dismissed EB-1A Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data delebed w 
prevent clearly un arQ4 
invasion of wrsooal prfwm 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 2 4 2005 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. $ 1 1 53(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 
cided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
,f 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 Ofice 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. § 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. 
3 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on November 29, 2002, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a mechanical engineering researcher. The petitioner specializes in fluid engineering and 
engineering thermophysics. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a Research Associate in the 
Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Maryland. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 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, he claims, meets the following criteria. 
Page 3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
We note here that the plain wording of this criterion requires "nationally or internationally recognized" prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field. Competition for an award may be open to candidates from throughout a 
particular country, but this factor alone is not adequate to establish that the award is "nationally or 
internationally recognized." The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition and 
achievement associated with his awards. 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Award for first prize issued by the State Education Commission of 
the People's Republic of China (a.k.a. Education Ministry) dated April 1996 for a project entitled "Modeling 
Techniques for a Large-scale Electronic Glass Furnace." The original translation for this "Science and 
Technology Advancement Award" states that the petitioner was the "4th Participant" and the most recent 
translation (provided on appeal) states that he was the "4th Contributor" (out of an unknown number total 
participants/contributors on the Electronic Glass Furnace project who were similarly recognized). There is no 
indication that the petitioner, who had earned his doctorate one month before receiving this award certificate, 
was the primary or lead researcher for this project. On appeal, the petitioner submits information printed from 
the internet showing that 51 projects were awarded first prize, 28 1 projects were awarded second prize, and 
364 projects were awarded third prize for Science and Technology Advancement in 1996. Additional 
information states: "In 2002, the number of National Award of Ministry of Education of Science and 
Technology will be decided [sic] to award 250 programs after final evaluation." According to the petitioner's 
exhibit S-28, in addition to the above "Education Ministry Science and Technology Advancement Award," 
there exists a National Science and Technology Advancement Award, a National Invention Award, and a 
National Natural Science Award. The difference between the "Education Ministry Science and Technology 
Advancement Award" and the "National Science and Technology Advancement Award" has not been 
adequately explained. In this instance, there is no indication that the petitioner's project team faced 
competition from research institutions from throughout the greater field, rather than simply among 
"universities and colleges directly under the charge of the Ministry of Education." 
The petitioner also submitted the following: 
1. June 25, 1996 Certificate for "First Prize as an excellent paper" presented to the petitioner and his 
two co-authors at the Chinese Silicate Society National Glass Technology Conference 
2. June 25, 1996 Certificate for "Second Prize as an excellent paper" presented to the petitioner and 
his two co-authors at the Chinese Silicate Society National Glass Technology Conference 
3. May 5, 1997 Certificate of Award for "Excellent Paper" presented to the petitioner and his three 
co-authors at the Electronic Glass Production Technology Conference 
4. September 1996 Certificate for "Third Prize as an excellent paper" in the "Paper Submission 
Contest" to celebrate the 2oth anniversary of the publication of Chinu Glas.~ (presented to the 
petitioner and his two co-authors) 
5. November 1994 Certificate indicating that the petitioner received a " 1993-1 994 Excellent Student 
Scholarship," Tsinghua University 
6. November 8, 1996 Certificate indicating that the petitioner received a "1996 Excellent Graduate 
Student Scholarship" commending the petitioner's "hard work and excellent grades" 
Page 4 
In regard to items 1 through 4, we note that the significance and importance of these "excellent paper" awards 
are not self-evident. The petitioner offers no supporting evidence showing that these certificates constitute top 
honors in the engineering field at the national level. It should be emphasized that the petitioner must submit 
documentary evidence showing the degree of recognition accorded to his awards. In regard to items 1 
through 3, the evidence provided does not indicate the total number of best paper awards presented at each 
conference, the percentage of papers at each conference that were recognized, the criteria used in determining 
recipients, or the level of national attention or media coverage associated with the award presentations. 
In regard to items 5 and 6, we note that university study is not a field of endeavor, but, rather, training for 
future employment in a field of endeavor. According to the information provided by the petitioner, items 5 
and 6 were presented not to established scientists 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 
professionals who had long since completed their educational training and therefore did not compete for such 
scholarships. 
We note here that section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim. Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner must provide adequate evidence to establish that 
the certificates presented under this criterion enjoy significant national or international stature. Simply 
alleging that an award is nationally recognized cannot suffice to satisfy this criterion. In this case, the 
petitioner has not shown that his awards are widely recognized beyond the organizations that presented them. 
Documentation of the alien's nleinbership in associations in the$eld for which classzJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or internutional experts in their disciplines or fields. 
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 petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the 
International Microelectronics and Packaging Society and Educational Foundation, and the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science. The record, however, contains no evidence of the bylaws or 
admission requirements for these organizations. Without such evidence, we cannot conclude that 
membership in these organizations required outstanding achievement in the petitioner's field or that he was 
evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of his membership. The record contains no 
evidence to establish that the preceding organizations require outstanding achievement of their members in 
the same manner as highly exclusive associations such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 
Page 5 
Published materials about the ulien in professional or ma~or trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which clms~fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, 
as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To 
qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. 
The petitioner submitted a letter notifying him of his listing in the .57th edition of Marquis' Who's Who in 
America. The record, however, contains no evidence of the actual published material about the petitioner 
appearing in the 57th edition, or evidence indicating that the 57'" edition had been published as of the petition's 
filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See Mutter of Kutigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45 (Comm. 197 1). Furthermore, we do not find that having one's biographical sketch included in a 
vast directory of thousands of professionals constitutes qualifying published material relating to work in the 
petitioner's field. 
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 ulliedfield of spec$cation for which clmslJication is sought. 
We concur with the director's finding that the evidence presented by the petitioner is adequate to satisfy this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijicunce in the$field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters in support of the petition. We cite representative examples here. 
I met [the petitioner] during my tenure as a Visiting Professor at . . . the University of Maryland in 2001 
when [the petitioner] was a postdoctoral fellow. Since then, I have been in close contact with him to 
advance further our joint work. 
[The petitioner] is a promising researcher in the field of thermal management of electronic equipment. 
Thermal design of electronic equipment . . . is a complex task, requiring the synthesis of computational 
analysis, experiments, and insights to be exercised by human experts. [The petitioner] has proved 
during his research work that he possesses the talent, intellectual capacity, and energy to tackle complex 
thermal problems. 
In the same manner as that of the majority of the initial letters of support discuss the 
petitioner's general research background, educational achievements, and experimental skills, but they provide 
. . 
little or no information regarding how the petitioner's specific research contributions have significantly 
impacted the greater field. The issue here is not the petitioner's research expertise or his diversity of scientific 
Page 6 , 
training, but, rather, whether any of his past research accomplishments would qualify as a contribution of 
"major significance" in the engineering field. 
Unlike many of the initial letters of support, the letters fro-~irector, Research Center for 
Advanced Manufacturing on Nanoscale Science and Engineering, National Institute of Advanced Industrial 
Science and Technology WAIST), Japan, and Mitsuo Ataka, Group Leader, Protein Fine Structure Research 
Group, NAIST, do offer some observations regarding the petitioner's specific research contributions. 
notes that the petitioner worked in his laboratory in 1998 as a visiting scholar. further states: 
[The petitioner] quickly established a mathematical model to study Magnetoaerodynamic mechanism 
and develop [sic] a novel method to control air flow which has potential application in improving 
energy efficiency in automotive engine and reducing exhaust gas pollution. Moreover, he also [sic] 
involved in developing a new method to control effective gravity. This novel technology was 
successfully applied in CREST (Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology) project for 
high quality protein crystal growth. His research was published in several top international journals . . . . 
Many of the individuals offering letters of support cite the petitioner's published articles as evidence of his 
original contributions. Published work, however, falls under the next criterion, a criterion that we find the 
evidence in this case adequately satisfies. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are 
separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for published work and contributions, 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. If 
evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another criterion, the 
requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. We will fully address the 
petitioner's published works and citations under the next criterion. 
We accept that petitioner's published work has yielded some useful and valid results; however, it is apparent 
that any journal article, in order to be accepted in for publication or presentation, must offer new and useful 
information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every scientist whose scholarly research is 
accepted for publication or presentation has made a major contribution in his field: The record contains no 
evidence showing that the petitioner's methods are widely utilized in industry or hailed by leading 
manufacturers as a major contribution. 
All but one of the petitioner's initial letters of support were from his research supervisors and collaborators. 
This fact indicates that while the petitioner's work is valued by those close to him, others outside his 
immediate circle are largely unaware of his research and do not attribute the same level of importance to his 
work. With regard to the personal recommendation of individuals from institutions where the petitioner has 
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 his contributions outside of his affiliated 
institutions. If the petitioner's reputation is mostly limited to those institutions, then he has not achieved 
national or international acclaim. An individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be 
able to produce ample unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner provides additional letters of support. 
Page 7 
Professor and Deputy Director, Institute of Refrigeration and Cryogenics Engineering, 
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, notes that the petitioner's work has been presented at international 
conferences and published in various international journals. The record, however, contains no evidence 
showing that such activities are unusual for scientists in the petitioner's field. In regard to the petitioner's 
conference presentations, we note that 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 his 
field at the national or international level. The record contains no evidence showing that the 
conference presentations commanded an unusual level of attention in comparison to the other conference 
participants, or that the petitioner has served as a keynote speaker. In the fields of science and engineering, 
acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a conference. 
provost, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, states: "[The petitioner] and his co-authors in 
Japan have developed a novel method to control convection and bubble motion using magnetic forces. This 
work has the potential to create virtual microgravity for biological study on earth and has specific application 
to the field of protein crystal growth." 
In the same manner a- many of the witnesses of record discuss what may, might, or could one 
day result from the petitioner's work, rather than how his past efforts rise to the level of a contribution of 
major significance. In the present case, we cannot conclude that petitioner's past contributions far exceed 
those of established researchers in his field. For example, the record contains no evidence showing that the 
petitioner holds a patent for his innovations or that his particular methodologies are licensed to various 
industry manufacturers. 
~irector, Consortium of Researchers for the Emergence of Advanced Technologies, 
French National Center for Scientific Research, states that he became aware of the petitioner's work "because 
still exists) between [the petitioner's] laboratory in Japan and our laboratory in 
France." further states: 
[The petitioner] has been an important player in some very original experiments, such as the bubble 
motion in microgravity combined with magnetic field in a drop tower. These experiments need to be 
cleverly prepared. . . . In fact their experiments were usually successful in getting original results in this 
difficult field. 
The plain wording of this criterion requires not only that the petitioner's scientific results be "original," as 
noted in letter, but that they are of "major significance in the field." We accept that the 
petitioner's work has added to the overall body of knowledge in his field, but this is the goal of all such - 
research; the assertion that the petitioner's findings may eventually have practical applications does not 
persuasively distinguish him from other competent researchers. Without extensive documentation showing 
that the petitioner's findings have been unusually influential or highly acclaimed throughout the greater field, 
we cannot conclude that his work rises to the level of a contribution of mqor significance. The visa 
classification sought by the petitioner is intended for aliens already at the top of their respective fields, rather 
than for those individuals progressing toward the top at some unspecified future time. A simple comparison 
Page 8 
of the petitioner's achievements with those of his witnesses shows that the petitioner has not amassed a record 
of accomplishment placing him at the very top of his field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
puhlicutions or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of articles appearing in publications such as Glass X 
Enamel, Journal of Cry.stal Growth, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal, and the 
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted citation indices showing that his articles have been cited by other researchers. 
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's published 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. In this 
case, however, the number of cites to the petitioner's articles demonstrate an acceptable degree of interest in, 
and reliance on, his work. Based on the citation indices provided on appeal, we find that the petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
In this case, we find that the evidence satisfies only two of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) 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. 5 136 1. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.