dismissed EB-1A Case: Mechanical Engineering

identifying dats deleted r~ 
prevent clearly unwamnte~ 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: EAC 03 081 54578 Oftice: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 6 20~3 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
'.f'~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 03 081 54578 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l )(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 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. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on January 15, 2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a "Mechanical Engineering Researcher." At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as an Associate 
Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Yuan Ze University in Taiwan. 
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, 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. 
EAC 03 08 1 54578 
Page 3 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in theJield for which classz$cation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orjields. 
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 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. 
In a memorandum accompanying the petition, counsel states: "[The petitioner] is a member of the Legislative 
Yuan. Membership in a nation's legislative body amounts to a membership in a prestigious organization that 
requires outstanding achievements of its members." The plain wording of this criterion, however, requires 
evidence of the petitioner's "membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought." In 
the present case, the petitioner seeks employment in the United States as a "Mechanical Engineering 
Researcher" rather than as a politician.' Serving as an elected member of a legislative body does not 
constitute membership in an engineering association. 
Counsel also asserts that the petitioner is a member of various professional associations; however, no 
evidence of his membership in the associations was provided. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not 
constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a certificate indicating that he was "elected an Associate Member by the 
University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee Club" of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, in 1989. The 
petitioner also submits general information about the Society printed from its website, but he did not include 
information pertaining to the Society's specific membership requirements for Associate Members. Further 
review of the Society's website indicates that outstanding achievement is not required for admission as an 
Associate ~ember.%ather, an individual need only demonstrate an "aptitude for research which is expected 
- 
I The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to 
continue work in the area of expertise." The record contains no evidence indicating that the petitioner intends to seek a 
political office here in the United States. 
Information from Sigma Xi's website, htt~://www.si~maxi.org (accessed June 10,2005), states: 
Requirements for Election or Promotion to Membership. 
EAC 03 081 54578 
Page 4 
in due course to lead to the fulfillment of the requirements for full membership." Clearly, "Full Membership" 
is indicative of a higher level of achievement. 
The record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner holds membership in an association requiring 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which classijication 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 nine articles under this criterion. In describing these articles, counsel states: "These 
articles discuss [the petitioner's] work as either a Legislator or Mayor. They cover his work on political 
issues . . . ." The plain wording of this criterion, however, requires "published materials . . . relating to the 
alien's work in the field for which classification is sought." In this case, the field for which classification is 
sought is "mechanical engineering" rather than politics. The articles provided do not relate to the petitioner's 
work as an associate professor or mechanical engineering researcher, but, rather, his political activities. We 
further note that the petitioner himself is not the primary subject of the majority of these articles. 
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 alliedfield of speciJication for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted letters indicating that he served as an advisor to the organizing committee for a 
national sports event and as a consultant and tutor to the China Youth Corp. There is no indication, however, 
that the petitioner's service on these committees involved professional activities related to mechanical 
engineering or an allied field of specification. 
The petitioner also submitted letters indicating that he served on various committees at Yuan Ze University 
(such as his service as a member of the examination committee in the Department of Mechanical Engineering 
charged with evaluating master's degree candidates). In an occupation where "judging" the work of others is 
an inherent duty of the occupation, such as an instructor, teacher, or professor, simply performing one's job 
Member (Full Member): Any individual who has shown noteworthy achievement as an original investigator in 
a field of pure or applied science is eligible for election or promotion to full membership in the Society by a 
chapter or the Committee on Qualifications and Membership. 
Associate Member: Any individual who has, through initial research achievement in a field of pure or applied 
science, shown aptitude for research which is expected in due course to lead to the fulfillment of the 
requirements for full membership, is eligible for election to associate membership by a chapter or the 
Committee on Qualifications and Membership. 
EAC 03 081 54578 
Page 5 
related duties demonstrates competency, and is not evidence of national or international acclaim.' The record 
contains no evidence showing that service on such committees is unusual for a mechanical engineering 
professor or indicative of extraordinary achievement. Furthermore, we note that evaluating established 
professional mechanical engineers is of far greater probative value than evaluating students at one's university. 
Somewhat more persuasive is a letter from Tsuo-Chen Chen, Director, Bureau of Standard Measurements, 
Ministry of Economic Affairs. His letter, in its entirety, states: 
The Bureau of Standard Measurements under the Ministry of Economic Affairs is pleased to announced 
[sic] the appointment of [the petitioner] as Bureau National Standards Drafting Committee panelist in 
Mechanical Engineering as per provisions cited in Article 3 of the Bureau's National Standards 
Drafting Committee Organizational Chapter. This appointment will be ended till [sic] June 30, 1997. 
The petitioner has not adequately explained how drafting a technical standard constitutes judging the work of 
others in one's field. Furthermore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that only a small 
percentage of top engineers are selected to serve on such a panel or evidence of the basis for his appointment. For 
example, the petitioner did not include a copy of the provisions from "Article 3 of the Bureau's National 
Standards Drafting Committee Organizational Chapter," which would most likely provide details regarding 
the basis of the petitioner's appointment. We cannot ignore the statute's demand for "extensive 
documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. In this instance, the above letter lacks 
significant details regarding the petitioner's work as a panelist and the basis for his selection. 
Without evidence that elevates the petitioner above almost all others in his field at the national or international 
level, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientrfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJficance in the field 
On appeal, counsel cites the petitioner's published articles as evidence of his original contributions. Published 
work, however, falls under the next criterion. 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 under the next criterion. 
We accept that petitioner's work has yielded some useful and valid results; however, it is apparent that any 
scientific manuscript, in order to be accepted in for publication, must offer new and useful information to the 
pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every individual whose scholarly research is accepted for 
publication or presentation has made a major contribution in his field. Without extensive documentation 
This is true with all duties inherent to an occupation. For example, publication is inherent to researchers. Thus, the 
mere publication of scholarly articles cannot demonstrate national acclaim. The petitioner must demonstrate that the 
articles have garnered national attention, for example, by being widely cited. 
EAC 03 081 54578 
Page 6 
showing that the petitioner's findings have been unusually influential or highly acclaimed throughout the 
greater engineering field, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
In regard to the petitioner's conference presentations, we note that the record contains no documentation 
demonstrating that the presentation of one's work is unusual in the petitioner's field or that the invitation to 
present at conferences where the petitioner spoke was a privilege extended to only a few top scientists or 
engineers. Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposiums to present new work, discuss 
new findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and sponsored by 
professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. Participation in such 
events, however, does not elevate the petitioner above almost all others in his field at the national or 
international level. The record contains no evidence showing that the petitioner's conference presentations 
commanded an unusual level of attention in comparison to those of the other participants or that the petitioner 
has served as a keynote speaker at a national science or engineering conference. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other m@or media. 
According to his resume, the petitioner published seven conference abstracts between 1986 and 1993. The record 
contains evidence of one of these abstracts. The petitioner also submitted evidence of his secondary authorship of 
three articles in Enhanced Heat Transfer and the International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer between 1998 
and 1999. 
We do not find that publication of scholarly articles is presumptive evidence of sustained national or 
international acclaim; we must also consider the greater scientific community's reaction to those articles. 
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's work has had, the very act of publication is not as 
reliable a gauge as is the citation history of the published works. If a given article in a prestigious journal 
(such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A.) attracts the attention of other 
researchers, those researchers will cite the source article in their own published work, in much the same way 
that the petitioner himself has cited sources in his own publications. Numerous independent citations would 
provide firm evidence that other researchers have been influenced by the petitioner's work and are familiar 
with it. If, on the other hand, there are few or no citations of an alien's work, suggesting that that work has 
gone largely unnoticed by the greater field: then it is reasonable to conclude that the alien's work is not 
nationally or internationally acclaimed. In the present case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's 
published findings are widely cited. 
The record contains no evidence of abstracts or published articles authored by the petitioner subsequent to 
1999. The statute and regulations, however, required the petitioner's acclaim to be sustained. Counsel notes 
that the petitioner "has two forthcoming articles as primary author in the International Journal of Heat and 
Mass Transfer," but these publications did not exist as of the petition's filing date. See Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45 (Reg. Comm. 1971), in which CIS (legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service) held that 
alien's seeking employment-based immigrant classifications must possess the necessary qualifications as of 
the filing date of the visa petition. 
EAC 03 081 54578 
Page 7 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Counsel initially claimed that the petitioner's conference presentations satisfied this criterion. We have 
consistently found, however, that this particular criterion applies to the visual arts rather than scientific or 
engineering research. In the fields of science and engineering, acclaim is generally not established by the 
mere act of presenting one's work at a science or engineering conference. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel initially claimed that the petitioner's roles as a national legislator and as Mayor of Chungli City were 
adequate to satisfy this criterion. As we observed in the previous criteria, such roles do not relate to the 
petitioner's field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted letters reflecting various collateral titles he held while working as an associate professor 
in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Yuan Ze University. For example, the petitioner served as Chief 
of the Preparatory Office of the Continuing Education Center and Deputy Examiner of the Master's Degree 
Qualification Examination Committee. We do not find, however, that the role of an associate professor is on the 
same level of importance as that of a full professor, department head, or dean. For example, Shih-Hung Chan, 
who signed the majority of the letters originating from Yuan Ze University, is identified as the university's 
"Principal." The record contains no evidence indicating that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical 
role in the same manner as Shih-Hung Chan. Nor is there evidence showing the extent to which the petitioner 
exercised substantial control over personnel or organizational decisions executed on behalf of Yuan Ze 
University. 
For the above reasons, we find that the petitioner's evidence falls short of establishing that he has performed 
in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization, or that his involvement has earned him sustained 
national or international acclaim. We further note that counsel's appellate brief did not challenge the 
director's findings regarding 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, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three 
of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
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. 
EAC 03 081 54578 
Page 8 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.