dismissed EB-1A Case: Optical Engineering

identlQing data deleted LO 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administ~ative 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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
hn F. Grissom 
vcting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner argues that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) and that the director applied incorrect standards in denying the petition. 
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. 
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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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.K. 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 sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on June 7, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a postdoctoral scholar and/or researcher and/or scientist. 
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, internationally 
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. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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). 
In response to the director's Request For Evidence ("RFE") and on appeal, counsel cites Buletini v. INS, 
860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994), for the proposition that meeting three criteria is sufficient to 
establish eligibility. In contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States 
circuit court, the AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court 
in cases arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). The 
reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly 
before the AAO; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. 
In addition, as the published decisions of the district courts are not binding on the AAO outside of 
that particular proceeding, the unpublished decision of a district court would necessarily have even 
less persuasive value. 
Regardless, while we agree with the Buletini court that an alien need only meet three of the 
regulatory criteria, we do not understand the court to mean that an alien need only submit evidence 
relating to three of the regulatory criteria. The court in Buletini did not hold that the submission of 
evidence relating to a given criterion was sufficient. Rather, the court acknowledged that INS, now 
USCIS, "must evaluate the quality, including the credibility, of the evidence presented to determine 
if it, in fact, satisfies the criteria." Buletini, 860 F. Supp. 1234. Moreover, in determining whether 
the alien meets a given criterion, the evidence must be evaluated as to whether it is indicative of or 
consistent with national or international acclaim if the statutory basis for this classification is to have 
any meaning. 
We do not find it violates the reasoning in Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 123 1, to examine the evidence 
submitted as to whether it is indicative of or inconsistent with national or international acclaim. The 
court in Buletini was concerned that an alien would need to first demonstrate "extraordinary ability" 
in order to meet this criterion. We are not following this "circular exercise" that troubled the court. 
Rather, we are looking at the type of review responsibilities inherent to the field and what review 
responsibilities might be indicative of or at least consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. Accord Yasar v. Dep't of Homeland Security, 2006 Westlaw 778623, *9 (S.D. Tex. March 24, 
2006) (citing Buletini as an example of sufficient judging responsibilities rather than for the proposition 
that no evaluation of the judging responsibilities is permissible). 
As aforementioned, each petition must be adjudicated on its own merits under the statutory provisions 
and regulations which apply. Thus, the petitioner's eligibility will be evaluated under the regulatory 
criteria relating to the immigrant classification as claimed by the petitioner. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the Jield for which 
class$cation is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orJields. 
The petitioner initially provided a membership card for The International Society for Optical 
Engineering, which indicated that he was a regular member and that his membership status expired 
on January 3 1, 2007. The petitioner did not claim this criterion either initially, in response to the 
WE or on appeal, and no further evidence was submitted. Nonetheless, as pertinent evidence was 
initially submitted for this criterion, it was considered. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criteria, 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, recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, 
do not satis@ this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. 
Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership 
requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The record lacked evidence to establish that outstanding achievements are required for membership 
in The International Society for Optical Engineering. For example, no evidence was included (such 
as membership bylaws or official admission requirements) to show that the organization requires 
outstanding achievements or that membership applications are judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in thejeld for which class@cation 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 regulation, 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. An alien would not earn acclaim at the national level from a local publication. Some 
Page 5 
newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular locality but would qualify as 
major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local community papers.' 
The petitioner submitted the following as evidence for this criterion: 
1. An article from Xi'an Wanbao entitled, "If decide to do, be the best," dated May 31, 1999, 
without an author, accompanied by an uncertified translation; 
2. An article from Xi'an Wanbao entitled, "Working hard for five years and will obtain three 
degrees," dated April 2 1, 1999, without an author, accompanied by an uncertified translation; 
and 
3. An article from China Youth Daily entitled "University of Science and Technology of China, 
a developing university toward top rank in the world," dated July 5, 1999, without an author, 
accompanied by an uncertified translation. 
In reference to the RFE, the petitioner provided descriptions of the newspapers, Xi'an Wanbao and 
China Youth Daily, which were allegedly excerpts from websites. However, the actual internet pages 
were not provided. Instead, portions of websites were cut and pasted into the same document as the 
uncertified translation. The description of Xi'un Wanbao stated that the newspaper's daily circulation is 
620,000 copies and that it is the largest circulated paper in the Anhui Province. The description 
submitted regarding the China Youth Daily indicated that it is the leading newspaper for youth in China, 
that it distributes over 1 million copies and that it is the third most popular newspaper in the country 
according to the National Bureau of Statistics. On appeal, no new evidence was submitted. 
The director found that the petitioner failed to satisfy this criterion, and we concur with his decision. 
This criterion specifically requires that the evidence submitted contains a title, date, author and 
translation, if necessary. The petitioner failed to submit the name of the author for all three articles 
(items 1-3). In addition, neither the articles (items 1-3) nor the translated descriptions of the newspapers 
were accompanied by certified translations. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), any document 
containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language 
translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
Finally, the evidence (such as circulation statistics) showing that the preceding articles submitted by 
the petitioner were printed in professional or major trade publications or some other form of major 
media was unreliable as the independent original evidence was not submitted. Nonetheless, Xi'an 
Wanbao appears to be a regional paper of the Anhui Province rather than a nationally or internationally 
circulated publication. Regional coverage or coverage in a publication read by only a small ethnic 
segment of a country's total population is not evidence of national or international acclaim. 
For all of the above stated reasons, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
1 
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. 
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 classijication is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted the following as evidence for this criterion: 
1. An email, dated November 26, 2006, with a subject of "Transmag: Review Assignment," 
from the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Transactions on Magnetics 
which thanked the petitioner for agreeing to review a manuscript for the journal; 
2. An email, dated October 3, 2006, with a subject of "Review paper 06," which asked the 
petitioner to review a paper being submitted for the Magnetism & Magnetic 
MaterialsIInternet annual meeting; 
3. An email, dated May 18, 2005, from the International Journal of Solids and Structures at 
Stanford University, which requested that the petitioner review a manuscript for its journal; 
and 
4. Copies of four technical paper review forms that the petitioner purportedly reviewed (one of 
the review forms does not even mention the petitioner) for the IEEE Transactions on Signal 
Processing journal. 
No new evidence was submitted in response to the WE or on appeal. 
The director did not find that the petitioner met this criterion, and we agree. The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be 
accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or 
her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the petitioner's 
participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to 
evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the 
extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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). For example, judging a national competition for top 
researchers and/or scientists is of far greater probative value than judging a local competition for youth 
or novices. 
The petitioner provided evidence regarding his review of various journal submissions for various 
university science journals. However, the record lacks evidence establishing the level of prestige 
associated with reviewing these journal entries, the requirements necessary to become a reviewer of 
such submissions, and the levels of expertise of the candidates who submitted manuscripts. The 
evidence also fails to provide any specificity regarding the journals in which the petitioner judged. 
Moreover, without evidence showing, for example, that the petitioner's activities were otherwise 
consistent with sustained national or international acclaim, we cannot conclude that he meets this 
criterion. 
In response to the RFE and on appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner need only show that he has 
judged the work of others in his field, and that he does not have to demonstrate that he was selected as a 
judge based on specific criteria. Counsel claims that this violates the principles set forth in Buletini v. 
INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994). The court in Buletini found that requiring a petitioner to 
demonstrate that a particular judging responsibility required extraordinary ability was circular. To 
avoid any analysis of the judging panel, however, would be to equate the members of local, low- 
level panels with the national level panels. Obviously, most judging falls between the two extremes 
and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Such evaluation considers not whether the position 
requires extraordinary ability, the concept rejected by the Buletini court, but whether the judging 
position is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. Those who are sought 
as judges by national entities or local entities outside their communities have a stronger claim than 
those who volunteer for local panels. 
Moreover, two district courts have confirmed ow reasoning holding that Buletini does not stand for the 
proposition that any and all judging is sufficient. See Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 "9 (S.D. Tex. 
Mar. 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning Services, Inc., 2005 WL 4045866 * 11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2005). 
While Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1231, concluded that the petitioner need not demonstrate that the 
alien was selected as a judge because of the alien's national or international acclaim, that case does 
not stand for the proposition that USCIS is precluded from evaluating the significance of the alien's 
judging services. Rather, the evidence submitted to meet this criterion must be indicative of or 
consistent with national or international acclaim. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 *9 (S.D. 
Tex. March 24, 2006); All Pro Cleaning Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 *11 (S.D. Tex. 
Aug. 26,2005). The petitioner has failed to show how his review of various journals is indicative of 
or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted the following as evidence for this criterion: 
1. A letter from Honda congratulating 
 at the University of California, Irvine, for 
winning the 2006 Honda Initiation grant and a graph listing him as one of the six winners for 
his project entitled, "Development of Colloidal Dampers for Semi-Active Isolation and 
Suspension Systems," accompanied by two pages regarding the project; 
2. A copy of a grant proposal and the award from the National Science Foundation for a project 
entitled, "MRI: Development of a fabrication and testing system of magnetorheological smart 
nanocomposites," accompanied by a summary of the project, which does not indicate that the 
petitioner was involved as an investigator or otherwise; 
3. A certificate of award for the 6" "Challenge Cup" Competition for national college students' 
scientific works, dated October 1999; 
4. A certificate of scholarship awarding the petitioner the "Qiu-shi" scholarship for graduate 
students at the University of Science and Technology in China, dated September 2000; 
5. An index of citations to the petitioner's works from Google Scholar; 
6. Various articles which cite to the petitioner's work; 
7. Internet pages from SPIE Digital Library that according to the petitioner document his "oral 
and poster presentations at The International Society for Optical Engineering's annual 
conference 2003,2005 and 2006;" 
8. A copy of the petitioner's United States patent application for the invention, "Method and 
system of smart colloidal dampers with controllable damping curves using magnetic field;" 
9. A copy of the petitioner's People's Republic of China patent confirmation, granted February 
2005, for the invention, "Magnetorhreological Fluid Linear Dampers (Shock Absorbers) for 
Vehicles;" 
10. A copy of the petitioner's People's Republic of China patent confirmation, granted February 
2005, for the invention, "Rotary Magnetorhreological Fluid Dampers;" 
11. A copy of the petitioner's People's Republic of China patent confirmation, granted April 
2004, for the invention, "Rheometer for Rotary Magnetorhreological Fluids;" 
12. An email from from NanoSPRINT, which invited the petitioner to contribute to 
an encyclopedia on carbon nanotubes and their application fields; 
13. An email from a doctoral student in the United Kingdom requesting additional information 
about the petitioner's work; and 
14. Several letters of recommendation. 
In response to the director's WE, the petitioner provided additional reference letters. The petitioner 
also submitted information from Honda's website which requested proposals for the initiation grant. 
Lastly, the petitioner submitted his online United States Patent application (item 8), which he claims 
was granted in his response brief. However, the evidence provided does not appear to confirm the 
grant of a United States Patent. No further evidence was provided on appeal. 
With regard to the Honda Initiation grant (item I), there was no independent evidence provided that 
established the petitioner's involvement in this project. In response to the RFE, the petitioner 
provided additional information regarding the award, but failed to respond directly to the RFE and 
did not submit evidence relating to his role in this research grant. Additionally, it is unclear how an 
award for a grant, by itself, which allows for sponsorship and research would qualify the petitioner 
under this criterion. Likewise, the grant proposal and award for item 2 does not satisfy this criterion 
as the petitioner's name does not appear on any of the documents and as the grant award, without 
further evidence of the research that resulted, would not satisfy this criterion. Moreover, the 
academic scholarship and award provided in items 3 and 4 do not fulfill this criterion because it has 
not been demonstrated how this evidence represents a contribution of major significance. Further, 
these academic awards were given to the petitioner almost a decade ago. As such, the sustained 
acclaim required under 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act by this highly restrictive classification cannot be 
demonstrated. 
While the findings set forth in articles may constitute contributions of major significance, the burden is 
on the petitioner to establish the significance of his work. The petitioner cannot meet this criterion 
simply by showing that his work has been published or that others have cited to it (items 5 and 6) in 
their own publications. To satisfy the criterion relating to original contributions of major significance, 
the petitioner must demonstrate not only that his work is novel and usehl, but also that it has attracted 
sustained attention and had a demonstrable impact on his field at the national or international level. The 
petitioner has not shown how the field has changed as a result of his work, beyond the incremental 
improvements in knowledge and understanding that are expected from valid original research. Further, 
the petitioner has not demonstrated that he has earned national or international acclaim as a result of his 
publications. 
As further documentation of the petitioner's claimed major contributions, the petitioner provided 
evidence in item 7 wherein he claimed he made several presentations at scientific gatherings. 
However, the evidence submitted was very unclear, failing to indicate what conferences the 
petitioner participated in or his role in such presentations. Nonetheless, even if the evidence 
provided confirmed the petitioner's participation in such presentations, the petitioner did not submit 
any evidence regarding the type of audience who attended his presentations, the number of 
attendees, or the selection criteria for the presenters. As such, the evidence does not demonstrate 
that the petitioner's participation in these claimed conferences illustrated his national or international 
acclaim or that his participation in these events was a contribution of major significance to his field. 
The petitioner provided his United States patent application and his Chinese patents (items 8, 9, 10, 
and ll), but failed to submit evidence that demonstrates the impact or significance of these 
inventions in his field. Moreover, the petitioner submitted two emails, one from someone interested 
in using his work for an encyclopedia (item 12) and the other from a student asking for more 
information regarding his research (item 13). Neither of these emails illustrates how the petitioner 
made a contribution of major significance. 
With regard to the reference letters provided, we concede that reference letters can provide useful 
information about an alien's qualifications or help in assigning weight to certain evidence. However, 
such letters are not a substitute for objective evidence of the alien's achievements and recognition as 
required by the statute and regulations. The nonexistence of required evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the classification sought requires 
"extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provide that the "intent of 
Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" 
for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). Primary evidence of 
achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than the opinions of one's professional 
acquaintances. 
In his decision, the director found that the petitioner had not satisfied this criterion, and we agree. 
The petitioner has failed to establish how his work has influenced his field and how it is considered 
to have been a contribution of major significance to his field. Accordingly, 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 petitioner submitted his resume, which listed his published articles. The petitioner also provided 
a printout from Google Scholar, which indicated his articles were cited to 21 times. Copies of the 
title pages from some of the articles the petitioner published were also submitted. In addition, the 
petitioner provided information regarding two journals including internet pages from the Smart 
Materials and Structures Journal, which indicated that it publishes six issues per year and the subject 
areas it covers and a list of publications where its articles can be found abstracted, as well as internet 
pages from the International Journal of Solids and Structures with general descriptive information. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided two articles he published and an updated citation list 
dated November 27, 2008 with some articles that cited to his work. The first article entitled, "Smart 
colloidal dampers with on-demand controllable damping capability," was undated but indicated that 
the manuscript was submitted to Smart Materials and Structures on March 4, 2008. The second 
article entitled, "Damping Performance of a Passive Colloidal Damper," was also undated and it is 
unclear where the article was published. As the publisher of the second article was not provided, the 
evidence is incomplete. The petition was filed on June 7, 2007, prior to the first article's publication 
and possibly prior to the second article being published as well. A petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Comm. 1971). As such, the two articles provided in response to the RFE cannot be considered. 
No new evidence was submitted on appeal. However, the petitioner's appeal brief argued that 
several of the recommendation letters, including those from and - 
referred to the publications in which his articles appeared as "highly rated peer-reviewed journals" 
and "most highly respected peer reviewed journals." 
As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to the research field: such as the instant case where the 
petitioner was a doctoral candidate and now works in the research field, we evaluate the citation 
history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles when determining their 
significance to the field. The petitioner failed to provide any of the articles in which his articles 
were cited to and instead provided a list from Google Scholar. The petitioner therefore failed to 
demonstrate that his articles were frequently cited in a manner consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. Although the petitioner is the author of articles in professional publications, 
2 
 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 was the acknowledgement that "the appointee has the freedom, and is 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 andlor research career." This report reinforces USCIS's conclusion that publication of scholarly 
articles is not presumptive evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. 
this is expected of anyone working in this field, and there is no evidence that his articles have 
resulted in sustained national or international acclaim in his field. 
As such, 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 did not originally submit any evidence for this criterion, and also indicated the same 
in his initial brief. The petitioner conceded his failure to initially claim this criterion and then 
claimed it in his RFE response brief. The petitioner stated that the reference letter from 
provides support for this criterion by indicating that the petitioner performed a leading 
role as a lab manager in the Magnetoheliological Fluids/Electrorheological Fluids Lab in the 
Department of Modern Mechanics at USTC in China. The letter explained that the petitioner set-up 
this new laboratory, and managed it for five years supervising 22 researchers, consisting of both 
graduate and undergraduate students. On atmeal. no new evidence was ~rovided. However. the 
w w AA , 
petitioner's a eal brief cited to two additional reference letters, one from d the other 
from The latter recommendation letter confirmed his work in the aforementioned lab. 
The previous reference letter discussed the petitioner's alleged idea that was recognized by Honda and 
that he and his current supervisor are now filing for a patent regarding the idea. 
In order to establish that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment with a distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role 
within the entire organization or establishment and the reputation of the organization or 
establishment. There was little evidence provided regarding the petitioner's position as a lab 
manager. While the petitioner may have provided valuable services to the university in China, this 
criterion requires the petitioner to set himself apart from his peers and demonstrate how his leading or 
critical role was indicative of national or international acclaim. Moreover, the evidence regarding the 
petitioner's idea that was recognized by Honda was not expanded upon enough to demonstrate how the 
petitioner performed a leadership role, including who he led, with regard to his idea. Further, none of 
the evidence provided from Honda for the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) indicated that the 
petitioner was involved with the award grant. The petitioner additionally failed to provide any 
independent evidence from sources outside of his employers. 
In addition, the petitioner also failed to provide sufficient evidence to confirm that the two 
organizations he worked for enjoy distinguished reputations, as compared to their competitors. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized 
award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Review of the record 
does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may be said to 
have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely 
with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.