dismissed EB-1A Case: Operations Research

Identifying data deleted to 
pNvent clearly unwarranted 
iaV1lNon ofperw1a\ pr'vac~ 
PUBLTCCOPT 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 20<)0 
Washington. DC 20529·2090 
u. S. Ci tizenshi p 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
APR 1 9 1011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
;l 
\>\0...... .,._,> .. < 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the 
director's decision. 
1. LAW 
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 into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. Id.; 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." [d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to 
satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." [d. at 1122 
(citing to 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3». 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. [d. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed 
extraordinary 
working as an 
on December 16, 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
in the field of operations research. At the time of filing, the petitioner was 
the University of Washington. The petitioner has submitted documentatIOn pertammg to 
following categories of evidence under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
at 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he received a National Science 
Foundation (NSF) "Standard Grant" in August 2008 for his project entitled "Approximate 
Fictitious Play for the Optimization of Complex Systems." The petitioner also submitted an 
excerpt from the February 2009 National Science Foundation Proposal and Award Policies and 
Procedures Guide stating: 
The National Science Foundation strives to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit­
review process for the selection of projects. All NSF proposals are evaluated through use 
of two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. 
* * * 
The two merit review criteria are listed below. 
* * * 
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? 
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding 
within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer 
(individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on 
the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore 
creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and 
organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources? 
What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? 
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting 
teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 5 
participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, 
etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as 
facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated 
broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits 
of the proposed activity to society? 
According to the preceding information submitted by the petitioner, the NSF grant received by 
him was intended to fund a "proposed" research activity rather than to recognize his past 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
submits documentation indicating that he received a NSF_ 
for his project entitled 
The petitioner was 
•••••• iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil ••• filing date. 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b )(1), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not consider 
the petitioner's February 2011 NSF grant in this proceeding. 
Regarding the NSF research grants for which the petitioner applied and received funding, the AAO 
notes that research grants simply fund a scientist's work. Every successful scientist engaged in 
research, of which there are hundreds of thousands, receives funding from somewhere. Obviously 
the past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals. The funding 
institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. 
Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fund future research, and not to honor or 
recognize past achievement. In this matter, there is no documentary evidence showing that 
petitioner's NSF "Standard" Grants equate to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Published material 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. 
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. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
Page 6 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers? 
The petitioner submitted copies of a National Research Council report, a book chapter, and three 
research articles that cite to his work. The articles, report, and book chapter which cite to the 
petitioner's work are primarily about the authors' own work or recent developments in the field in 
general, and are not about the petitioner or even his work. The plain language of the regulation at 
8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien" relating to his 
work rather than simply about the petitioner's work. Compare 8 CF.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating 
to outstanding researchers or professors pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Act. See also, e.g., 
Accord Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding 
a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). It cannot be credibly asserted that the 
submitted publications are "about" the petitioner. The submitted articles do not discuss the 
petitioner's standing in the field or any other information so as to be considered published 
material about him as required by this regulatory criterion. Moreover, the AAO notes that the 
submitted articles, report, and book chapter similarly referenced numerous other authors. The 
material citing to the petitioner's work is more relevant to the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will be addressed there. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
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 allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he served on a NSF Peer Review Panel on 
December 18,2009. The petitioner's participation on this panel post-dates the petition's December 
16, 2009 filing date. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
8 CF.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO 
will not consider the petitioner's December 18, 2009 participation on the NSF Peer Review Panel 
in this proceeding. Regardless, additional documentation submitted by the petitioner 
demonstrates that he served as 
on 
petitioner also submitted 
evidence showing that he peer-reviewed manuscripts for Journal of Global Optimization, 
Operations Research, Optimization Letters, Probability in the Engineering and Informational 
Sciences, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Networks, Transactions on Modeling and 
Computer Simulation, Discrete Optimization, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 
Journal on Optimization, and Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management 
Science. This documentation meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 CF.R. 
3 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 7 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
In the director's decision, she determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
regulatory criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires 
"[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field." [Emphasis added.] Here, the evidence must be 
reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original scientific or scholarly-related 
contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3Td Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 
2003). 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his work. 
I know [the petitioner's] work quite well through several of the important papers that he 
has published and a thorough review of his CV [curriculum vitae]. The first 
overwhelming and objective evidence of [the petitioner's] national and international 
reputation is his success in publishing scholarly articles in leading journals in our field. I 
particularly want to draw your attention to his multiple papers in Operations Research 
and Operations Research Letters and also his papers in Manufacturing and Service 
Operations Management and Networks, among others. Through my editorial service to 
some of these journals and my own extensive experience with the publication process, I 
know for a fact that they have extremely low acceptance rates . . .. For instance, 
Operations Research is the top international journal in our field and it is exceptionally 
impressive that [the petitioner] has published two papers in that journal within a short 
period of time. Operations Research Letters is another highly respected international 
journal that specializes in rapid dissemination of important novel ideas and [the 
petitioner] has already published three papers in that journal. Similarly, Manufacturing 
and Service Operations Management is one of the two top international journals that 
focus on applications of Operations Research methods to operations management. 
Again, [the petitioner] has published a paper in that journal. I could go on, but the key 
point is that [the petitioner] has published articles in the very best journals in our field, 
which is clear and objective proof of the significance of [the petitioner's] contributions 
and his extraordinary research ability. 
With regard to regarding petitioner's published work, the regulations 
contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the 
Page 8 
scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. Here 
it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. 
Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of 
major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. To hold 
otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the 
regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Publications and 
presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that 
they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) a/I'd 
in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the 
AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of 
major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. Thus, there is no presumption that every published article 
or conference presentation is a contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner must 
document the actual impact of his article or presentation. 
Initially and in response to the director's request for evidence, the petItIOner submitted 
documentary evidence showing that his published work has been cited to by others in the field. The 
number of independent citations per article, however, is minimal. For instance, the petitioner's 
response to the director's request for evidence included screenshots from Google Scholar 
reflecting that none of the petitioner's articles was independently cited to more than three times. 
Specifically: 
1. "A dynamic programming approach to efficient sampling from Boltzmann distributions" 
(Operations Research Letters) was independently cited to twice; 
2. "Adaptive parameterized improving hit-and-run for global optimization" (Optimization 
Methods and Software) was independently cited to once; 
3. "Joint Optimization of Capital Investment, Revenue Management, and Production 
Planning in Complex Manufacturing Systems" was independently cited to twice (plus 
three self-citations by the petitioner); 
4. "Adaptive search with stochastic acceptance probabilities for global optimization" 
(Operations Research Letters) was independently cited to three times (Plus one self­
citation by the petitioner); 
5. "Discrete Hit-and-Run for Sampling Points from Arbitrary Distributions Over Subsets of 
Integer Hyperrectangles" (Operations Research) was independently cited to three times; 
and 
6. "A Shadow Simplex Method for Infinite Linear Programs" (Operations Research) was 
independently cited to twice. 
Self-citation is a normal, expected practice. Self-citation cannot, however, demonstrate the 
response of independent researchers. The petitioner has not established that the number of 
Page 9 
independent cites to the preceding articles is indicative of original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
I served as [the petitioner's] from September 2003 to 
August 2006 at the University of Michigan .... 
During the time he worked in my Dynamic Systems Optimization Laboratory, [the 
petitioner] made at least two discoveries of major significance to Operations Research: 
1. Several leading groups around the world had tried but failed to develop a Simplex­
type algorithm for infinite linear programming problems. . .. Challenges in designing 
such an algorithm were well documented at least since the 1980s; however, a 
satisfactory resolution was not available until [the petitioner's] breakthrough ideas on 
geometric and algebraic properties of these problems led to the development of the 
Shadow Simplex method. This algorithm is the first-ever Simplex-type technique for 
solving infinite linear programs and [the petitioner's] first-authored paper based on 
this work was accepted for publication in Operations Research. . .. We have also 
published another paper in this area in Operations Research Letters and are currently 
working on a third manuscript. ... 
* * * 
2. [The petitioner] first proved that Sampled Fictitious Play, an algorithm rooted in 
game theory, can be used to successfully solve sequential optimization problems. 
Until his major discovery, Sampled Fictitious Play was only known to converge to 
Nash equilibria of a class of finite games. [The petitioner's] contribution has opened 
the door for the development of powerful algorithms for solving highly complex 
optimization problems that arise in a wide range of fields important to the American 
economy including manufacturing and transportation .... 
states that the petitioner developed algorithms for infinite linear programming 
problems and for sequential optimization problems, but he does not provide specific examples of 
how the petitioner's work is being utilized by others in the field. There is no evidence showing 
that the petitioner's work is frequently cited by independent researchers, that his algorithms are 
being widel y applied in the manufacturing or transportation industries, or that his work otherwise 
constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field. 
I served as the Area Editor for two of [the petitioner's] important papers published in the 
journal Operations Research Letters over the last two years. In one of these papers, he 
Page 10 
has developed an innovative approach that applies a mathematical technique called 
dynamic programming for designing efficient Markov chain based sampling 
algorithms .... Whereas traditional approaches only perform a steady-state analysis of 
such algorithms, [the petitioner's] work provides novel insight into their transient 
behavior and hence creates opportunities for practical improvements. In the other paper, 
[the petitioner] has developed and mathematically analyzed a new class of Markov chain 
algorithms for solving stochastic optimization problems wherein the performance metric 
to be optimized is not computable exactly but rather must be estimated by computer 
simulations or system runs. My own research group has referred to some of his work in 
the recent past. [The petitioner] has also been instrumental in proving certain unique 
mathematical properties of a Markov chain called Discrete Hit-and-Run, which were 
recently reported in Operations Research, a flagship journal of our field. 
comments on the petitioner's articles in Operations Research Letters and 
tions search, but there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's findings were 
frequently cited by other researchers, that his mathematical approaches have been widely utilized 
in the field, or that his work otherwise equates to original scientific contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
An important component of [the petitioner's] research focuses on solving non-stationary 
infinite-horizon optimization problems in operations management in the manufacturing 
and service sectors. . .. [The petitioner] has recently resolved a long-standing open 
question in this area by designing what he called a "shadow simplex method" for solving 
infinite linear programs. He recently presented this work in an invited session that I 
chaired at a National Science Foundation-funded conference at Cornell University. This 
research has been accepted for publication in Operations Research, one of the top-ranked 
journals in our field. In addition, [ the petitioner] has published two important papers in 
this area, one in Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, and another in 
Operations Research Letters. 
states that the petitioner designed a "shadow simplex method" for solving infinite 
linear programs, but he does not provide specific examples of how the method has been 
successfully implemented in the manufacturing industry or service sector, or otherwise 
constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. The petitioner's field, like 
most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in publishing or presenting 
research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. To satisfy the criterion 
relating to original contributions of major significance, the petitioner must demonstrate not only that 
his methodologies are novel and useful, but also that they have already made a demonstrable impact 
on his field as a whole. 
Page 11 
[The petitioner] has developed a shadow simplex algorithm in 2007-2008 to solve an 
important class of optimization problems known to be very difficult since the 1980s. 
[The petitioner's] outstanding work has led to an effective mathematical tool that can be 
used by managers at government, private and non-profit organizations for strategic long­
term planning. I heard first-hand his research ingenuity in making this contribution at an 
invited talk he presented at a conference this 
past July. 
[The petitioner] has also proposed a mathematical modeling and optimization approach to 
improve the efficacy of cancer radiotherapy. In contrast to more traditional radiotherapy 
treatment planning approaches that are static and anatomically motivated, [the 
petitioner's] technique dynamically adapts to a patient's actual biological response to 
treatment. His innovative work has been published in Physics in Medicine and Biology, 
which is a top-tier journal published by the Institute of Physics and Engineering .... 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] innovative work on different optimization problems has resulted in a 
significant number of peer-reviewed publications, including publications in the most 
prestigious scientific journals in the field worldwide (including Operations Research, 
published by the Institute of Operations Research and Management Sciences). 
While the petitioner'S published and presented 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, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful 
information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every scientist 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. comments that the petitioner's work 
"has resulted in a significant number of peer-reviewed publications," but there is no evidence 
indicating that the petitioner's findings are frequently cited by independent researchers or that 
they otherwise equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
[The petitioner] recently has proposed the application of a mathematical technique called 
Markov decision processes for designing patient -specific, adaptive-treatment strategies 
that exploit emerging advances in functional imaging techniques for cancer radiotherapy. 
His novel dynamic and biological paradigm is a significant advancement of the state-of­
the-art; which mostly takes only a static and anatomical view of the problem. [The 
petitioner's] work in this area has been published in a leading journal Physics in Medicine 
and Biology and is likely to have a significant impact on the future of cancer treatment. 
Page 12 
[The petitioner] has also pioneered the use of Markov chains - a powerful notion in 
probability - in the analysis of complex networks .... His excellent work on the small­
world hypothesis in this area has appeared in two journals of international repute, 
Networks and Advances in Applied Probability. 
opines that the petitioner's work is "likely to have a significant impact on the 
future of cancer treatment," but there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's findings had 
already notably influenced the field as of the date of filing. As previously discussed, eligibility 
must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based solely on the 
expectation of future eligibility. [d. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not 
show that his Markov decision processes technique for cancer radiotherapy has been successfully 
implemented in the healthcare industry, that his articles published in Physics in Medicine and 
Biology, Networks, and Advances in Applied Probability are frequently cited, or that his work 
otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field. 
I would like to provide an overview of [the petitioner's] pioneering work in this area to 
help demonstrate the substantial impact of his methodologies on operations research. 
• [The petitioner] initiated the use of dynamic programming in optimal design of 
Markov chains. His revolutionary analysis is set forth in his paper, "A dynamic 
programming approach to efficient sampling from Boltzmann distributions," 
published in the reputed international journal Operations Research Letters. Of 
note, the numerical results reported in [the petitioner's] paper demonstrate that the 
performance bounds on Markov chains designed using his approach can be 
hundreds of percentage points better than those on conventional Markov chains. 
• Moreover, [the petitioner] has pioneered the use of Markov chains in analyzing a 
famous problem called the "small world networks problem" that scientists have 
studied since the 1920s. In his article, "A hit-and-run approach to generating 
scale-invariant small world networks," [the petitioner's] elegant approach to 
address this long-standing problem has also opened the door for designing 
efficient optimization algorithms. This paper was published in_ the top 
international journal devoted to the study of network models, algorithms, and 
their applications. 
• [The petitioner's] article, "Decentralized search on spheres using small-world 
Markov chains: expected hitting times and structural properties," has appeared in 
the leading international journal Advances in Applied Probability. Here, [the 
petitioner] has provided the first ever rigorous analysis of an importance class of 
Markov chains through a clever use of non-Euclidean geometry. 
Page 13 
• [The petitioner] and co-authors are the first in the world to 
chains that can sample points from any distributions over any subset of a high­
dimensional grid. This is well-known to be a very difficult problem in the field, 
and hence it is no surprise that this work titled "Discrete Hit-and-Run for 
sampling points from arbitrary distributions over subsets of integer 
hyperrectangles" has appeared in Operations Research, the best journal in our 
field. 
_comments on the petitioner's articles in Operations Research Letters, Networks, 
Advances in Applied Probability, and Operations Research, but _ fails to provide 
specific examples of how the petitioner's work is being utilized throughout the field. There is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's articles are frequently cited, that his 
mathematical approaches have been widely applied by others in the field of operations research, 
or that his work otherwise equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
The journal, Operations Research, in which [the petitioner] has publish his work titled 
"A Shadow Simplex method for infinite linear programs," is considered the best journal 
in the field for both quality and visibility ratings. . .. In this landmark paper, [the 
petitioner] successfully solved a class of problems that had stumped researchers around 
the world since the mid-1980s. I would like to clarify the major significance of [the 
petitioner] having solved such a long-standing and difficult problem in the field. 
o The results of [the petitioner's] methodology are especially impressive due to the 
mathematical difficulties and scarce positive results in linear programming in 
(countabl y) infinite dimensional spaces. [The petitioner's] work takes the very 
hard problem of countably infinite linear programming (CILP) and achieves an 
algorithm which computes a convergent approximation to its solution using a 
finite amount of computations. This is a major contribution to the theory of CILP. 
o To accomplish his result, [the petitioner], as first author, builds upon the results 
from several previous papers in an elegant way to propose the Shadow Simplex 
method and demonstrates that it converges to the optimal cost and that it is a true 
generalization of the simplex method for certain practical infinite dimensional 
problems. As such, [the petitioner] has addressed and solved an important 
problem in the field, and practically, his mathematical tool can by utilized by 
managers at government or private institutes for strategic long-term planning to 
substantially improve operations and efficiency. 
that the petitioner's "mathematical tool can by utilized by managers at 
or pnvate institutes for strategic long-term planning to substantially improve 
operations and efficiency," but he fails to provide specific examples of industrial or commercial 
implementation of the petitioner's methodology, so as to demonstrate that the petitioner's work 
has been of major significance in the field. Further, the AAO notes that the Google Scholar 
Page 14 
screenshot submitted by the petItIOner for "A Shadow Simplex Method for Infinite Linear 
Programs" reflects only two independent cites to the article as of the petition's filing date. As 
previously discussed, the petitioner has not established that this minimal level of citation is 
indicative of an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
I invited [the petitioner] to contribute a chapter on "Infinite Horizon Problems" to the 
Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science (EORMS). [The 
petitioner's] chapter received excellent independent scientific reviews and has been 
accepted for publication. . .. With its broad and carefully structured coverage of 
mathematical theory, algorithms, modeling, and application issues in operations research 
and management science, EORMS will be a vital reference to the field available in print 
and online formats. (Please note that the online edition will be available in spring 2010 
and the print in fall 2010.) 
opines that "EORMS will be a vital reference to the field" upon its publication in 
any impact resulting from this publication post-dates the filing of the petition. As 
previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b )(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 
I&N Dec. at 175. Regardless, there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's 
contribution of a book chapter in EORMS constitutes an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered 
above. USeIS 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'r. 1988). 
However, USeIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of reference letters supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USeIS may evaluate the content of those 
letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of v­
K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the references' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a researcher who has 
made original contributions of major significance in the field. Without additional, specific 
evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, widely applied 
throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the 
AAO cannot conclude he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
Page 15 
The petitioner has documented his authorship of scholarly articles in reputable scientific journals 
and, thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, 
the petitioner has established that he meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted letters of s 
15, 2010 d his role as an 
The most recent letter from_ 
states: "u.s. News and World Report has consistently ranked our department in the top 25 
Industrial Engineering programs in the United States. . .. [The petitioner] plays a key research 
role in our department's collaborations with the School of Medicine and the Department of 
Global Health." The petitioner also submitted documentation indicating that he was appointed as 
an 
The record, however, does not include documentary evidence of the u.s. News and World 
Report rankings to support assertion. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not established that his department has a distinguished reputation. Further, the letters of support 
submitted by the petitioner fail to demonstrate that his role was leading or critical for the 
University of Washington, the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, or the 
Department of Radiology. The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not include an 
organizational chart or other evidence documenting where the petitioner's assistant professorship 
falls within the general hierarchy of his departments or the University of Washington. The 
petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his position differentiated him from the other 
assistant professors and researchers working in his departments, let alone the University of 
Washington's tenured faculty (associate professors and full professors) and department chairs. In 
this case, there is documentary evidence showing that the petitioner was responsible for the success 
or standing of the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, the Department of 
Radiology, or the University of Washington to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or 
critical role." Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
Page 16 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, 
in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. [d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(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. 
4 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Solfane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).