dismissed EB-1A Case: Mathematics Education

ridmti&bgdeh!&leted to 
 US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
C~U& unwarranted 
 Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
. hasion of-al privacy 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBClC COPY 
FILE: LIN 07 2 13 5413 1 
 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: 
 OCT 0 5 2009 
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 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
ny Rhew 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 07 213 54131 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" 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). 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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, while the director relied on some 
boiler-plate language that does not necessarily apply to the petitioner's occupation, we uphold the 
director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification 
sought. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the requirements set forth at section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the 
Act are not at issue. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her 
work in the United States. 
LIN 07 213 54131 
Page 3 
The sole evidence that the petitioner seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability is a statement from the petitioner affirming that he plans to continue to work in his 
field of mathematics education once he becomes a 1awfi.d permanent resident. This statement does not 
contain the detail required under 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(5). While not raised by the director, the AAO 
maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. tj 557(b) ("On appeal from 
or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial 
decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. US. Dept. of 
Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has been long 
recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
In addition, counsel argues at length about the importance of the petitioner's field and the shortage of 
workers in the United States working in this specialty. The substantial prospective benefit is, in 
general, apparent from an alien's acclaim as an individual of extraordinary ability and intent to work in 
the field of extraordinary ability. Thus, the regulations provide no specific evidentiary requirements 
relating to section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act. We will not presume a substantial prospective benefit, 
however, from the importance of the field and a shortage of workers in that field. Significantly, the 
issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an issue under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. New York State Dep't of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 
(Comm'r. 1998). 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (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. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability in mathematics 
education. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in considering the petitioner's field to be 
pure mathematics research rather than limited to mathematics education. This assertion is somewhat 
disingenuous given that some of the contributions claimed are pure mathematical contributions. 
Moreover, the petitioner cannot narrow his field to such a specialized niche that comparison among the 
small number of individuals in that niche is meaningless. At issue is whether the petitioner enjoys 
national or international acclaim. While we will consider the evidence below in the context of the 
petitioner's specialization, we are not persuaded that the director's alleged mischaracterization of the 
petitioner's field prejudiced the outcome. 
LIN 07 213 54131 
Page 4 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Initially and in response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted that the 
petitioner's selection for a Fulbright Grant in 1998 under the Visiting Scholar Program serves to meet 
this criterion. The petitioner's proposal for the grant acknowledges his "limited expertise in the 
teaching of mathematics using computer technology" and provides the following objectives: 
1. Acquire the necessary expertise to effectively use the software MacMath, 
developed at Cornell, where the petitioner proposed to perform his Fulbright- 
funded research; 
2. Study the impact of visualization and even multimedia on the formation of some 
mathematical concepts; 
3. Study the ability of moving some concepts Erom the graduate level to the 
beginning of differential equations; 
4. Take classes to learn about any new trends in differential equations; 
5. Serve his current employer, the Lebanese American University (LAU) and its 
engineering program in particular using the technological expertise acquired at 
Cornell University; 
6. Serve LAU by introducing technology in the teaching of most of its mathematics 
courses, in particular, the calculus series. 
In her letter to the Fulbright Scholar Committee, 
 a senior lecturer at Cornell, 
explains that the petitioner previously participated in Cornell's National Science Foundation Workshop 
on Teaching Differential Equations with Computer Experiments. continues that the petitioner 
applied those techniques in Lebanon but "has not had a chance to keep up with current events and to 
extend those methods." Thus, notes the petitioner's interest in following up on recent 
developments and contributing to future research and reports in this area. Thus, it is clear that the 
' .The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
LIN 07 213 54131 
Page 5 
grant's purpose was to fund future research and training opportunities for the petitioner rather than 
recognize his past accomplishments. 
The Fulbright Program Fact Sheet indicates that the program awards 4,200 grants per year and chooses 
participants based on their leadership "potential." The Visiting Scholar and the Scholar in Residence 
Programs award grants to foreign scholars to lecture or conduct postdoctoral research in the United 
States. Nearly 800 scholars come to the United States under these programs. 
The director's October 9,2008 request for additional evidence advised that recognition not sought by or 
accessible to veterans in the field cannot serve to meet this criterion and requested evidence 
establishing the significance of and selection criteria for any awards the petitioner may have won. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a letter from cultural Affairs Office at the 
U.S. Embassy in Beirut confirming that Fulbright Grants are awarded only to "extremely strong 
candidates." The petitioner also submitted a document entitled "What It Means To Be A 'Fulbrighter."' 
This document indicates that grants are awarded based on academic andlor professional excellence and 
leadership potential. While the petitioner also submitted materials about the accomplishments of 
former Fulbright scholars, these subsequent accomplishments do not establish that the Fulbright Grant 
itself is a nationally or internationally recognized award or prize for excellence rather than a 
competitive grant to support future research. 
The director concluded that the Fulbright Grant could not serve to meet this criterion as the most 
experienced and renowned members of the field do not compete for these grants. Counsel does not 
challenge this conclusion on appeal. We concur with the director that a grant designed to support 
research in mathematics education based on the recipient's desire to catch up with recent developments 
in this area cannot be viewed as an award or prize for excellence in mathematics education research. 
Counsel does not challenge the director's conclusion that the most experienced and renowned members 
of the field do not aspire to win Fulbright Grants and the record supports the director's conclusion. 
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 alliedjeld ofspeclJicationfor which classzJication is sought. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's participation in the widespread peer review process could 
not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel notes that the petitioner provided evidence relating 
to this criterion beyond peer review, specifically evidence of the conferences the petitioner helped 
organize. 
Some of the petitioner's review and organizing responsibilities were clearly internal to LAU. Internal 
review at the petitioner's own institution is not indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim and, thus, cannot serve to meet this criterion. Kazarian v. USCIS, - F. 3d -, 2009 WL 
LIN 07 213 54131 
Page 6 
2836453, *5 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, we concur with the director that manuscript review for a 
journal is a widespread process that is not necessarily indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim. 
Nevertheless, the record contains evidence beyond evidence of internal review and participation in the 
widespread peer review process. For example, the petitioner's service as a member of the Scientific 
Committee for a conference sponsored by the Lebanese Commission of the United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Office (UNESCO) and a conference in Hungary is more consistent 
with the petitioner's recognition beyond his own institution and colleagues. Given the evidence in the 
aggregate, we are satisfied that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in thejield. 
Initially, counsel asserted that a small number of citations of the petitioner's articles and data credited 
to the petitioner in a text book serve to establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. The 
petitioner has also submitted letters from his colleagues. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 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 mathematics education, it can be expected that the results would have 
already been adopted or at least under consideration for adoption in math curricula at independent 
institutions. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles 
criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would 
render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that 
a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. See also Kazarian, 2009 WL 2836453 at *6 
(publications and presentations are insufficient absent evidence that they constitute contributions of 
major significance). 
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. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the 
final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. 
USCIS 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 Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
LIN 07 213 54131 
Page 7 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Cra$ of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 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. Vague, solicited 
letters from colleagues or letters that do not specifically identify contributions or how those 
contributions have influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian, 2009 WL 2836453 at *5. 
referring to the petitioner's work at Cornell University, notes that the petitioner published 
novel work regarding the classification of linear iterative systems on the boundaries where behavior 
changes, which has no apparent relation to mathematics education. Regardless, the record lacks 
evidence of the impact of this result, such as widespread citation or letters from independent 
mathematicians who have utilized this result. 
Regarding mathematics education, asserts that the petitioner's Fulbright sponsored work 
resulted in two published papers in mathematics education. also affirms that the two 
conferences the petitioner helped organize in Beirut "have been very successful in providing dialogue 
and dissemination throughout the Mideast." 
 Finally, 
 confirms the importance of the 
petitioner's critiaue of her coauthored text. which has been successfullv adopted bv a number of 
institutions. wile we do not doubt 
 expertise and sincere suppok of the petitioner, her letter 
- - 
does not establish the petitioner's influence beyond lus circle of colleagues. 
The record also contains a letter from - a professor Emeritus at California 
Polytechnic University where the petitioner spent his sabbatical in 2005. asserts that the 
petitioner is a "distinguished teacher and role model for the many elementary and secondary 
mathematics teachers in the Arab world who have been his students or affected by his astute curriculum 
decisions at LAU." The record, however, does not include curricula guidelines outside LAU adopting 
the petitioner's recommendations. The fact that students have completed his courses does not 
distinguish him from other faculty. The record contains no objective evidence of his impact on 
curricula such as formal standards crediting him as an influence. 
In a second letter, discusses the petitioner's formula for generalized eigenvectors for linear 
2x2 iterative systems of equations. explains that these systems have many applications and 
concludes that the petitioner's result "has been useful almost from the moment [the petitioner] 
discovered it." ylotes that the work was referenced in the text book she coauthored with Dr. 
. This formula does not appear to be a contribution to mathematics education, the specialty to 
LIN 07 213 54131 
Page 8 
which counsel has requested that we narrow our inquiry. Regardless, the record contains no letters 
fiom independent sources who have applied this formula or other objective evidence of its impact in 
the field. 
, a professor at the University of Chichester in the United Kingdom, asserts that he 
knows the petitioner from leading workshops in Beirut. While- praises the petitioner's 
presentations he does not explain how the petitioner's work has had a major influence in the field. 
The remaining letters constitute general praise from the petitioner's immediate circle of colleagues. 
These letters cannot establish specific contributions that have had a major impact in the field. 
While the record includes numerous attestations of the potential impact of the petitioner's work and 
the importance of his field, none of the petitioner's references provide examples of how the 
petitioner's work is already influencing the field. While the evidence demonstrates that the petitioner 
is a talented researcher in mathematics education with potential, it falls short of establishing that the 
petitioner had already made contributions of major significance. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thejeld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As of the date of filing, the petitioner had authored eight published articles, five of which relate to 
mathematics education rather than pure mathematics. The petitioner has also presented his work at 
nine conferences. All of his presentations relate to mathematics education. 
The petitioner has served on the faculty of LAU for several years. 
 The Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at www.bls.aov/oco on September 24, 2009 
and incorporated into the record of proceedings), provides information about the nature of employment 
as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See 
www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm. The handbook expressly states that faculty members are pressured to 
perform research and publish their work and that the professor's research record is a consideration for 
tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for faculty positions require a dissertation, or 
written report on original research. Id. This information reveals that original published research is 
expected of a university professor and does not necessarily distinguish the author from his fellow 
faculty members. 
While we acknowledge that we must avoid requiring acclaim within a given criterion, it is not a circular 
approach to require some evidence of the community's reaction to the petitioner's published articles 
where publication is expected of those merely completing training for the occupation. Kazarian, 2009 
WL 2836453 at *6. 
LIN 07 213 54131 
Page 9 
The petitioner submitted six articles that cite various articles by the petitioner. The director did not 
specifically address this criterion, stating that modest citation may not necessarily be indicative of the 
petitioner's influence in the field and noting that publication alone is not automatic evidence of a 
contribution of major significance. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's work stands out in 
the field of mathematics education. 
The record reflects that there are entire journals and conferences devoted to mathematics or engineering 
education. While the petitioner has demonstrated some international exposure through his articles and 
conference presentations, given the significant literature in this area, we are not persuaded that six 
citations are indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. Even if we were to 
conclude that publication alone can serve to meet this criterion, and we do not, for the reasons 
discussed above and below, the petitioner would still not have established that he meets at least three 
criteria. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director did not address this criterion in his decision and counsel does not challenge this omission 
on appeal. We simply note that in response to the director's request for additional evidence, the 
petitioner submitted an October 27,2008 letter appointing the petitioner as the Chairperson, Computer 
Science and Mathematics, at LAU for the 2008-2009 academic year. This letter postdates the filing of 
the petition and cannot be considered evidence of the petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. 
tj 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 4 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l. Cornm'r. 1971). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he 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 himself as a 
researcher in mathematics education 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 indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a mathematics education researcher, but is not 
persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his 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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that 
burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.