dismissed EB-1A Case: Mathematics

'identieing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
IJ.S. Citi~cnship and Immigration Services 
Office of .~t~/t?iini.srrori~~~~ ,lppperrls MS 2090 
Washington. 1)C' 20520-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and ~mmigration 
FILE: - Office. Ut.6RASKA S, I: :C 1- CENTER Ilate: 
LIN 08 154 525 13 AUG 0 4 2010 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alieli Worker as an A lien of i:xtraordinary Abilitj Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of'tlie Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 I1.S.C. $ 1 153(b)( l )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrdtive '4ppeals (Mt'-t, in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to t:ie ot'fici !!?at oripinalll 'q':i,ic.tl your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that jou might have concerni~ig J our case mus: be ~:i.itie to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reacl~ing our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may tile a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a reclilcst tail be found at 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided ;/ouV case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.K. 5 103.5(a)( I Ni) rec~uires that any motion {nust be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider 01. r.eo17en. 
Thank you, 
k- Chief, Administrative Appeals Oftice 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrativc Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationalit) Act (tli; Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined that the petitioner had not established the ct.lilisite extraordinary ability through 
extensive documentation and sustained national or international ;ccl,iim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained nationa~ or International acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's aci~levetnents. Ace section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.K. $ 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through cvidcnce of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the rece~pt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C5.F.R. 8 204.5(h 1'3 ~(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at leasf three of' the ten rcg 11 lalor s categories oF evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues tliat she tneets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence 
at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below. \vc uphold the director's decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pe~zinent p21i-t. that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first bc mad2 avrllabli: . ti) qua1if;ed inlrnigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens ~\ieli extraordinary abiliij. -- r-l~i allen is desc-ibcd in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics wliicli has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achiev(:ments have been recognized in the 
fieid through exte~lsi ve doc u17ic iita! I on. 
(ii) [lie alien seehs to entel thc Utiitcd Stiitc:; 1.0 (.on .IIL~: work iii the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) tlie alien's entqr into the i rrit1:d Slir~e:, nil1 substantially benefit 
prospectively the I rnited Staie:;. 
U.S. Citizenship and In~migratio~l Serv,ces (USCIS) and legai.5 Imnligration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently rccogi~izcd tixi: ('c~tgress inte~~dtd tc; ,i't a very high standaid for individuals 
Page 3 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordina~y ability. S'ee 1I.R. 723 101" Cong.. 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897. 60898-99 (Nov. 29. 1991 ). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only 
to those individuals in that small perce11ta~:e who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Id. and 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) recyires that an aliel~ A:mt:nstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. St~cli acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting at least three oFtE7e folln\\ing ten catcgorics of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the hiien's riceipt of iesscs naiionally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excelience in ihe field ofedea~ or: 
(ii) Doculnentatio~l of' the alien's ~iienib~:rship in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achic.\lc~nents of their members, as 
judged by recogr~ized r~a~ional or in.rc:si;at,o,,al txpcl ts in :I:cir disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Publiskied material ~ibout I~L itliih~ Is. l;rc~fessi~~~;al 0; i~ia~jor trade publications or 
other major niedia, relaling LO tine a1it:ll.s WO~I~ in tlie ~;cl,, for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence sliall include the title. date, and author of the material, and any 
necessai-j ~nlnaldtion; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation. either ind~vidu;lllq or on a panel, as ajudge of 
the work of others in the s~ml: or dn itIlied licld oI'sp~~;;i'i/~ition for uhici~ classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholaslj, art~stic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions o;'majos signii;;ance is1  he field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's autt~ol~cliip of scholarly article:; in the field. in professional or 
major trade publications or other !iinidr media; 
(vii) Evidence 01' the dispiay G; LIL a;ia.'b ~ior1, ,n tli~ iicid at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases: 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has perlomtd in 2 leatiin:! or critical role for organizations 
or establislimerlts that have a distiliguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence tliat the alien has com~nanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration i'or ser\ices, rn relac~o~~ to otl;,rs iii tlic field: oi 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in tlie perlorming arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or rccord, casse'itc. conlpacl ~ii~h. or video saics. 
In 201 0, the U.S. Court of. Appeals I'or thc h inill Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification, ,%CJ KLELII ;~111 I,',~;C1li\, 506 I:..:d 1 1 15 (gt" Cir. 201 0). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the cou1-1 ~(joh issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' M it11 respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while 1JSC'IS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidznce subniitt~:d to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." ld 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation resrcci on an itnpropcr understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, tlie court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to coullt the types of cviclencc piocid:d (ull~;l~ the AAO did)." and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficicient evideiice, "the proper col~clusion is thiii tlie applicant has faded to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three ~qp(;s of' cviciel~Le (as thr: AtiO concluded)." Id. a1 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(1-i)(3)). The coun also explained  he '.final rn~bril~, determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has subl~iticd the rcquisitt; ecidciice, IISCIS deterniines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expzrtise indicating that tlie individual is one of 
that small percentage who hake ri\el~ tc: the vcrq top 01 the[ir] field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(2), and '.~liat tlic alien has ,S~~stained ,iational or intelllational acclaim 
and that his or hzr achizczments !me l~eetr rccog111,~z~i lil the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. # 204.j(h)(3). On14 al,~n>; w,ic~sc ach~e~elnclits havz gar~lercd "sustained 
national or il~liernatioilal acclaim" iii; cilgible for an -'extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. $ 1 1 S;(b)(l)(A,(i). 
Id. at 1119-1 120. 
Thus, Kazariun sets forth a two-part appso;1~11 where tile evid~~:cc is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits J~telir-iindtlol~. In rekieuiilg :,cr\lcz Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in h'uzur.rcln. As 11~~. AAO ,i~alnt~~,~s ~k ,701~0 review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the dlrectcrr reacllcd hi:, clr Itcr c~I~c~u.,Io,~ i)j Lk,~ti: a one-step analys~s rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated b:~ ~hc k~caritrn court. e L I i, I v (JMI'I~LI' Stutes, 229 / F. Supp. 2d 1025, 19.13 (E.D. Cai. 2uul). 'r/fic;, 345 F.x tpi.3 (1)'1 Cis. 2903); .we ulto Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (36 Cit. 1004) (11clt111g that the AAO conctucts appellate review on a de novo 
basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed oii Apsil 23, 7d8. si.el,s to cl,lsc,~ij il-ic. pc~ itiImer as an aliil~ ulth extraordinary 
ability as a mathematician speciali~in:: in p-haitnonic tlicc,l-\ ot geometry and .analysis. The 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive 01. evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(11)(-3)(ib) and 8 C.F.R. 3 204,5(h)(j)(vi). 
Page 5 
petitioner received ller Ph.D. in 1~4atlien:atics from the in July 2006. Since 
August 2006, the petitioner has worked as a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of 
Mathematics at the. 'I Ilc petitioller ha2, submitted evidence pertaining to the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(-3).' 
Docunzentution of the ulic~nr.s recei/?/ of Ic\ $el. r~utior~ull:;~ ol, inlernutionully recognized 
prize5 or utz~urdu's fir excc7lence irz /he fictld of erwlec~voi 
The petitioner submitted documentati~n fioni ille - indicating that she 
received a ~cliolnrsll~~ in the amount of $400 in 2002 and $500 in 2003. 
The petitioner also submitted a ccrliticatt' Biom tljc .tating that she received 
a "2003-2004 
appeal, the petitioner submits a leiier fror~ 
- staung that tlle 
"scholastic achievement with a minimum 3.5 (;PA" and is available to "rrraduate students in the 
math department." ' letter. furt:~er stales that rile ' 
Fellowship is a one-year, non-renewable award presented by 
. . . in recognition of a stutient'i scholarly acliit:\ement. . . . Usually there are 20 
- 
recipients of the recognition of  scholar^^ ;~ctl!ei. tncnt reilow .~iil)." The preceding scholarship and 
fellowship equate o- iist~tuti~;l i-ccog,t- lcmn I i~iltioli i:.il;iilif lor -- 
graduate students rather than nationally or in1ern:~~ionally reci):!nr/ed prizes or awards lor excellence 
in the field of marhemat~cs. MOT-eover. g:~ad\~arc. study is not a til-ld of endeavor, but training for a 
future field of endeavor. Accordingly. the petitioner's receipt of' tuition for her graduate studies 
cannot be considered prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Furthermore, there is 
no documentary evidence demonstratlnj! that the pet~tio~.t:r's scholarship and fellowship are 
recognized beyond the presenting orgaru~ation and tl~erefore cotnmensurate with nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards li)r t.:tccllence in the licld. 
In light of the above. the peritiolicr has r~ot cs~ahIi\hed tlia~ hhr 8nr:ets this criterion. 
Puhli.(hed tn~11eri~11 LCI)OIII thv rillell 1,: 
 oft1\ \lotur! ol 1.1.) ,:(>I /I trJe puhlictrlron,\ or. other 
mujor meciia, ~.elu/ing to :/le uiiei,'\ 11 OI :\ I ri I~V /icld /o lr t11r.11 ~Ius sljic'u/ion I\  ought. 
Such eviderlc~~~ thull incll~clo /h: litle dole CUI~ ~IL~I~TOI of 1/70 111~1te~iu1, CIM~ ony necc.c.rury 
truns 2ul ion 
In general, in order for published rrli~terial tu nlt:ct ihis criisrion. it ri3ust be primarily about the petitioner 
and, as stated in the regulations. he printed In prokssional or rilqior trade publications or other major 
media. To qualify a5 major rnecli:~. the pl~blic~tion \lior~ld 11; . : Ggnificant national or international 
distribution. An alien ~fiould not tar11 ac,~i,~i~r xt the niiliond it:\ LI from a local publication. Some 
2 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet cr subin11 el idenc? rclating to tne cr.ilel ia rlot discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
newspapers, such as the New 1i)rk 7i~~cj.~ ~iomilicllly serk? a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution. unlike sliiall local community papers.3 
The petitioner submitted citation evidence sllovvllrg less than J do/en cites to her published articles 
as of the petition's filing date. K.egard~lig tile mall-icmatical ~rticles that ~nerely reference the 
petitioner's published work, we note that the plain I~uiguage o:' this regulatory criterion requires that 
the published material be "about ihc alien." In1 ti-11- caw lllc arii~lt:.; citing to the petitioner's work are 
primarily about the authors' work, not tlic i',)c)lnoled matzrial idt ~rilying the petitioner. With regard to 
this criterion, a footnoted reference to the alien's \n urh \sithout e\ alllation is of minimal probative value. 
Further, we note that the articles citing to thc petitioner's work sin~ilarly referenced numerous other 
authors. The submitted c~rations to the petitlonet's work do not ciiscuss the merits of her work, her 
standing in the field, any slgrlificant impact that her work has haci on the field, or any other aspects 
of her work so as to be considered published material ab(*rit the petitioner as required by this 
criterion. Instead, these citar~ons arc marc :cle\arit to rhe regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(v) and wlll be addressed tllerc. Accordli~gl~, uic 1)ctitioner has not established that she 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of' /he triien '.s origrntri J.L.IPPII (jic, .s~~l~ol~~~.lj~, LII./~.Y/~C, t~lhlelic, or hu.sine~.s- 
reluted conrribu~ions (~j'n?~ljola .signi/ic.irnc.e in lI~c),ticltr: 
The ~etitioner submitted several letters (rt supnort diccussi~irr I!!:r ~csearch under the nuidance of her 
[The petitioner] was under rn y ~uper~;isiot~ d,~r.ng lies year, at the . . 
She found examples of nontrivial hi-h::rl~i,>n'c: maps in ;ph:rc\ She provcd to me the way to 
verify the stability of bi-harmonic-11-laps hy applyln!; \,:iriation methods. Examples and 
counter examples are cruclal and suh~~i~ri~ial III tlieorctical ma~i~cmatics. 
[The petitioner1 impressed m: on nllincft tic ~CC~S~OIIS. Or12 ill particular u3as her fjnditig of 
how to estimate the "Second Funclanie~~tal Fornis'* on ellipsoids embedded in Euclidean 
spaces. Her research work 011 tilt. gcn~riili~~a~ion (>I' p-~!;irn~o~iic theory ti-0111 spheres to 
ellipsoids had motivated us to wt.1~1; 011 co~irpni t ion\ 2.. ,?:, per-surfaces in a broad range 
instead of concrete ellipsoids. This is a subs~a~ltial brcak.thioUgli in the mathematics. 
Her high level shill in solvin;; ciifiiculr ,>:.i)rJi:lns ,h aiw i-~i~cc.\c:d in her papcr joint with me 
3 Even with nationally-circ~~l:ited neic:.pa;-en. cur~~itl~;~r~c~i, ill1 b~: ~i\',:r !(: t',r: :?lacenlent of the arficlr:. For example, 
an article that appears. in the IlT~:ihi;i:;~~,// I.'o>t. 171;' .ri :I  tic.^. tl1-t' 'r; tli.rrib>i ,.:d only in Fairbx County. Virginia, for 
instance, canno[ servr to spread an indi~ idu-ll's :~PI~!;II~':II, t,:rliitlc :, '!'-:I! (: iiilt; . 
Page 7 
Riemannian n1anifi)lds which recap~u1.c ali 01' pi-e~ious ~cscalch work under the moderate 
growth or finite-energy growth. We also ~ndJe dn impo~t~il~t contribution to provide some 
partial answers to the famous open questions such as ('hen Conjecture on Bi-harmonic 
Immersions; Generalized Bernstein 1'rc)hlen:s: Gellcrali/cIJ ~~'hcng-Yau Estimates." 
Dr. Kyung-Bai Lee. Professor of Mathematics at tl~t IJnivessity ,,l'Ohlalioma, states: 
I have known [the petitioner] acadelnically since 2000. She tach several graduate courses on 
Topology in my classes while she mas co:npletin~! her Pfi.11. program. 
One of [the petitloner's] pubiis 
this paper, [the petitioner1 and 
represent homotopy groups. I: 
 used p-harmonic maps as 
catalysts to link topological properties and gcometsic pro~erties in Riemannian manifolds. 
This ground-breaking finding leads to man! important tl~cor~ms, such as Sphere Theorem, 
Density l'heorsm. Homotopical 'v'an~sn~rlg I lleorem and l~iouville-type Tlieorem and many 
others. 
[The petitioner]'.; knowledge in ma+'~er~intl,.,%; is reflec red ill iirmerous published papers. For 
example, in the paper " jthe petitioner] and 
her co-authors rrovided a 11cw arra tevoitG~ic~narj purslv.c,ii~e in approaching geometric 
problems regarding high-dimensional Kiemai~l~ian nia~lifi>ids bj applying p-harmonic theory. 
For exampie. the most siguifica~~t cvc\~.k ill ill's paper: 
[The petitioner] and I~er co-auti~orf. li)r tlic fit st tilllc ill mathen~atics, introduced the 
concepts of "p-balanccd grouth" alrd "p-imbalanccc! growth" in growth estimation 
theory to unify a varictj of pre\,iouc ie>ulls in gro~z~h e<;timation theory and to extend 
the scope of' previous s(:~illi~ idl !.- (11- 1, ' et:.ioil CT::(I;~ (1 to fa~noits mathematicians 
and dcl.i\ ccl a .I-,.' \\ it11 positivc lbecinack f'roni the 
.- 
distinguished mathematician ~ield MccTal.s tiinner. 
[The petitloner] and her coauthor:; p:03, ided solr,e par.rial answers to the famous open 
questions such as ' ilntler p-parabollcit), condition 
- - 
and -' on biharinooic immersions. 
The paper on convex func tlon:; shi~:ii.t*~l 11lnr r.crnci.:,l;j p::#:~!, an important role in different 
areas of mathematics, sucll 1s rn partial cis ff'ercnti.li eclt i *tit :rXs, calculus of variations, p- 
Page 8 
harmonic theory and others. 111 this pape., [the pctitic\ni*rl and her co-authors described 
exactly the link between con18exity and cwb-.;i?!utions of p-1 a~lace equations. 
The paper published in 2000 Lkas also ahoil the solutions of' p-Laplace equations. The p- 
Laplace equations have stror~g phy:;ic.\l h:xl. givuni! For in.tance, solutions of p-Laplace 
equations are motivated by the search ot ccrtaitl hincls ot' solitary waves in non-linear 
equations of the Klein-Gordon or Schrod,~igf:r type. 111 tlirc paper, [the petitioner] and her co- 
authors showed the way of how to succcs.;firlly filid n solutior. 
While the petitioner's research is no doul)t (71' zg,rlue, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benei'rt if it is Lo receive funding arid attention from the 
scientific communitj. Any Ph.ll. thesis or graclu,ite r(~sear(.h. i I or,i~lr tc) be accepted for graduation, 
publication or funding. must offer new ;inc i~setir' inform;~t~o!~ i..) I-,,-\ pool of knowledge. It does not 
follow that evzry researcher czho perlorli~s or ~grial scsearcli that adds to the general pool of 
knowledge has inherently made a contrik)uilon ol t,,~qot. signii'icarici: to the field as a whole. 
I have met [the petitioner] only once. in an alialysis conkrcncc in Iowa. Thus I am able only 
to describe my iinpression 0.1 hcr rnat11crn;~lics. fIo~vcvcr. I know well her teacher- 
. who is an excel let^^ mathe,n;ltician ill C'hina. 
Let me highlight a couple of results 01 / tl:e ;,ct~tiuner;. in r if.int paper with she 
was able to generalize the uce of f~tndamental mourtain pas\ theorem in a surprising way, 
among other things. by applying the I:k~:lat~d variational principle. This is a surprising and 
beautiful result. In another paper she is able to generali~e the method of Bochner to prove 
Liouville type of theorems in gre:jt :!e~lc:r.i~itji In Kieln:innian manifolds. 'This even has 
something new to say on the well-ur:ov 12 C'iirr, ('onject~~ir~. 
In addition, her other papers also cont:iili i~ice rc:s~~lts ;111tl show great expertise on partial 
differential equations and gi:oinetr: . I \1,lC. ccry i!nl:i.c:.-i:d by the variety of topics her 
publications covcr. although  he total c~iml~c.: of pub1 icati ;n: i. in+,?t yet) very large. 
- states: 
I went to to give scm:nal\ ~:oiioqu~a at !II~~\~I ;ity of Oklahoma when [the 
petitioner] was a graduate s~~rlielit tllcrc \s'~i\~ mail) i~ilerxtion\ nith her advisor - . I hncn [the pctitioncr's] iiorl, ;u;r! her prc\ptcs. in graduate study. 
Her work on tloniotopy Ci~oups a~ld ;I-lia:-!noi~ic hldp., stafiils f'or a special interest in 
geometry. In this paper, hCr a,lvisor jnci s 1; wed tht: p-!tarmonic maps to represent 
Page 9 
homotopy classes. via the ~ii~nimal cubnianifi)l.;ls in spheres to minimal vrieties of convex 
hypersurfaces. 1-his work is rc:lated to both \itbiects in geoinet! \. topology and analysis. This 
is extended further by he; paper l~-ilitr~ill~~ii~ csti~li;it:, and generalizations of the 
uniformization theorern arid liochner's rnctl~cd with ,reon1~~11.i(. applications with - 
and This work adaptt-i global  anal>.^\ on iterative iterative method, 
maximum principle for p-harmonic maps to obtain a ge~icrali/ed Bochner's result from low- 
dimensional compact manifolds to high-dirncnsional nonc ,~iipact nianifolds. This excellent 
work leads to solve an open problt:lli iinc4el 1)-parabi,lic ci!,kumption and C'hen conjecture on 
biharmonic immersions. Boll1 papers are n\~~,lislietl ill the Proceedings of Midwest 
Geometry Coliference. 
[The petitioner's1 works In t:~e p-kiarlnonic llieoly brougnt -a01113 new and challenging ideas 
on various differential geometric situations. I-Icr contributions are (1) a C" convex function 
which is a submersion on a Klemannian manii'oid IS a p-suhharmonic function for everyp 2 1 
(this result is sharp); (2) representing ~lic I~c~~notopv clas\es by p-Harmonic maps leads to 
Sphere theorem. Density theul-em, : opo~opic:~, 'clanibhing ~i-~ec,rem (this result is interesting 
in topology and geometry); (3) a benerali~e~ i~nlhtini/atio!~ th:orem in terms of p-parabolic 
or p-hyperbolic (this result ~i-iahes pos1;it-)le 11, e4,tend eal-lic:r ii~nious work by Klein. Koebe 
and Poincare to high-dimensions, c.nrl;plete nc8scntiipaci K;t~liiar~nian manifolds. 
I became acquainted with I tile pet~liclner) la\t year u11e11 sl~c joined niy department as a 
visiting assistant pl.ofessor. 
Her work consists or' a verq p'easi~ig u,clla 01' gcc\lriettq I(; .LII:~I~ sis. Her first paper involves 
some Sobolev space theorq that has to he 111:)d:lied b~c,i,l.c thc spaces concerned are not 
compact. ?'he o1.m papers ~.onc:erll p-~,~~p,.u:ia~~ tIieo17b :J~I.; '~ddress such questions as the 
relation of p-Iiarmonic maps to reprc\ei~t:itiori\ of hc)*nofopy gro~lps. p-generalizations of 
Bochner's theory to the ron-existcncc 1):' i)-harn:onic f;)rn~s. and p-harmonic maps on 
ellipsoids. Some of this wo+-k. has t-f:er. cloii< h) Jit* tiirioAl. 'ield's medal (eqilivalent to a 
Nobel Prlze In Mathemai'ck) ~v~n~~ir~.: m:u3 c:r,iatic.iar~ and the generalizations 
obtained by [the petitioner] a,,d her I ollc .,rri~t.~> i'eplc2~enl.s ,.I ,:o~ic,iderable achievement. 
opines that the petitioiiev ;lncl h.21- collc;~p:lrc. \vork "represents a considerable 
achievement," but the record lacks evidence of ~lu~neroiis inclt:pentient cites to their work to support 
his opinion. In response to the dtrec~ar'\ reclllesL i'os cvtclt-rlcc:. he petiliorlcr submitted citation 
evidence showirlg that her bod! :)1' M or:c :I,:, i)cx-n 12itcci to cl~ c~i umes as of ihc petition's filing 
date. We cannot Ignore, liowe\er. that llmc ol':ne sukn~ir~cc~ ci~at:o~:s were self-citations by- 
Page 10 
and the petitioner. 
 Self-citation is a iiornial. cupccted practice. 
 Self-citation cannot. however, 
demonstrate the response of ii~dependcnt rt:sl:a~.c~lier-s 
111 this ~nstance. tlie limited number of 
independent cites to !lie petitiont r's boc!j of L~OII, 
 01' tIic r('ti tio11.s filing date is not an indication 
that her matheniatica I tindings equa1.e to t)rigi nal I.o~~t,.ibution\ of maior signi ticance in the field. 
In her dissertation as well as her later pi-lpers. [tlie petitioner] has proven a number of 
significant theorems using p-!~armonic inaps. 
She has written several joint papers M. ith le;i(liilg schola~ s 2111(1 ~~iere is ilo doubt that she will 
have a very successful careel 111 rnat1lcn;atii: ,. 
Even [the petilio~ier's] tiisl papcr pub~~shed wh~le 5iie \w:is still studying in China is quite 
interesting. Here one wishes to find positlbe solutions on R" of a semi-linear PDE of p- 
Laplacian type with the solution ha1 ink: i~ i~ccitied bel~al ior at infinity. This is a problem 
which can be described in a ~/:zriatiolial fi)rniat. . . 1 The, r?:+itloner] and her co-a~~thors were 
able to find a ne\n approach 11) obtain si rl.c I:\-. 
[The petitioner] is a young ii~athernatician \k hose 1'h.D. ;d\isor,. is a leading 
expert in the field. [The petitioner] h,ls co1l:il~orated wit11 him on several papers and also with 
other experts. 
With regard to the petitioner's worli as d:sc,:,*,td 
 1 
and others, the regula~ions conidiii a ~epa~alc c i,:riol~ reg;a;l~.,~ iiie authorship of scholarly articles. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(11)(3)(vi ). We L\ ill ~lut pee .illfit .:;;lf e\ iLl:r?cc :.. I:~r!ng to or cvcn meeting the scholarly 
articles criterion is prr:~mmptive ellidc,nc(.. !ht 111c. pc;itioner alho ~llcets this criterion. Here it should be 
emphasized that the regulatory criteria :.re separ~te and distinct fi.0111 one another. Because separate 
criteria exist for authorship of sclic-liar?! carti :!c. and orig11:a: L ontributions of ma-jor significance, 
USCIS clearly does not view the two ,IS i)einp i~ltelcl~a~igeal-lie. 1'0 iiold otherwise would render 
meaningless the stati~torq reau1rc:r~icll. 11 r - (:\ ~C.I 51 \ - ev~dent c or tne regulatory requirement that a 
petitioner meet at least three separ~tz criteria. \i\, e will fully atldl-e-:; tlie petitioner's scholarly articles 
under the next criterion. 
I have known I tne netitioner I ibr ,L r;erig.)ci cl' onc year sliice she took a visiting lecturer 
L 
position hcre iir)llr tic , I 1r.r ;,II::I 01 I-~SL.~~SCII i\ p-I .:IPIIIC~ I.llcory, a 
Page 1 I 
part of Geometry and Analysis, and cht. I,as c,,~.-:~uthored c'g1?t papers in this since receiving 
her Ph.D. in 2006. She seems to have e good grasp 111' th~c area of research and I would 
expect her to continue to contribute r:ew rc-sulls. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5 11)(3)(\1). .,n .tricn'5 contributions must be not only 
original but of mqjor significance. We niil~f ptcsume that tl~c pllrase "ma-jor significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus. that it has some meaning. Ilihile the ~cvidence indicates that the petitioner 
performed admirably on the work to whicli \he \\as assisned. thc ,ubmitted documentation does not 
establish that her findil~gs equatrx iu ori,!inal colli I ibi~tioi~s ol' ',~ialos significance" in her field. For 
example, the record does not indicate t11~ exlent LO wh~cli her &?.or!, has impacted others in her field 
nationally or interndtionally, no1 clot.> it slli~ia 111 1t tilt Iit'l\r IIB:. xibnificantly changed as a result of 
her work. 
In this case, the letters of recon1n1endation suolnitted by tht: petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
regulatory criterion. USCIS lnaj. in its discrclic,n, use a5 advl:,orj opinions statements submitted as 
expert testimony. S~C iWc[lte~ of ('uron I~IIC, IIC[/~O~~U/. 19 i&PJ Dec. 791. 795 (Commr. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultinlately responsibie kor ii~aklng the tin*ll tletermination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the belietit sought. /tl l'he subrnl\sion of' letter:, ii-om experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive evidence of c~lgihility: \,Sr'iS Inay e\alua&c. the content of those letters as to 
whether they supporl the alien's el~~~ibiiit~. L5~c i~1' at 755-7'-1(1 'thus, the content ol'the experts' 
statements and how  hey becalnc awalc: 1ht: r)ctliloner's st.pcira,lon are important considerations. 
Even when written by independent experts. lcttcsi solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting. independent eLidcnce that one would expect of a 
mathematics researcher who Ira.; 111,iuc.: c;si.!l i.1 con~rib~lt,orl\ 01' mqor significance. Without 
evidence showing thac the petitioner s work. C~~LIC~~CS LO o~.ig~n;~i coi~+rlbutions of major significance in 
her field, we cannot collclude that she ruects this crltcrlon. 
Evidence of ulienrkj ,IZI/;IOI*S~I!~ 01 \(B/I~ It11-(\3 (1;*/ic,Ie$ 1n 1ne fieid, in ,v~-ofe.~.~io~~ul or 
mujor trade p~1/7li~~ut1or1,$ (,/her vwjo~. lio 
The petitioner has ciocumented 1-1:s aull~orshirr 0:' schoiariy at li. leb 111 professional journals and, thus, 
has submitted qualifying evidencc pursuant to 8 C.F.K. kl 104.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has established that she meets ~lii:, critvrion. 
Evidence lh~ir /he ulicn ,iun pcr.f($r.ni~,d 17 11 I~~rding (11. cf ;'ifas// t,ole for oi~g~rnizu/iotzs or 
e.stuhli,hme~.rrc /hu/ htcllc (I di~rirzgl;i.\/~o~i I c>pu/tr/~orl 
The petitioner submitied letters ot' sLlrlx-! 1 i:;. .-v~.~,'.~g: 'les w.~-1, LIL ,\I: Wuhan Institute of' Physics and 
~athematics, the 
- 
. There is no supporting 
evidence showing that these in.;titution : hav. dist~i~,quished rc:pl~~ation. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evldence is rior s,~fiic.ietit it~r p~~sposck ol meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. ,Z.!~ill~?r of ,\ofricl, 3.2 1&1\J flec. '58, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Mutter of 
Treasure C'r~lfi oj ('~lliforni~i, 14 I&N L~c. I '.;'\ 2 .<el;. C'onlnl. 1'972)). Further, ~lliile the petitioner 
has performed admirably on thz ;~ssignn;ents J(~1egated lo I;(:;.. 111~1-c is no evidence sl~owing that her 
- 
Page 12 
roles were leading or critical for the pre,tdi~rg ~~~stituticns I'or ,\ample, there is 110 organizational 
chart or other evidence documel-~ti~~, 11ox4 the petitionor's yosition< It'll within the general hierarchy of 
her universities. We note that the petitioller's r-01,: at tht: - 
and thewas that bfa graciuat? :,tudenr. hloreover. the petitioner's evidence 
does not demonstrate how her temporarj \.;i:,ilin:; Asii:;i,mt I'rof'essorship at the - 
differentiates her from the other teacliers and rcsearchel-s c:mploqed by the university, let alone its 
tenured faculty members and depai-t:nerit ci;~;ii:, 1 Ire ;ioct~:iient:~:tcli,~ submitted by the petitioner does 
not establish that she was responsible fo; the p~ei,eding in:,tituLio;,s' success or standing to a degree . . consistent with the meaning of "lcttding or c. it;cal ~o!e. /\ccord 1igl:t. the petitioner has not established 
that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence 117~11 ti7e trlieri ix;\ C*~IIIIITLII;LKI( LI his:h \(/riir:i. 0,. other ,\ignifi~*~~~lly high 
remunerullot? se~'vicc\, ill ,.ci~r/io{~ /I,, o~~'r# JIY ill /Me /'c>/cc' 
The petitioner subl~~ittea a Febrhalj 21. 200 i Ic~ter ti-oln tlrc off'ering her "a 
salary of $36,000 for the 290-1 - 2008 ,icadr.l~~~c ?ear." 1 he piain language of this regulatory 
criterion, however, requlres the l)e~iusllcr to suhn7ii CLICI~~C~ 01 a h~gli salary "in relation to others in 
the field." The petilioner offcrs 110 bass 101 conlpasrson srlonrr-tg that her easnings arc significantly 
high in relation to olhers in the 11cld. Accor:l~:~gl\. tiic ptlti~ionc.7 h,is not established that she meets this 
criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate 
her receipt of a major. ~nternationally rccognizuc~ award. or tllat shc meets at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence that m1l.t be s:~ti\~jcu LO cstahlish tl w~inimurn eli yibility requirements 
necessary to qualify as an alie,~ or' er.u?iorcll~?,~s\ rl?ility. h { 1 .it. tj 204.5(h)(3). A final merits 
determination that considers a11 nu rne evitlcirct, ii)llous. 
B. Final Merits Determkatiot~ 
In accordance with t1.e k;l~rrrri~~~~ or1inic.n. vl: i>l1~<:t 13e.l; concl~l;t A final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the coniexl ot V~IIC:EI,~ c,r not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating ?hi11 1ht' i~yc?i\ i(l, ,,11 i , CJII~ c,S tli-1 CI~CI~ pcrcentagt: who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir/ field of e~ldcavor." :; C.1 K ;: 30+.5t1;1(2): -181ci (2) "that the allen has sustained 
national or international acclai~~i ;~.itj thai i~i., .$I lit.: acili('\ii~llli'~~*~ 1 Liie been recc~giii,<ed in the field of 
expertise." Section 203 b~r l)t2fi) of the ici. 8 1' ' F:. 6 20: :jr II)~ ;). ,See cd,o ken-itin. 596 F.3d at 
11 19-1 120. in the plescnt mat:rr. il:,?n.\, <)I' 111c ci,.-icienciz. ill ill~: documentation si~blnitted by the 
petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding di~cus:,ion of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. 59 204.j(h)(;)(i), (iii). (v). (viii). (lnd (1x1. 
With regard to tile docunientat~o~r subliiitteci :o: 8 C .l .k. (, L04.S(n~(vi), the petitioner has not 
established that her co-authorship ot' tblir publichctl srt~cles w~rh ller supervisors as of the petition's 
filing date demonstrarcs a level oi e\ipert!c,c rndr~alin~g t lai sh~t 1s 'irnong that small percentage who 
Page 13 
have risen to the very top of' the field of' c:nd:avor. Sc.c 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). As authoring 
scholarly articles is inherent to niatheniatic.i+l 1-f.cear(:h in a 1~17r\ersity setting, we will evaluate a 
citation history or other evidence ofthe 1nf1tlcnc.c: of thr pcjitioner 5 articles to deternline the impact 
and recognition her ~dork has had on thc: ticl..! CII~ ~heti~cr s~r~11 influence has hecn ~ustained.~   or 
example, numerous ~ndcpendent cires t r ,I;LI\ r~ ;I ~ti-c.rcd )I! tl-ic petitioner would provide solid 
evidence that her work has beel; ~-el:og~.i,*c.d ,iill ilia: ot!ier ret,:, 5-:'lers ha\ e been influenced by her 
work. On the other h~nd, few or no cil:s LO at; Llrtic.lc ,iutlicr:d Ijy the petitioner may indicate that 
her work has gone largely unnc~iccd bq 1ic.r 'icld As p~eviouc I! discussed. the petitioner submitted 
evidence showing that her body of work has hccn cited le\s than a dozen times as of the petition's 
filing date. Moreoker. the maiority of Ilie subl~itted citations are self-citations by. In this 
case, the citation history submitted by tl7~ pct~iioner IS not si~i'ficiel~t to demonstrate that her articles 
have attracted a level of' Interest in lit'r ic.ld col.lnl,,r::,ur:iti. v, ~il~ \usrained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of' the iield. Frlrr ,cri,;ore. \%11e11 ci~wu\sing the petitioner's publication 
record,specifically states t~iilt 'I,X lU>tsl ~ii~~~ilxr r,f'publications is (not yet) very large." 
In contrast to the pctit~oner's lilrll~ed ~-ci)rti 0: pi~hllcaii~~l .n tn,. time ot filing, - 
resume reflects that he has autliorcd ~101~ \hil!l tli~r[j ~tii~~h~t~iiili~al journal publications and- 
resume indicates that ne has more tllaL, srl.4 ~~ublicu~io~~s to ills credit. 
The petitioner's evidence included docil~i~cnt,~tic,~~ s~o\\.~II~ tliat her work was accepted for 
presentation at conferences such as thc rvlid\:~t:<,l (;conletrq I onlixrence and the Annual Meeting of 
the Mathematical Association ol An~eric~i rlie rccor13, nohebu-. does not establish that part~cipation 
in such mathematic conference\ is colliliic.pv\lrrillb \ail0 siisldi~,t'~~ nivt~onal or ~~itcrnational acclaim at 
the very lop of her licld. in lllr fields 01 <.I l:n( : ,uld n~~rthc,~valics, Liccia~m 1s generally not 
established by the inere act 01 nle:,t.ntrlig ,,llc'\ *\OIL 11 a \ c ~te~c~lice or an annual meeting along 
with numerous otlier part~cipants. Nothl;~g 111 tlic *.:toad i~iu~c.a~(j\ Illat the presclitation of one's work 
is unusual in the petitioner's licld or th.31 ~n~li\,~iior~ to prewnt t Lenues \vlierz her work appeared 
was a privilege exttanded lo o1i1> a kvv toy' : ,hiicrn;itics re~.(:ur.cliers. Many professional fields 
regularly hold confc%rences and symposi:~ to pnr3sclit ncu .ivorl\. di5cuss new findings. and to network 
with other professionals. these cc\nl'ese~~c.e\ are p~omcwd and sponsored by professional 
associations, businesses, educat~onzr ins~~luiil ,, , and uoc::rrqn~c~rt agencies. Participation in such 
events, home1 er, doe; not elevate th~ ?cr !~,.:icr 'lt~ )LC aloic~%,i i~tliers in her field at thc national or 
international level. 
4 The Department of lab~x's O,,-c~~l~~~ioiial O~.,i!~ob ti:i,"(i1~,~0l\ 1; i0. I I 13i11~'rl (accessed at [IQ~: :\c\~y~~~~ov/oco!], 
provides information aho~~t the natbure of employ:-.:e .t a!. .I p~;'i:iecc;n;lal.y :i:~clil.:. ,p*-ofessor) and the requirements for such a 
position. Sre h!tl):. .cf~rf:l.l>'. cgi-lrirt !~!.iill.pl ,:.(I . c, %'i.si3 ;III~ , ac:c.;:ictl (:I; July 16. 201 0, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. TI-!e har~c!boak i.\p.~:~s~j :tr I.:, ,'I;I~ k~c~ri~? r~;c~?'>e~.:, -I-c r)rcrsui.ed to perr'orni re5earch and publish 
their work and that tbt: p~>li.xsor's res:a;c!~ -,-cb;;, i i; a .on~:.ic~i.a[io 1 .';)I. !c:111 3.:. riloreover, tile doct,~rai ;>rog:ams training 
students for fac~lty positions require a cii:is:r~aiicl;~. !I w-if!t:n relloll o11 :~.i;.iri:ti ri~searclr. ld .l'liis information reinforces 
USCIS' position that publication of ic.i:olarly a~^icl~:~, '; 1-1 ,. il~llll~~~,~iif:~ilI\ t.vidii-ct' of sustailied national or international 
acclaim; we must consider the field's ~.c::ctio~i to tliost: at. iic. . 
Page 14 
On appeal, the petitioner subn~its a r~/la~-cll 1'1, ,100~ ~~:)t~lic~,~ion il~viting lies to participate in the 
2009 Program for Women and hlathematics L'i~- ~ew 
Jersey. The petitioner's invitation and p:irtici~utio~: 111 ti,is progr;irn post-date the petition's April 23, 
2008 filing date. ii petitioner. however, mli it establish cl;gik)~lit\ as of the date of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l), (1 2); h4uffc.r of Kcr/<yhuk. 14 1&h, Ljec. 45. 49 ( Kcg'l. Comm'r. 1971 ). Accordingly, 
the AAO will not consider this e\ridencc ;ti th;\ pocccdinp,. 
Ultimately, the evidence in thc aggregate doc::. not dist'n~~1;i~P the petitioner as one of the small -- - 
percentage who has risen to the verv to 7 of tht fi;Id ot'endea\ or 1 he petitioner is a Visiting Assistant 
Professor at the d ~\Ii~:~,r -1)sitiorl ecluaj -< tc' a non-tenure track, teniporary 
a~~ointment. The ~etitioner relies nnn,,uiilV oil rile ,lrii~cr~.~. ,r;~- coauthored nit11 her su~criors 
I 1:. 211 -ui,1lli,11:il (:itc. io ner work as oftlie petihon.s filing 
date (nine of' tl~e eleveti citations aie tlu~sc, it, 1~,111cli u clrc:, to nis own w~rh), the praise of 
members of her field. and her con terer~ce i~rcbt,~-~~cl~i~;i~s. 
As noted by counsel. many ulilic peil~i~lliil s fe L:CI:CC\ clrdc:~~li;~l\ are inlpressi\e. f:or example, m. 
is a Professor of Mathelnatici;. tile org;ii/er c;f "nitiotlal and international mathematical 
conferences," Chiel' Ed1 tor ot thi irirr~~G(~ng ,. Ioi!~ nu/ ol llb/lrc'~~ill(ic .\, and the author of 60 research 
articles. 
= states: 
Currently. I an1 a iull protes:;or t\f l\iIaiI~e~nn~;c~s at tile . . . . I am an 
editor of the ./ozii-uai of Korean Il~,h[*r~l,~(i~*ol Soc.ic~/> ,nd the Kyungpook Muthemtrtics 
Journul. The Journal of Korean Matl~eln;;tif 211 Cociet~ s htglily recognized and respected in 
the Science Citation Index. . . . i have \\ritte~i over 50 papers. 
states: .'I an1 curt-ently a tilli ~,~.o'ilssor of 11-1atllc:niatics. working at IJniversity of 
Helsinki, Department of Mathematics and Statisrl;.~. " Further. according to 
the resume accon~panying hi: 1cttc.r. 17.1-i ;ll~t~:~)~.c~i mcre than thirty niatliematical 
journal publications. 
is .a= Pic,fcssoi- t4a~l1t~~1-1,i~it, , it,; : Sc~utI~\~ L ,(:, 11 lkll Protksso~ at - 
and has authored 25 PL!o~~c,~~~c)~IS. 
is a 'Uisuni;uished f'rofessor" oi- 'V~'l;~~hen,atirs at ih: atid the author 
of more than thirty publicatiors 
is a IJrofessor of 4/i;ltheln;,~ick :in11 i;ic 1; raduate Studies at the- 
. His letter state>: 
I have authoreci or co-authorzcl 44 :I!-ti: Ic, r 1cl7 11-vc bcei~ r~iblished in il~terriational peer- 
reviewed journlls. I I-,ave ilibli\ered Tnt'lc.d ictdressi:\ in 11 ,Iny locations . . . throughout the 
world. I have ilad exten:;ive inlerr,at;owl collLlbcra4~,)n~ with investigators at other 
institutions in kngland. Hel!;iu~n. 1-111 ~:;,II ! ar,J Ai~stl.,~li,l. I i8,;1\ dso successful in obtaining a 
NATO grant that included collea,r.uc., iroii~ I.ngland, Ilelgi: rn d,~d Spain. I have also acted as 
a referee on more than 20 art~cles that uer,, sul~rnltteil liir publication. Since 2001 I have 
given invited addresses in Opaka (C'7ecli :<epublic). I,e\ico (Italy). Gent (Belgium), Bedlewo 
(Poland), Melbourne (Austmlia), Boulder. ( olunibus and 13roch University (Canada). During 
the same time I have had ti\e docto] 
I all of whom sccurcd fci~ur~.-ilack posi~ic !IS. 
While the petitioner need not dernonstratch tl~t rhi~~~.: is no ole ni~\~c' accomplished than herself to qualify 
for the class~fication sought, it appears th:ri ~i~c \,rhrly top oK r,cr 11~:iti of endeavor is far above the level 
she has attained. In this case. [hi' pc:iriont*r lls: not es~abti~heii tlut her achievements at the time of 
filing were commensurate with sustainecr nrltlonn; or lnternat~onal acclaim in mathenlatics, or being 
among that small percentage at the very top of  ti^, i'lelci ol'cndeavor. 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not eslablisli illnl tlir' j)~tit~~~i~r has c~~sti;~gi~ished herself to such an extent 
that she may be said to have achieved sustained ll'itional or international acclaim and to be within the 
small percentage at the very lop of I-,el ii\nll.l 1 ';I-. *:: lcltli~c ;> I~OL ~essuasivc tliat  he petitioner's 
achievements set livr s~gliifican,~~ anovt. ,ir.~io~~ ;II ot11c.t-s 111 iit.1 lield at a national or international 
level. Tlierefore, the peiition:.r hns no1 L ;~!5l\\l1c:ci cligri~ilili - .ti .tiant to section 203(b)(l )(A) of the 
Act and the petition may not be al-q~rovetl. 
An application or petition that fails to co npl! :\ ith tlzt' tcc1inir:al requirements of the law may be 
denied by me AAO even if the Scn ice ('t.ntc.r ct:.es nlot idc.ntitj/ 311 of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. Scc~ jSpclncer En'c~.l~i*i~(~~. i/7(' \ 51i/C(/ S!tr/o(. 329 F. Supp. 2d at 1043. ufd, 345 
F.3d at 683; see cll.\o Soitune v ~30.J. ikl Iq.33 at 145 (noting mat the AAO conducts appellate 
review on a tie novo basis). 
The petition wiil be dcnied fc3r ~h,;. ab~~)\c x~;ii (1 rc C~>UI;>. \hit11 .,ich considered as an independent and 
alternative basis fox denial. In tisa pe~ili,)n r)r(\c:~t?(il~~j;~~, th.. 01 rtlen of proving el~gibility for the 
benefit sought remains pntirelj with tile pelit (N~~"I Tection ?'r1 o1'the Act, 8 I1.S.C'. 5 1361. Here, 
that burden has not hsen met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.