dismissed EB-1A Case: Nuclear Physics

U.S. Department of Homeland Securitv 
20 ~asi. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 105 52560 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: ApR 2 8 2005 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ecided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
# Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
I 
Administrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 105 52560 
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. 5 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. 
5 204.5(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. 9 204.5(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 February 12,2003, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability 
as a nuclear physics researcher. The petitioner earned his Ph.D. in Physics from the University of California, 
Los Angeles (UCLA) in 2002. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a Postgraduate Researcher 
in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UCLA. 
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. 
WAC 03 105 52560 
Page 3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his conference presentations and an invited talk as evidence for this 
criterion. Such presentations, however, do not constitute "prizes or awards" for excellence. We find no 
evidence to establish that the petitioner has received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
for excellence in the field of physics. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thejeld for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
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 claims membership in the American Physical Society (APS) and two scientific collaborations. 
A scientific collaboration, however, does not constitute "membership in an association" for purposes of this 
criterion. In regard to the petitioner's claim that he is a member of the APS, there is no evidence to 
demonstrate that membership in the APS required outstanding achievement in his 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 petitioner is a member of any associations that require outstanding achievement 
of their members in the same manner as highly exclusive associations such as (for example) the U.S. National 
Academy of Sciences. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same cr an alliedjeld of speciJication for which clmsiJication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted an e-mail from Professor John Harris, Physics Department, Yale University. The e- 
mail states: 
Dear STAR [Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider)] collaborators, 
It is a pleasure to announce that the first STAR Lambda paper is ready for collaboration review. The - - 
principal authors of the paper are [the petitioner]- The 
paper has been reviewed by a STAR Godfather Committee consisting of Sergey Panitkin (chair), [the 
WAC 03 105 52560 
Page 4 
petitioner], 
Physical Revrew Letters. 
The intention is to submit the paper to 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
I would like to address my appointment to the Godparent Committee for publication of my work on 
Lambda production in Physical Review Letters. The purpose of this committee is not the review of my 
own work, but to oversee the very rigorous process of submission and criticism by outside scientists 
(peer-review) of articles about my work prior to acceptance by a journal. 
From Professor Harris' e-mail and the petitioner's statements, it is apparent that the petitioner served on a 
committee charged with reviewing his own publication and responding to independent reviewer criticisms of 
that publication. Overseeing the peer review process for one's own publication is not tantamount to judging 
the work of others for purposes of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or bu~iness~related 
contributions of major signzjicance in the3eld. 
The petitioner provided several witness letters in support of the petition. 
Dr. Timothy Hallman, STAR Spokesperson and Group Leader at the Brookhaven National Laboratory 
(BNL), states: 
The work done by [the petitioner] has been key to the successful use of the TPC [Time Projection 
Chamber] in STAR. Once calibrated, [the petitioner] has used information from this detector to 
produce the first results on lambda hyperon production at RHIC. The production of Lambda hyperons 
is of great scientific interest because these sub-atomic particles contain a strange quark, normally not 
found in nature. 
Dr. Charles Whitten, Professor of Physics, UCLA, states: 
In his work with our group [the petitioner] quickly established himself as an exceptional experimental 
physicist. During the 1997-2000 period our research group was involved with developing analysis 
software to use with a major . . . detector, the Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC (STAR) Time Projection 
Chamber (TPC), then under construction at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. [The petitioner's] work on 
a variety of projects connected with the TPC including the accurate alignment of the TPC using cosmic 
rays, the production of a sophisticated code to simulate the TPC response, and a systematic study of 
ExB distortions in the TPC was truly outstanding. 
The petitioner submits letters from other researchers at UCLA who provide similar information such as Dr. 
Stephen Trentalange and the petitioner's Ph.D. thesis supervisor, Dr. Huan Huang. 
Dr. Howard Wieman, Senior Staff Scientist, Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkley National 
Laboratory, states: "[The petitioner] is internationally recognized for his-development of a sofbvare program 
WAC 03 105 52560 
Page 5 
which simulates the detailed performance of the STAR TPC. This program is critical to the analysis of all 
the STAR data and publications." 
Dr. Renee Bellwied, Professor of Physics, Wayne State University, states that he has collaborated with the 
petitioner since the petitioner became a graduate student at UCLA in 1998. Dr. Bellwied further states: 
[The petitioner] has developed and applied novel software in order to measure the existence of specific 
particles generated during the violent collision of two Gold particles traveling with almost the speed of 
light. . . . [The petitioner's] analysis enabled us to isolate the strange baryons from the more mundane 
debris of such a collision in a genuine way, a way which he developed all by himself. 
We accept that petitioner's work has yielded some useful and valid results; however, it is apparent that any 
Ph.D. thesis or journal article, 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 who successfully develops and applies novel software to a particular project, has 
made a major contribution in his field. In this case, the record lacks extensive documentation showing that 
the petitioner's work has attracted a significant level of national or international attention beyond UCLA or 
the STAR collaborative project. Without extensive documentation showing that the petitioner's work has 
been unusually influential or highly acclaimed throughout the greater field, we cannot conclude that it fulfills 
this criterion. 
In regard to the letters of support offered with this petition, we note that all of the testimonials in this case 
were written either by STAR project collaborators or the petitioner's professors at UCLA. This fact indicates 
that while the petitioner's work is valued by those close to him, others outside his circle of collaborators 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 his fellow collaborators, 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 limited to the 
STAR collaborative project and UCLA, then he has not achieved national or international acclaim regardless 
of the expertise of his project leaders, collaborators, and professors. An individual with sustained national or 
international acclaim should be able to produce ample unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
In regard to the petitioner's conference presentations, the record contains no documentation demonstrating 
that the presentation of one's work is unusual in the field of physics or that the invitation to present at the 
petitioner's conferences was a privilege extended to only a small number of top nuclear physicists. 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. The record contains no evidence 
showing that the petitioner's 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 
field of nuclear physics, acclaim is generally not established by the mere act of presenting one's work at a 
conference. 
WAC 03 105 52560 
Page 6 
In conclusion, we find that the documentation presented in regard to this criterion is not adequate to support a 
finding that the petitioner's work in nuclear physics is nationally or internationally acclaimed throughout this 
field as a major contribution. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eld, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his co-authorship of articles appearing in publications such as Physical 
Review Letters, Physical Review C, and Nuclear Physics. The director's decision noted that the petitioner was 
only one of scores of authors who contributed to these publications. The director specifically cited two papers in 
which the petitioner was listed as the 1 42nd and 2 lSt author. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from Dr. James Thomas, Deputy Spokesman for STAR at RHIC, 
Brookhaven National Laboratory. Dr. Thomas notes that "the author list of all papers from the STAR 
Collaboration (and most high energy physics groups worldwide) is strictly alphabetical." The AAO's review of 
the petitioner's publications confirms that the authors are indeed listed alphabetically. Dr. Thomas cites two 
Physical Review Letters publications for which the petitioner "especially contributed as primary author." One of 
these publications was mentioned in Professor Harris' e-mail, which referred to the petitioner as a "principal 
author." 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes evidence showing that "Mid-rapidity Lambda and Lambda bar 
Production in AU + AU Collisions . . .," a paper published in Physical Review Letters for which the petitioner 
served as primary author, has been cited 67 times. 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 article demonstrates a 
significant degree of interest in, and reliance on, his work. While a large percentage of these cites are from 
STAR project collaborators, we find that the petitioner's evidence is adequate to minimally satisfy this 
criterion. Based on the evidence provided on appeal, the director's finding in regard to this criterion is 
withdrawn. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments thae have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Cecile Chang, Academic Apprentice Personnel, Department of Physics and 
Astronomy, UCLA, stating that the petitioner is employed as a "Postgraduate Researcher." We do not find, 
however, that the petitioner's roles as a graduate student and postdoctoral researcher at UCLA are tantamount to a 
leading or critical role in the same manner as that of a professor or research group leader. The petitioner's roles at 
UCLA represent temporary training for future employment in a field of endeavor. This criterion, like all of the 
criteria, is intended to separate the petitioner from the majority of his colleagues in the physics field. 
Therefore, when determining the petitioner's eligibility, it is entirely appropriate to compare the petitioner's 
role to that of his witnesses. In this case, it is immediately apparent that the importance of the role of 
individuals such as Professors Whitten and Bellwied, for example, far exceeds that of the petitioner. While 
WAC 03 105 52560 
Page 7 
we accept that the petitioner has contributed to the STAR collaborative project, it has not been shown that his 
role is any more critical than that of the other accomplished scientists working on this endeavor. 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. 
Evidence that the alien hus commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field 
The letter fiom Cecile Chang of UCLA indicates that the petitioner earned a salary of $40,5 12.00 in 2003. The 
record contains no evidence showing that this salary is significantly high when compared to that of other nuclear 
physicists. 
In this case, we find that the evidence presented satisfies only one of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). 
The fundamental nature of this highly restrictive visa classification demands comparison between the 
petitioner and others in his field. The regulatory criteria describe types of evidence that the petitioner may 
submit, but it does not follow that every scientific researcher who has published the results of his work, 
presented findings at a scientific conference, or earned the respect of a handful of his research collaborators, is 
among the small percentage at the very top of the field. While the burden of proof for this visa classification 
is not an easy one to satisfy, the classification itself is not meant to be easy to obtain; an alien who is not at 
the top of his or her field will be, by definition, unable to submit adequate evidence to establish such acclaim. 
This classification is for individuals at the rarefied heights of their respective fields; an alien can be 
successfbl, and even win praise fiom experts in the field, without reaching the top of that field. 
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 as nuclear physics 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 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. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.