dismissed EB-1A Case: Microelectronics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 146 53936 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: Nq)'d 1 8 (\ )c :J 
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. $ 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
L 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 146 53936 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California 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. fj 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. Specifically, the director 
concluded that the petitioner meets only two of regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet three to be 
eligble for the classification sought. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director did not understand the importance of the evidence submitted. 
We uphold the director's decision for the reasons discussed below. Specifically, while we disfavor withdrawing 
favorable determinations by the director, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets any of the regulatory 
criteria. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Pnority 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. fj 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. 
fj 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 as a postdoctoral researcher. 
Postdoctoral research positions are typically entry-level training positions for recent Ph.D. graduates. While the 
regulations do not preclude eligbility for an alien in the initial stages of his career, the petitioner must compare 
with the most experienced and acclaimed members of his field. 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 
WAC 03 146 53936 
Page 3 
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.' 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the jield of endeavor. 
The petitioner asserts that his election as an outstanding researcher by the Marubun Research Promotion 
Foundation (MRPF) in Japan serves to meet this criterion. The petitioner asserts that "the award is given to the 
researcher who has risen to the top of his field and who is expected to lead international research effort[s] in his 
field." Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
The petitioner submits a letter from i of MRPF, asserting that the foundation was 
"established in order to extend financial assistance to young researchers, irrespective of their nationalities, who 
are engaged in industrial and technological research activities in Japan." The foundation "provides awards to 
those who have attained or are attaining remarkable and outstanding achievements in their research and 
academic exchange." Finally, asserts that the petitioner was "elected as an outstanding 
researcher in March 13, 2001 because his achievements were highly evaluated in the field of microelectronics 
and his research . . . was evaluated to contribute to the industrial and technological fields." 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submits evidence that MRPF issues 
Academic Awards, Marubun Research Awards and Marubun Research and Encouragement Awards. The 
petitioner, and ten other individuals, won a Marubun Research and Encouragement Award. The materials 
reflect that, unlike the Research Awards, the Research and Encouragement Awards are limited to those under 35 
years of age. 
The director concluded that this financial assistance aimed at young researchers could not serve to meet this 
criterion. On appeal, the petitioner resubmits evidence already in the record and submits evidence that the work 
that resulted in this award has been cited and is the basis for a patent application. 
Our focus under this criterion is whether the award is nationally or internationally recognized such that it is 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. As stated above, the award received by the 
petitioner is limited to those who are 35 years or younger. Members of the petitioner's field do not typically 
begin their postdoctoral careers much before turning 35 years old. As such, it is clear that the award is limited 
to those just beginning their postdoctoral careers. This conclusion is confirmed by the entry-level positions 
listed for almost all of the winners. As the petitioner did not compete with the most experienced and renowned 
members of his field for this award, we cannot conclude that it can serve to meet this criterion. 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
WAC 03 146 53936 
Page 4 
Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he is a member of the Materials Research Society (MRS) and the 
Electrochemical Society. The original materials reflect that MRS membership is open to individuals "actively 
engaged in work relating to the research and development of advanced materials or materials processes" and that 
the Electrochemical Society is a "professional" membership of 7,000 which requires members to be "interested 
in electrochemistry or allied subjects and possess a Bachelor's degree or its equivalent, in engineering or natural 
science." In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence about 
the societies, but nothing reflecting that either society requires outstanding achievements of its general 
membership. Thus, the director concluded that these memberships could not serve to meet this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that outstanding and noteworthy contributions are required for membership in 
the Electrochemical Society. The petitioner also notes that he has presented his work at MRS conferences. The 
petitioner's assertion that the letter from the Electrochemical Society reflects that it requires outstanding and 
noteworthy contributions is not corroborated by the letter itself. As stated above, the letter only indicates that an 
interest in the field and an undergraduate degree are required. These are not outstanding achievements. 
Moreover, while the petitioner may have presented his work at MRS conferences, the issue is the membership 
requirements of MRS. As stated above, membership in MRS is open to those actively engaged in the field. 
Once again, this is not an outstanding achievement. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. We note that some of the 
petitioner's references are "fellows" of various associations, suggesting that the top of the petitioner's field is a 
level far above the level he has achieved. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien S work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner has consistently asserted that citations of his work serve to meet this criterion. While the 
director's discussion includes an evaluation of the citations themselves, the director specifically stated that 
citations are not about the cited author's work. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the director's evaluation of 
the citations as descriptive rather than evaluative. 
Regardless of whether the citations evaluate the petitioner's work, the citing articles are not primarily about the 
petitioner's work. Rather, they are about the citing author's work. Thus, they cannot serve to meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an alliedfield of speciJcation for which classz~cation is sought. 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion. While we try to accord some deference to the 
director's favorable findings, as the petitioner has not been put on notice of problems we raise for the first time, 
we cannot uphold the director's finding regarding this criteiion. 
WAC 03 146 53936 
Page 5 
The petitioner submits a form letter from the Journal of Applied Physics addressed to "Dear Colleague" 
requesting the petitioner's interests to maintain in their "reviewer file." The petitioner also submits two e-mail 
requests form - the petitioner's supervisor, requesting reviews of manuscripts. The petitioner 
also submits two of her reviews. 
Being requested to review an article by one's own supervisor is not indicative of national or international 
acclaim. Moreover, we cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to 
review submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained 
national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as 
evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a 
substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal (as several of the 
petitioner's references do) we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in thejeld. 
The petitioner relies on his published articles and patents to meet this criterion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(3)(vi) provides a separate criterion for authorship of scholarly articles. We acknowledge the nexus 
between this criterion and the scholarly articles criterion; original contributions in science are typically 
published in scholarly articles. As stated below, the director found that the petitioner meets the scholarly 
articles criterion. To conclude, however, that meeting one of these two criteria presumes meeting the other is to 
negate the regulatory requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria and the statutory requirement that an 
alien present extensive documentation. Moreover, for the reasons discussed below, we withdraw that favorable 
finding by the director. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in publishing 
research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 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. 
See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 519 U.S. 202, 209 (1997); Bailey v. US., 516 U.S. 137, 145 (1995). To 
be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of science, it can be expected that the results 
would have already been reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it 
is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
The petitioner submitted eight published articles, three abstracts and conference programs listing the petitioner 
as a presenter. The petitioner also submitted articles that cite his work. The petitioner has established that 
seven articles have cited his 1998 article in the Journal of the Electrochemical Society. The petitioner has not 
established that any of his other articles have been cited more than once. This citation record is not consistent 
with the publication of work that is a contribution of major significance. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner's work, published in 2001 in the Journal of Applied Physics, was the basis 
of the recognition from MRPF. In his initial letter, the petitioner quoted language asserting that this work "may 
change the established concepts of Si deposition technology" and "is the first attempt to apply TPCVD for the 
deposition of Si films for solar cells." The petitioner also quotes language asserting that the "success of ths 
research will lead to the development of commercially viable technology." This orignal source of this 
language, however, is the petitioner's own article. It is not an independent evaluation of the work. The 
WAC 03 146 53936 
Page 6 
petitioner also submitted evidence that he has applied for a patent for this technology in Japan. This office, 
however, has previously stated, in a precedent decision, that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a track 
record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York State Dep 't. 
of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215,221 n. 7, (Comm. 1998). Rather the si ificance of-the innovation must be 
determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. While Professo a former visiting professor at the 
University of Tokyo, asserts that this work demonstrated "the commercial viability" of Si films for solar cells 
and that this work "has been highly valued by the industry" the record lacks letters from the solar cell industry 
confirming their interest in licensing or otherwise applying this technology. The record does not contain any 
independent citations for the petitioner's article on this subject in the Journal ofAppIied Physics. 
The petitioner also discussed his work with Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) processes. The petitioner 
asserts that his work improves on traditional "trial-and-error'' methods, which are "difficult to apply to the 
design of a reactor with complex geometry for large-diameter wafers." 
The petitioner submitted several letters from his immediate circle of colleagues. We will consider these letters 
below. We note, however, that 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. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (CIS) 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. 1988). However, CIS 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; CIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS 
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, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 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 far more persuasive than letters from independent references who were not previously 
aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae 
and work and provide an opinion based solely on this review. 
Deputy Director of Combustion and Industrial Technologies at Sandia National 
Laboratories, discusses the petitioner's work at that laboratory. notes that the postdoctoral position 
held by the petitioner is very competitive and that the petitioner has proven to be an "exceptional and talented 
researcher in the field of Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD), which is a very important processing technique 
used in the semi-conductor- and glass-manufacturing industries." raises the petitioner's ability to 
work within a team and asserts that the petitioner's "work has been used as a foundation for a subsequent 
project in our department." -concludes that the petitioner's "work could potentially lead to very 
significant improvements in the glass- coating fields." oes not explain how the petitioner's work 
has already impacted the field beyond the typical progression inherent to the sciences. 
in whose laboratory the petitioner works at Sandia National Laboratories, asserts that he 
became aware of the petitioner's work through the petitioner's thesis advisor. asserts that the 
WAC 03 146 53936 
Page 7 
petitioner's "approach to using a small-diameter tubular reactor to determine reaction mechanisms is considered 
to be of major significance and has opened new research directions." -rovides no examples of 
research teams pursuing these new research directions. As discussed above, the petitioner's published research 
has not been extensively cited. further asserts that at Sandia National Laboratories, the petitioner 
"has been instrumental in establishing a new experimental facility for the study of chemical vapor deposition" 
and that "this work will soon be submitted for a publication in a major scientific journal and will no doubt be a 
very significant contribution to the field." Work that has yet to be published and disseminated to the field for 
analysis and duplication cannot be deemed to have already impacted the field such that it can be considered a 
contribution of major significance. While we do not question concluding statements regarding 
the importance of the petitioner's area of research, the importance of an area of research does not create a 
presumption that all original work in that area are contributions of major significance. 
Professor-explains that while a visiting professor at the University of Tokyo, he met the petitioner 
and coauthored an article with him in Science and Technology of Advanced Materials. ~rofesso- 
continues: 
For the first time, [the petitioner's] work studied the important effect of supercooling on the 
deformation and solidification processes involved in [the] impact of molten drops under plasma 
spraying conditions. Supercooling is an important phenomenon in this problem and until [the 
petitioner's] research, its effects had not been considered by the thermal spray coating 
community. [The petitioner] modified an existing model which assumed equilibrium 
conditions for solidification and introduced the supercooling effect. This approach led to [a] 
much improved understanding of [the] process. 
The final two letters from professors at the University of Tokyo provide general praise of the petitioner without 
explaining the specific impact his work has had in the field. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be 
original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific community. Any 
Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must 
offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who 
performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of 
major significance to the field as a whole. The record does not establish that the petitioner's work, while 
original, rises to the level of a contribution of major significance consistent with national or international 
acclaim. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion. As noted above, however, the petitioner's 
citation history, typically indicative of the influence of a given article, is minimal. Only one of the petitioner's 
articles has been cited more than once, and even that article, published in 1998, has only been cited seven times. 
The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and 
Recommendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. 
Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as 
preparatory for a full-time academic and/or research career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, and is 
WAC 03 146 53936 
Page 8 
expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of the appointment." 
Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even among researchers 
who have not yet begun "a full-time academic and/or research career." This report reinforces our position that 
publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of sustained acclaim; we must consider the 
research community's reaction to those articles. Given the minimal citation of the petitioner's articles, we 
cannot conclude that his publication record is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
As such, we find that the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to have played a leading or critical role for Sandia National Laboratories. The petitioner 
initially relied on a letter from and an employment letter confirming his "temporary" employment 
as a postdoctoral appointee with Sandia. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an internal newsletter of Sandia - - 
~ational Laboratory, the Combustion ~esearch'acilit~ ~ek, listing the petitioner as a member of the "Sandia 
team" that is "led bv We have considered the petitioner's alleged contributions while at 
Sandia above. At issue for this criterion is the position the petitioner was hired to fill. While Sandia National 
Laboratories may have a distinguished reputation, we cannot conclude that every postdoctoral researcher who 
plays an important role on a government funded project in one of a distinguished institution's laboratories plays 
a leading or critical role for the institution as a whole. Thus 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 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 
postdoctoral 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. 9 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.