dismissed EB-1A Case: Materials Science And Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: UN 0 2 2005 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
I" 4 ," 
' Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
- 
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 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. 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. 
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. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that she has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on August 12, 2002, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as 
a scientist. The petitioner earned her Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from the Rensselaer 
Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in August 2002. After earning her Ph.D.. the petitioner joined IBM as an 
Advisory Scientist and Engineer. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from ~ssistant Dean, School of En ineering, RPI, informing the 
petitioner of her selection "to receive the 1999 Amoco Fellowship." - states: "The Amoco 
Fellowship recognizes outstanding female scholars who show promise in the field of materials science and 
engineering." The plain wording of this criterion, however, requires "excellence in the field rather than 
"promise in the field." In respect to awards from universities and other learning institutions, Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) views academic awards as local or institutional honors rather than nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for the reason that they are limited to the individual school or institution 
presenting the awards. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from India's National Council of Educational Research and Training 
reflecting that, while attending high school, she was awarded a National Talent Search Scholarship to fund 
her high school and undergraduate studies. The petitioner also submitted two "Certificates of Merit" 
reflecting that she scored in "the top 0.1 percent" of high school students taking the "senior school" and 
"secondary school" examinations. We note here that competition for the preceding certificates and 
scholarship was limited to high school students. The preceding certificates and scholarship were presented 
not to established individuals with active professional careers, but rather to students in pursuit of an 
educational degree. We cannot artificially restrict the petitioner's field to exclude all those professional 
scientists who have long since completed their educational training and therefore do not compete for student 
awards. 
The petitioner provided a letter from the Dean of Students at the Indian Institute of Technology indicating that 
she was "ranked 2nd in her class of 28 students" pursuing a Bachelor of Technology degree in Metallurgical 
Engineering. The petitioner also submitted a "Candidate Certificate" from the Graduate School of RPI stating 
that she "satisfactorily completed the candidacy examination and residency requirements for the degree af 
Doctor of Philosophy." The petitioner included a copy of her graduate transcript showing a 4.0 grade point 
average at RPI. University study is not a field of endeavor, but, rather, training for future employment in a 
field of endeavor. An educational degree may indicate that the petitioner has fulfilled certain academic 
requirements at a given university, but it does not constitute a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field of endeavor. Aside from being institutional in scope, rather than national or 
international in scope, the academic degrees conferred upon the petitioner offer no meaningful comparison 
between her and experienced professionals in the field of materials science and engineering who have long 
since completed their educational training (such as, for example, those who hold a professorship in materials 
science and engineering). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a certificate showing that the Materials Research Society (MRS) presented 
her with a Graduate Student Silver Award at the 2002 MRS Fall Meeting. This evidence, however, came into 
existence subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
See Matter of Kutigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 197 1). 
There is no indication that the petitioner has received any significant award for which she would have faced 
competition from throughout her field, rather than her approximate age group within that field. The visa 
Page 4 
classification sought by the petitioner is intended for aliens already at the top of their respective fields, rather 
than for individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. We find no evidence to 
establish that the petitioner has received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field of materials science and engineering. 
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 or fields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in the New York Gamma Chapter of Alpha Sigma Mu 
(ASM) and her student membership in the RPI Chapter of the MRS. 
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, 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. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The record contains no evidence of the bylaws or the official membership requirements of ASM or the MRS 
to show that these societies require outstanding achievements of their members. The petitioner has not shown 
that she was admitted to membership in these organizations based on her outstanding achievement in the field 
rather than her scholastic achievements. Furthermore, it appears that the petitioner was evaluated and 
admitted to membership at the local chapter level rather than the national or international level (as required by 
the regulation). The record contains no evidence to establish that these societies require outstanding 
achievement of their members in the same manner as highly exclusive associations such as the U.S. National 
Academy of Sciences. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the$eld for which cluslfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall inc1t.de 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 signific.ant national or international distribution. 
The petitioner submitted a six-paragraph piece that appeared in the "ResearcldResearchers" section of the 
September 2000 issue of MRS BuNetin. The record contains no data showing the national or international - 
distribution of this publication. The petitioner's name is mentioned only once in this article as Dart of a two- 
sentence quote attributed to her. The petitioner's research supervisor at RP I, was quoted 
Page 5 
much more extensively. We note here that the plain wording of this criterion requires "published materials 
about the alien." In this instance, the petitioner herself was not the primary subject of this article. We further 
note that the statute and petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. A single published piece 
relating to work conducted b esearch group at RPI is not adequate to demonstrate the petitioner's 
sustained acclaim in the national media. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedjeld of specification for which clmszjication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted a letter fro -~istin~uished Professor of Physics, RPI, which 
states: 
[The petitioner] has acted as a judge of the work of others in the field of materials science. She was on the 
interview panel for hiring technical staff for RPI's microfabrication clean room laboratory. Also recently, 
[the petitioner] was on a team who judged the dissertation of a foreign Ph.D. student in the area of low 
dielectric constant polymer (from Singapore). 
In support of ~rofessor~laims, the petitioner submitted a letter fromeneral Manager, 
Microfabrication Clean Room Facility, who states that his facility sought to "hire a Semiconductor Equipment 
Processing Technician" and that the petitioner "headed a four-member panel of senior graduate researchers 
who participated in interviewing various candidates for the position." The petitioner also submitted the cover 
page of the doctoral thesis prepared by the foreign Ph.D. student from Singapore. 
We do not find that evaluating the dissertation of a Ph.D. candidate or serving on a panel of graduate students 
formed to interview candidates for an RPI equipment processing technician position is adequate to 
demonstrate that the petitioner is a nationally or international acclaimed scientist, nor would serving in these 
capacities carry the same weight as evaluating established scientific professionals at the national or 
international level. For example, evaluating tenured research professors is of far greater weight than 
evaluating an equipment technician or a doctoral candidate. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits e-mails from October of 2003 and May of 2004 reflecting that she reviewed a 
paper for possible publication in Elt.ctroclzernica1 and Solid-State Letters and that she was requested to review a 
paper for an MRS symposium. This evidence came into existence subsequent to the petition's filing date. See 
Matter of Katigbak at 45. New circumstances that did not exist as of the filing date cannot retroactively establish 
eligibility as of that date. 
Even if we were to accept the preceding e-mails as evidence (which we do not), we note that peer review of 
manuscripts is a routine element of the process by which articles are selected for publication in scholarly 
journals. Occasional participation in peer review of this kind does not automatically demonstrate that the 
petitioner has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. Reviewing 
manuscripts is recognized as a professional obligation of scientists who publish themselves in scientific journals. 
For example, authors who repeatedly decline requests to review will be asked to submit their own manuscripts to 
other journals. Normally a journal's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of numerous professionals in the 
field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for a publication to ask several reviewers to review 
Page 6 
a manuscript and to offer comments. The publication may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in 
determining whether to publish or reject submitted papers. 
Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in er field as of this petition's filing date, such as 
evidence that she has peer-reviewed an unusually large nu ber of manuscripts for publication in various 
scientific journals, received multiple independent requests r her services from a substantial number of 
journals, or served in an editorial position for a journal (in the same manner as- 
ho served as Associate Editor for the Society), we cannot conclude 
that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted several letters in support of the petitio . We cite representative examples here. 
P 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjc, scholarly, 
contributions of major significance in the$eld. 
On appeal, Professor of RPI states: "The varied tdp-tier journals that [the petitioner] has published 
in clearly research has wide implications beyond the immediate field of 
artistic, athletic, or business-related 
microelectronics . . . .'' 
We accept that petitioner's work has yielded some useful and valid results; however, it is apparent that any 
Ph.D. thesis or journal article, in order to be accepted in for publication, must offer new and useful 
information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every individual whose scholarly research is 
accepted for publication has made a major contribution in her field. Without extensive documentation 
showing that the petitioner's published findings have been unusually influential or highly acclaimed 
throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that she fulfills this criterion. The petitioner's publications 
will be further addressed under the next criterion. 
~rofessorrther states that he has "seldom encountered a student with more potential and promise than 
the petitioner." 
Senior Engineering Project Manager for Unit Process Development, Semiconductor 
Center, IBM Systems and Technology Group, asserts that the petitioner is "a 
rising star in engineering." 
With regard to the witnesses of record, many of them discuss what may, might, or could one day result from 
the petitioner's work, rather than how her past efforts rise to the level of a contribution of major significance. 
In the present case, it has not been shown that petitioner's past contributions far exceed those of established 
scientists in her field. Assertions from witnesses that the petitioner has a promising future do not establish 
eligibility, for the regulations clearly call for evidence that the petitioner already enjoys major success and 
national acclaim. 
- Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, RPI, states: 
[The petitioner] has already made quite an impact by making key research discoveries one in the area of 
electrical resistivity of very thin copper (published in Electrochenzical and Solid-State Letters in 2000) 
and the other in the area of electrical drift in polymeric materials . . . . Her most recent discovery of 
plasma effects on surfaces of polymers is another unique discovery and may earn us a U.S. patent. 
In regard to the petitioner's patent application, we note that anyone may file a patent application, regardless of 
whether the invention constitutes a significant contribution. According to statistics released by the U.S. 
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which are available on its website at www.uspto.gov, the USPTO has 
approved over one hundred thousand patents per year since 1991. In 2001, for example, the USPTO received 
345,732 applications and granted 183,975 patents. Therefore, given the amount of patent applications that the 
USPTO receives on an annual basis, we find it implausible that simply filing a patent automatically qualifies 
as a contribution of major significance in the field of materials science and engineering. In this case, there is 
no evidence showing that the patent application for the petitioner's innovation was approved by the USPTO, 
that the innovation described in the invention disclosure is being widely utilized on a national or international 
scale, or that the innovation is hailed throughout the industry as a major contribution. 
In regard to the letters of support offered with this petition, we note that almost all of these letters were 
written by individuals having direct ties to the petitioner (such as her professors from RPI, co-workers at 
IBM, or former research collaborators). This fact indicates that while the petitioner's work is valued by those 
close to her, others outside her immediate circle are largely unaware of her research and do not attribute the 
same level of importance to her work. With regard to the personal recommendation of individuals from 
institutions where the petitioner has studied and worked, the source of the recommendations is a highly 
relevant consideration. These letters are not first-hand evidence that the petitioner has earned sustained 
acclaim for her contributions outside of her affiliated institutions. If the petitioner's reputation is mostly 
limited to those institutions, then she has not achieved national or international acclaim regardless of the 
expertise of her employers, collaborators, and former professors. 
In conclusion, we find that the documentation presented in regard to this criterion is not adequate to support a 
finding that the petitioner's work in materials science and engineering is nationally or internationally 
recognized throughout this field as a major contribution. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other mcljor media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her authorship of articles appearing in publications such as the Journal 
of the Electrochemical Society, Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters, and Applied Physics Letters. 
We do not find that publication of scholarly articles is presumptive evidence of sustained national or 
international acclaim; we must also consider the greater research community's reaction to those articles. 
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's work has had, the very act of publication is not as 
reliable a gauge as is the citation history of the published works. Publication alone may serve as evidence of 
originality, but it is difficult to conclude that a published article is important or influential if there is little 
evidence that other researchers have relied upon the petitioner's findings. Frequent citation by independent 
researchers, however, would demonstrate widespread interest in, and reliance on, the petitioner's work. If, on 
the other hand, there are few or no citations of an alien's work, suggesting that that work has gone largely 
unnoticed by the greater research community, then it is reasonable to conclude that the alien's work is not 
nationally or internationally acclaimed. 
On appeal, the petitioner provides evidence of an aggregate total of 40 cites to ten of her published articles. 
The majority of these citations came into existence subsequent to the petition's filing date. See Matter of 
Kutigbuk at 45. Furthermore, approximately half of the citations presented on appeal are self-citations by the 
petitioner or citations from her collaborators at RPI. Self-citation is a normal, expected practice among 
researchers in the scientific community. Self-citation and citation by one's collaborators cannot, however, 
demonstrate the response of independent researchers. While the citation indices provided by the petitioner 
demonstrate a small degree of interest in her published work, she has not shown that an aggregate total of twenty 
independent citations of ten articles elevates her to a level above almost all other researchers in her field at the 
national or international level. We accept that the petitioner has authored several published articles over the 
past few years, but the weight of this evidence is diminished by a lack of evidence showing that these articles had 
significantly influenced her field as of the petition's filing date. 
Evidence of lhe display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
The petitioner initially claimed that two of her conference presentations satisfied this criterion. We have 
consistently found, however, that this particular criterion applies to the visual arts rather than scientific or 
engineering research. In the fields of science and engineering, acclaim is generally not established by the 
mere act of presenting one's work at a conference. The record contains no documentation demonstrating that 
the presentation of one's work is unusual in the petitioner's field or that the invitation to present at 
conferences where the petitioner spoke was a privilege extended to only a few top scientists or engineers. 
Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposiums to present new work, discuss new 
findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored by 
professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. Participation in such 
events, however, does not elevate the petitioner above almost all others in her field at the national or 
international level. The record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner's conference presentations 
commanded an unusual level of attention in comparison to other participants or that the petitioner has served 
as a keynote speaker at a national science or engineering conference. 
Evidence thut tlze ulien has performed in a leading or critical role for orgunizations or 
e.~tublishments that hme a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she played a leading or critical role on projects for IBM and RPI. In regard 
to the petitioner's work for IBM, we note that she did not commence employment at IBM until after the petition's 
filing date. Subsequent developments in the alien's career cannot retroactively establish that she was already 
eligible for the classification sought as of the filing date. See Matter of Katigbak at 45. 
We cannot ignore that the petitioner's role at RPI was that of a graduate student. Such a role represents 
temporary training for a future professional career in a field of endeavor. The record contains no evidence 
showing the extent to which the petitioner exercised substantial control over personnel or research decisions 
executed on behalf of RPI. Nor is there evidence showing that the petitioner directly secured significant 
amounts of research funding as a principal investigator (in the same manner as her professors at RPI). We 
note here that the majority of witnesses in this case hold higher positions of authority as research supervisors, 
directors, and heads in their respective divisions or departments. This criterion, like all of the criteria, is 
intended to separate the petitioner from the majority of her colleagues in the materials science and 
engineering field. Therefore, when determining the petitioner's eligibility, it is entirely appropriate to 
compare the petitioner's role to that of her witnesses. In this case it is immediately apparent that the 
importance of the role of individuals such as Professorsndr exceeded that of the petitioner. 
For the above reasons, we find that the petitioner's evidence falls short of establishing that she has performed 
in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization, or that her involvement has earned her sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
The fundamental nature of this highly restrictive visa classification demands comparison between the 
petitioner and others in her field. The regulatory criteria describe types of evidence that the petitioner may 
submit, but it does not follow that every scientist or engineer who has applied for a patent, published her 
research, participated in a scientific conference, or earned the respect of her immediate colleagues is among 
the small percentage at the very top of the field. While the burden of proof for this visa classification is not an 
easy one to satisfy, the classification itself is not meant to be easy to obtain; an alien who is not at the top of 
his or her field will be, by definition, unable to submit adequate evidence to establish such acclaim. This 
classification is for individuals at the rarefied heights of their respective fields; an alien can be successful, and 
even win praise from experts in the field, without reaching the top of that field. However respected the 
petitioner may be and whatever future promise her career may hold, the petitioner has not yet reached the top 
of her field. Even if it were unanimously agreed that the petitioner would one day reach such a level, this visa 
classification is reserved for those already at the top of their field, not for those who are expected eventually 
to reach that level. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that she 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. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself 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 is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above 
almost all others in her field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. Ej 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.