petitioner's published research was cited extensively by independent researchers or had a 
significant national impact throughout the manufacturing and service industries. 
[The petitioner's] work on business analytics for technology components forecasting is 
extraordinarily outstanding. In contrast to traditional statistical 'forecasting techniques that rely purely 
on the trend and seasonality of demand history, [the petitioner] utilized mutual information indices to 
capture the demand correlations among technology components, and also exploited the Bayesian 
diffusion process to analyze technology life cycles. Utilizing demand correlations and product life 
cycles greatly improves the accuracy of demand forecasts when compared to traditional forecasting 
techniques. While the model is much more realistic, it is much more complex and challenging both 
analytically and computationally. To meet these challenges, [the petitioner] cleverly devised tractable 
and accurate approximations to develop intelligent forecasting algorithms. This groundbreaking 
methodology is of great importance to theory, but also led to successful implementations at IBM's 
Personal Computing Division and IBM Systems Group. The implementations showed that these new 
models outperformed the existing forecasting tools by 20% or more in forecasting accuracy. 
I am also deeply impressed with [the petitioner's] research accomplishments in the area of dynamic 
pricing and profit optimization. In a project pertaining to electronic business-to-business (B2B) 
marketplaces, [the petitioner] served as principal investigator and led a small research team to 
Page 9 
develop innovative models that attempt to dynamically devise product pricing policies, so as to 
maximize company profit. He first conducted a comprehensive study to analyze characteristics of 
historical sales transactions relative to current supply and market conditions, and subsequently 
directed the team to derive two multi-dimensional probability models that attempt to measure 
customers' buying behavior and competitors' selling behavior. Using the historical transaction data, 
it showed that setting the pricing policies based on the derived models will significantly increase total 
profit. This research work pioneered a revolutionary concept of using multi-dimensional probability 
models to interpret buyers' and sellers' behavior, and determine optimal prices from the mixture. 
Through several conference presentations and university seminars, [the petitioner] had brought this 
new idea to the field and led research to apply multi-dimensional probability models, such as Logit or 
Probit models, to pricing problems. There is no doubt that [the petitioner's] work represents a major 
accomplishment in the field of Operations Research, as well as the area of dynamic pricing and 
revenue management. 
, Professor of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, Columbia University, states: 
I have known [the petitioner] for the last three years, since he was transferred . . . to IBM's Research 
Division at Thomas J. Watson Research Center. I have followed his work closely as I have a part- 
time visiting appointment at IBM Research. The main thrust of his research has been in the area of 
supply chain management. [The petitioner's] first project at IBM Research was to develop advanced 
forecasting methodologies to estimate customer demand for computer components. [The petitioner] 
developed two innovative models that are used to capture demand characteristics and estimate the 
future demand based on the captured characteristics. These include a statistical model that captures 
the demand correlation among components, and a Bayesian diffusion model that projects the demand 
life cycles of components. 
[The petitioner's] second project at IBM Research was to develop advanced pricing and profit op- 
timization methodologies to support IBM's businesstobusiness (B2B) sales and distribution group in 
determining the prices of computer products. [The petitioner] led the project and developed 
innovative analytical models to investigate the correlation between bids characteristics and winning 
probability, and to determine the optimal price to bid in response to a competitive request for quote 
(RFQ) for a specific computer configuration. 
[The petitioner] has been involved in another high-visibility project at IBM Research, 
SenseandRespond (SaR) Blue Enterprise. The SaR system addresses the full spectrum of supply 
chain event management. It is an attempt to integrate event monitoring, simulation and optimization 
capabilities to improve the supply chain control and management. In this project, [the petitioner] has 
developed a demand driven production plan and inventory optimization model, which attempts to 
detect demand exceptions by monitoring daily order transactions and revising the original daily 
production plan and inventory plan to meet the exceptional demand requirements. 
Page 10 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has made contributions to IBM's intellectual property, but there is no 
evidence establishing that this work was of major significance to the field. The record includes evidence 
showing that the petitioner coauthored a United States patent assigned to IBM for its "method for demand 
planning of products." The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that IBM filed a United States patent 
application for an invention coauthored by him entitled "Method and structure for bid winning probability 
estimation and pricing model." The grant of a U.S. patent demonstrates only that an invention is original. 
There is no evidence demonstrating that the preceding methodologies represent contributions of major 
significance in the petitioner's field. For example, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's patented 
methodologies have attracted a substantial level of interest outside of IBM or his professional contacts. 
Without evidence showing substantial commercial interest in these methodologies, their widespread 
implementation, or that they have otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance in the 
field, we cannot conclude that the petitioner's methodologies meet this criterion. 
, International Quality Coordinator, Philips Electronics North America Corporation, states: 
During the period of 1995-1997, I . . . served as Program Manager of a 2.2M government project to 
improve aircraft readiness, a project in which [the petitioner] played a pivotal role. 
When [the petitioner] started his position in my group at Philips Research-USA, his primary 
assignment was to work on a government research project . . . entailing the development of a 
Decision Support System (DSS) that would manage an aircraft repair and overhaul supply chain. The 
objective was to provide the U.S. Air Force with a tool that would enable the different levels of 
management (Pentagon, Wings, Air Force Bases, and Depot Repair management) to assess the impact 
of different policies and tactical decisions on the availability of the E3A aircraft fleet. 
[The petitioner] led several critical technical aspects of this project and demonstrated his strong 
theoretical ability in stochastic process and queuing theory, and his extraordinary skills in simulation 
modeling and information technology. He developed a discrete event simulation model with built-in 
stochastic modules to simulate the entire repair supply chain. It enabled evaluation of the impact of 
policy decisions on supply chain performance. He developed the client-server based database 
management system of the DSS. He also designed the architecture for a what-if analysis system, 
through which decision makers could set the policies and parameters of the supply chains, provide the 
input of the simulation, and assess the output of the simulation. 
It received very good feedback from Air Force logistics officers and was recommended as a tool to be 
used by other parts of the Air Force. 
s second project in my group was to identify the specific design scenario of the logistics 
and supply chain network for Philips Consumer Electronics North America that would provide the 
greatest reduction in total logistics cost while meeting the target order fill-rate. He applied a Linear 
Programming based tool kit to formulate a large-scale equation set that best described the objective 
function (minimizing total logistics cost) and constraints such as target service level, manufacturing 
capacities, and warehouse capacities. This was a very challenging task as the number of supply chain 
and logistics factors may exceed 100. The proposed design yielded a savings of $4.5M per year in 
logistics cost and a reduction in order delivery lead-time of 30%. These promising results were well 
received by the logistics department at Philips Consumer Electronics. 
s letter states that the petitioner's DSS simulation model "was recommended as a tool to be used 
by other parts of the Air Force." With regard to the second project, 's letter indicated that the 
petitioner's "proposed design" scenario was "well received by the logistics department at Philips Consumer 
Electronics." The record, however, includes no evidence showing that the petitioner's DSS simulation model 
was utilized by other parts of the Air Force. Nor is there evidence showing that Philips Consumer Electronics 
North America actually implemented the design scenario proposed by the petitioner for its logistics and 
supply chain network. Nothing in the record establishes that the petitioner's work for the preceding projects 
constitutes contributions of major significance in his field. 
Director, Transportation and Distribution Solutions, i2 Technologies, Inc., worked at 
Philips Electronics along with the petitioner during the 1990s. 
 repeats the information 
discussed in the preceding letters and observes that the petitioner "actively publishes scholarly articles in 
professional journals and conference proceedings." With regard to the petitioner's published and presented 
work, such evidence is far more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 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, CIS 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. 
In this case, the letters of support submitted by the petitioner's professional contacts and their discussion of 
his work 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. CIS may, in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 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. 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 a 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 thejield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of papers for presentation at various conferences and 
publication in journals such as International Journal of Project Management and International Journal of 
Production Research. The petitioner's response to the director's request for evidence indicates that his body 
of work was cited in others' publications an aggregate of seven times. The petitioner also submitted a 
syllabus from a course offered by the Information Systems Department at the University of Wisconsin-La 
Crosse entitled "Business Decision-Making and Research Methodology." The petitioner's paper "Demand 
Forecasting Today" is listed in the syllabus as one of dozens of required readings. In addressing the evidence 
for this regulatory criterion, the director's decision stated: "The record does not establish that the petitioner's 
works have been relied upon or cited to the extent that the impact of the articles is commensurate with a 
finding that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim." We concur with the 
director's findings for this criterion and note that authoring scholarly articles is inherent to the research field. 
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 this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's articles were frequently 
cited, or that they appeared in major publications or other major media in a manner consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the petitioner meets only one of the regulatory criteria, three of which are required to 
establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). 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 sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 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. 
204.5(h)(2). 
While CIS has approved at least two 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior 
approvals do not preclude CIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased 
standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after CIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See e.g. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US 
v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely 
because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See e.g. Matter of Church Scientology International, 
19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comrn. 1988). It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 
1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court of 
appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved a nonimrnigrant petition on behalf of 
the beneficiary, the AAO would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of a service center. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.), afd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 
122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
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 the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) 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. fj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.