dismissed EB-1A Case: Optical Science And Engineering

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
'identifyingdatadeletedto "jÔ'2±£,"%i"©,$," s 091
prevent clearly unwarranted Washington,DC 20529-2090
invasionofpersonalprivacy U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
pgBLICCOPy services
FILE: Office: TEXASSERVICECENTER Date: OCT 1 8 2010
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedplease find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents
related to this matter have beenreturned to the office that originally decidedyour case. Pleasebe advised
thatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthat you wishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto the of1icethat originally decidedyour caseby filing a Form I-290B,Notice of Appealor
Motion. Thefee for a FormI-290B is currently$585,but will increaseto $630onNovember23, 2010. Any
appealor motion filed on or after November 23, 2010 must be filed with the $630 fee. Pleasebe awarethat
8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthatanymotionmustbefiled within 30daysof thedecisionthatthe motion
seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
Ou-
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition,whichis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.Theappealwill be
dismissed.
The petitionerseeksclassificationasan "alien of extraordinaryability" in the sciences,pursuantto
section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A).The
directordeterminedthe petitionerhadnot establishedthe sustainednationalor internationalacclaim
necessaryto qualify for classificationasanalienof extraordinaryability. As of thedateof filing, the
petitionerwas working under a postdoctoralappointment,an inherentlyentry-levelposition that
precedesa postsecondaryfaculty appointment. Seelittp://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm#trainina
(accessedOctober7,2010andincorporatedintotherecordof proceeding).
The petitioneris the beneficiaryof an approvedemployment-basedvisapetitionpursuantto section
203(b)(2)(B)of theAct, whichalsowaivedthealienemploymentcertificationprocessin thenational
interest. As with any petition, the issueis not whetherthe petitionerqualifies for any employment-
basedclassification,butwhetherthepetitionerqualifiesfor theclassificationsoughtin thisproceeding.
Congressseta veryhighbenchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryabilityby requiringthroughthestatute
that the petitionerdemonstratethe alien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"andpresent
"extensivedocumentation"of the alien's achievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthatanaliencan
establishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievementof a
major,internationallyrecognizedaward. Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,theregulationoutlines
ten categoriesof specific objectiveevidence. 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner
mustsubmitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatorycategoriesof evidenceto
establishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
Onappeal,counselsubmitsabrief. Forthereasonsdiscussedbelow,weupholdthedirector'sultimate
finding thatthepetitionerhasnot establishedhis eligibility for theexclusiveclassificationssought.
L Law
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priorityworkers.-- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswhoare
aliensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Aliens with extraordinaryability. - An alienis describedin this subparagraphif -
(i) the alien has extraordinaryability in the sciences,arts, education,
business,or athleticswhichhasbeendemonstratedbysustainednationalor
Page3
internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognizedin the
fieldthroughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continuework in theareaof
extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalizationService
(INS) haveconsistentlyrecognizedthat Congressintendedto seta very high standardfor individuals
seekingimmigrantvisasas aliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R. 723 1013'Cong.,2d Sess.59
(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"refersonlyto
thoseindividuals in that small percentagewho haverisento thevery top of the field of endeavor.Id;
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien'ssustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisor herachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimmustbeestablished
eitherthroughevidenceof a one-timeachievement(thatis,amajor,internationalrecognizedaward)or
throughthe submissionof qualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the following ten categoriesof
evidence.
(i) Documentationof thealien'sreceiptof lessernationallyor internationallyrecognized
prizesor awardsfor excellencein thefieldof endeavor;
(ii) Documentationof the alien'smembershipin associationsin the field for which
classificationis sought,which requireoutstandingachievementsof their members,as
judgedby recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor fields;
(iii) Publishedmaterialaboutthe alien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor
othermajormedia,relatingto the alien'swork in the field for whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,andany
necessarytranslation;
(iv) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudgeof
theworkof othersin thesameoranalliedfieldof specializationfor whichclassification
is sought;
(v) Evidenceof the alien'soriginalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,or business-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
Page4
(vi) Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield, in professional
or majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia;
(vii) Evidenceof the displayof thealien'swork in the field at artisticexhibitionsor
showcases;
(viii) Evidencethatthealienhasperformedin aleadingor criticalrolefor organizations
or establishmentsthathavea distinguishedreputation;
(ix) Evidencethatthe alienhascommandeda high salaryor othersignificantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationtoothersin thefield;or
(x) Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin the performingarts,asshownby box office
receiptsor record,cassette,compactdisk,or videosales.
In 2010,the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewedthe denialof a
petitionfiled underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir. 2010).Althoughthe
courtupheldtheAAO's decisionto denythepetition,thecourttookissuewith theAAO's evaluation
of evidencesubmittedto meeta given evidentiarycriterion With respectto the criteria at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), the court concludedthat while USCISmay haveraisedlegitimateconcerns
aboutthesignificanceof theevidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,thoseconcernsshouldhave
beenraisedin asubsequent"final meritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
Thecourtstatedthatthe AAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof the regulations.
Insteadof parsingthe significanceof evidenceaspartof the initial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureisto countthetypesof evidenceprovided(whichtheAAO did)," andif thepetitioner
failedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionisthattheapplicanthasfailedto satisfythe
regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(asthe AAO concluded)."Id. at 1122(citing to
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)). The court alsoexplainedthe "final meritsdetermination"asthe corollaryto
thisprocedure:
If a petitioner has submittedthe requisiteevidence,USCIS determineswhether the
evidencedemonstratesboth a "level of expertiseindicatingthatthe individual is oneof
that small percentagewho haverisento the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2),and "that the alien has sustainednationalor international
acclaimandthathis or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).Only alienswhoseachievementshavegarnered"sustained
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa.
8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary
requirementsbeyondthose set forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv)and 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
/d. at 1119-20.
Thus,Kazariansetsforth atwo-partapproachwheretheevidenceis first countedandthenconsidered
in the contextof a final meritsdetermination.In reviewingServiceCenterdecisions,the AAO will
applythetestsetforth in Kazarian. As theAAO maintainsdenovoreview,theAAO will conducta
newanalysisif the directorreachedhisor herconclusionby usinga one-stepanalysisratherthanthe
two-stepanalysisdictatedbytheKazariancourt.See8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(iv);Soltanev. DOJ,381
F.3d143,145(3dCir.2004);SpencerEnterprises,Inc.v. UnitedStates,229F.Supp.2d 1025,1043
(E.D.Cal.2001),aff'd, 345F.3d683(9thCir. 2003)(recognizingtheAAO's denovoauthority).
II. Analysis
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
Documentationof the alien's receipt of lessernationally or internationally recognizedprizes or
awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
Thepetitionersubmitteda certificatefromthe Societyof OpticalInstrumentationEngineers(SPIE)in
confirmationof a SPIEEducationalScholarshipin OpticalScienceandEngineeringin recognitionof
the petitioner's"potential long-rangecontributionsto the field of optics, photonics,and related
disciplines." (Emphasisadded.) Counselinitially assertedthat SPIEawardsthe scholarships"in a
competitive process from applicantsworldwide" and concludedthat the scholarship"is an
internationallyrecognizedawardfor excellencein the field of opticsand photonics,or a related
discipline." Counselreiteratesthis assertionon appeal,statingthat the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i)"does not automaticallyexclude educationallevel awards." The unsupported
assertionsof counseldonotconstituteevidence.Matterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534n.2(BIA
1988);Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.1,3 n.2(BIA 1983);Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,17I&N
Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).Theplainlanguageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)requires
that qualifying prizesand awardsbe nationallyor internationallyrecognizedand that they be in
recognitionof excellence"in the field of endeavor"rather than of academicaccomplishments.
Academicachievementsarenot evidenceof accomplishmentsin a field of endeavor. Seegenerally
New YorkStateDep / of Transp.,22 I&N Dec.215,219,n.6(Comm'r. 1998).
The petitioner'ssupervisorat The PennsylvaniaStateUniversity, assertsthat the
scholarship"is one of the most prestigiousinternationallyrecognizedawardsin optics science.
Recipientsareselectedworld-widebasedon their researchrecords,leadershipandtheir potentialfor
long-rangecontributionto opticsandphotonics." an associateprofessorof
physicsand engineeringat Tufts Universityand one of collaborators,assertsthat the
scholarship"is aninternationalawardin opticsandphotonicsresearch."
2Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimto meetor submitevidencerelatingto theregulatorycategoriesof evidence
notdiscussedin thisdecision.
Page6
USCISmay,in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedasexperttestimony.See
Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However,USCIS is
ultimately responsiblefor making the final determinationregardingan alien's eligibility for the
benefitsought.Id Thesubmissionof lettersfrom expertssupportingthepetitionis notpresumptive
evidenceof eligibility. Seeid at 795. USCISmayevengive lessweightto anopinionthatis not
corroborated,in accordwith otherinformationor is m anyway questionable.ld at 795;seealso
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998)(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of
California, 14l&N Dec. 190(Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). Furthermore,merelyrepeatingthe language
of thestatuteor regulationsdoesnotsatisfythepetitioner'sburdenof proof3
While we do not questionthe sincerity01 and andtheir expertisein the field in
general,the recordcontainsno evidenceto supporttheir assertionthata scholarshipbasedon potential
contributionsto the field is an internationallyrecognizedprize or awardfor excellencein the field
ratherthansupportfor future educationbasedon pastscholarship.For example,thepetitionerdid not
submit official materialsfrom SPIEprovidingthe requirementsfor the scholarship,the selection
processand the numberof studentswho receivesucha scholarshipannuallyor coverageof the
selectionof thescholarshipsin professionalor trademediaor asignificantgeneralmediapublication.
Finally, the regulationat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(i)requiresevidenceof prizesand awardsin the
plural,consistentwith the statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidence.Section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of
the Act. While a professorat ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity,asserts
that the petitioner won anotherscholarshipin 2001 at Nankai University and an Outstanding
Doctoral ResearchAward in Electrical Engineeringfrom The PennsylvaniaStateUniversity, those
awardsarenot in the record. Simplygoingon recordwithout supportingdocumentaryevidenceis
not sufficient for purposesof meetingtheburdenof proof in theseproceedings.MatterofSoffici.
22 I&N Dec. at 165(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14I&N Dec.at 190. The record
alsolacksevidencethateitherawardis a nationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizeor awardfor
excellencein thefield of endeavor.
As the petitionerhasnot submittedcorroboratingevidenceconfirmingthat the SPIEscholarship
basedon "potential" contributionsis a lessernationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizeor award
for excellencein the field and becausethe petitioner did not submit evidenceof any other prize or
award,the petitionerhasnot submittedqualifyingevidencethatmeetsthe requirementsof 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i).
FedinBros.Co..Ltd.v.Sava,724F.Supp.1103,1108(E.D.N.Y.1989),aff'd, 905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990);
Avyr Associates,Inc. v. Meissner, 1997WL 188942at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
Page7
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which classification is
sought,whichrequire outstandingachievementsof their members,asjudged by recognizednational
or internationalexpertsin their disciplinesorfields.
Onappeal,counseldoesnotcontestthedirector'sconclusionthatthepetitionerhadnotestablishedthat
his membershipin SPIE is qualifying. As the recordcontainsno evidencethat SPIE requires
outstandingachievementsof its members,we concur with the director that the petitioner has not
submittedqualifyingevidencethatmeetstherequirementsof 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(ii).
Publishedmaterialsaboutthe alien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor other major
media,relating to the alien's work in thefield for which classificationis sought. Suchevidence
shallincludethetitle,date,andauthorof thematerial,andanynecessarytranslation.
ThepetitionersubmittedaJune2005pressreleasefromtheStateUniversityof Pennsylvaniareporting
on recent work by The petitioner is namedas one of graduatestudentswho
coauthoredthearticlereportingthiswork. Thepressreleasewasreproducedverbatimonthreescience
websiteslisting the sourceas the State University of Pennsylvaniaand no specific author.
Significantly,theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii)requirestheauthorof thepublishedmaterial,
revealingthattheidentityof theauthoris relevant.
Thedirectorconcludedthatthewebsiteswerenot professionalor majortradejournalsor othermajor
mediaand counselchallengesthat conclusionon appeal. Regardlessof whetherthesewebsites
constitutemajormedia,however,thematerialsarenot "about"the petitionerrelatingto his work as
requiredunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii).Compare8 C.F.R.§204.5(i)(3)(i)(C)(requiringpublished
materialrelatingtothealien'swork).
Astheonlypublishedmaterialsubmittedis not"about"thepetitionerrelatingto hiswork,butratheris
aboutaprojectonwhichheworked,thepetitionerhasnotsubmittedqualifyingevidencethatmeetsthe
requirementsof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iii).
Evidenceof the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the work of
othersin thesameor an alliedfield of specificationfor whichclassificationis sought.
ThepetitionersubmittedanOctober2008invitationto reviewamanuscriptfor theJournal of puantum
Electronicsand April 2009 invitations to review manuscriptsfor Applied Optics and the Journal of
PhysicsD: AppliedPhysics. Thepetitionerdid not submitanyevidencethathe actuallycompleted
thesereviews. The petitioneralso submittedan mvitation to serveas a "presider" at a CLEO/IQEC
sessionon June4, 2009. While thepetitioneracceptedthe invitationprior to the dateof filing, the
actualsessionwasto occurafterthedateof filing, May 14,2009. Whilethematerialsindicatethatthe
petitioner would managethe session,the recordcontainsno evidencethat he would be judging the
workof theparticipants.
Page8
The regulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)requiresevidenceof the petitioner's"participation"in
judging the work of others. A mereinvitationto do sodoesnot constitutequalifyingevidencethat
meetstherequirementsof 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv).In addition,asstatedabove,thereisnoevidence
that the petitioner'sdutiesas a "presider"involvedjudging the work of others. Regardless,the
petitionerdid not serveasa "presider"until afterthedateof filing. Thus,thosedutiescannotserveas
evidenceof the petitioner'seligibility asof that date. See8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12); Matter of
Katighak,14I&N Dec.45,49(Reg'l.Comm'r.1971).
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnot submittedqualifyingevidencethatmeetstherequirements
of theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv).4
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related
contributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
The petitioner's field, like most science,is research-driven,and there would be little point in
publishingresearchthatdid not addto thegeneralpool of knowledgein thefield. Accordingto the
regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v),an alien's contributionsmust be not only original but of
major significance. We mustpresumethatthe phrase"major significance"is not superfluousand,
thus,thatit hassomemeaning.To beconsidereda contributionof majorsignificancein thefield of
science,it canbe expectedthatthe resultswould havealreadybeenreproducedandconfirmedby
other expertsand applied in their work. Otherwise,it is difficult to gaugethe impact of the
petitioner'swork.
The petitionersubmittedevidenceof severalarticlesandconferencepresentations.The regulations
containa separateregulatoryclassof evidenceregardingtheauthorshipof publishedarticles.8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(vi).If theregulationsareto beinterpretedwith anylogic,it mustbepresumedthatthe
regulatoryschemeviewscontributionsasa separateevidentiaryrequirementfrom scholarlyarticles.
This interpretationis alsoconsistentwith thestatutoryrequirementfor "extensiveevidence."Section
203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct.
Theletterofferingthepetitionera one-yearreappointmentof hispostdoctoralpositionspecifiesthat
the petitioner will conduct independentresearchunder the director of and contribute to
technicalpublicationsandproposals.As theconductof researchandauthorshipof articlesis partof
thejob descriptionfor a postdoctoralappointment,an entry-levelpositionthat precedesa faculty
appointment, see http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm#trainina,it cannot be argued that every
researchprojectandpublishedarticleis acontributionof "majorsignificance"in thefield.
In light of thefactthatscholarlyarticlesarediscussedin aseparateregulationandthatpublishingis an
inherentpartof thepetitioner'sentry-leveljob duties,wewill notconsiderthepetitioner'spublication
4In theinterestof thoroughness,however,ourfinal meritsdeterminationwill considerthepetitioner'speer
reviewof manuscripts,assuminghecompletedthosereviews.
Page9
recordunder8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)in additionto 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi)withoutadditional
evidencethathisarticlesconstitutecontributionsof "majorsignificance."
Thepetitionersubmittedseveralarticlesthatcitehiswork. Thesecitations,however,primarilycitethe
petitioner'swork asoneof severalexamplesof otherwork in thefield ratherthanasan influential
breakthroughin the field. For example,a 2006articlein OpticsExpresscitesa 2004articleby the
petitioneras one of four articlesfor the propositionthat the "ultra-bright,broadband,and spatially
coherentsupercontinuum(SC) light has alreadyfound use in applicationssuchas spectroscopy,
confocalmicroscopy,andopticalcoherencetomography,to namea few." A 2008articlein OpticsA
PureandAppliedOpticscitesthepetitioner's2004articleasoneof fourarticlesfor thepropositionthat
chromaticdispersionconfocalmicroscopy(CDCM)"hasbeentheobjectof researchm recentyears
A 2008articlein PhysicalReviewB citesoneof thepetitioner's2005articlesasoneof 13articlesfor
thepropositionthatseveralresearchgroupshavedevelopedvarioushighlysensitiveopticaltechniques
to overcomethe inhomogeneousbroadeningeffectsin conventionalspectroscopymeasurementson
compositefilms.
A 2008articlein the.Journalof theOpticalSocietyofAmericaby authorsat theUniversityof Lyon,
however,builds uponthe petitioner'swork reportedin oneof his 2005articlesin OpticalExpress.
This citation suggeststhat the petitioner's work provided a useful starting point for the French
researchers.While the petitioner's researchis no doubt of value, it canbe arguedthat any research
mustbe shownto beoriginalandpresentsomebenefitif it is to receivefundingandattentionfrom
the scientific commumty. Any Ph.D.thesisor postdoctoralresearch,in orderto be acceptedfor
graduation,publicationor funding,mustoffer newandusefulinformationto thepool of knowledge.
It does not follow that every useful researchresult utilized by anotherresearchgroup is a
contribution of "major significance"as requiredunder 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(v). Overall, the
numberandcharacterof thecitationsof the petitioner'sarticlesarenot indicativeof a publication
recordthatcanbeconsideredacontributionof "majorsignificance"in thepetitioner'sfield.
As statedabove,the petitionerreceiveda 2007 SPIEEducationalScholarship. As discussedabove,
however,thescholarshipwasawardedbasedon"potential"contributions.
The remainingevidenceto be consideredunderthis criterionconsistsof referenceletters.
explainsthat his laboratorywas"the first to developa white light supercontinuumopticaltweezers,
which can perform broadbandoptical scatteringand coherentanti-StokesRaman scattering
spectroscopy(CARS)atasingleparticlelevel." speculatesthatthepetitioner'swork"canhave
far reachingapplications,suchasin materialcharacterization,biophotonicimaging,chemicalsensing,
amongothers As examplesof this potentialimpact, continues:
[The petitioner]developeda new single-particlelevel coherentanti-StokesRaman
scattering(CARS) spectroscopytechniquethat can perform broad-bandCARS
spectroscopyon an optically trappedobject by using white-light supercontinuum.
Further,hehasdevelopeda techniquewhich cansignificantlyimprovethe sensitivityof
Page10
CARDS through suppressionof nonresonantfour wave mixing backgroundby
creativelyusing time-resolvedand polarization-discriminatedmethod. He has also
developeda supercontinuumbasedwavelengthdivisionmultiplexing(WDM) confocal
imagingtechniqueanddemonstrateda chromatictwo-photonexcitationfluorescence
imagingmethod,whichcanpotentiallyimprovethe3d imagingspeedgreatlyandcan
havesignificantimpactonbiophotonicimaging.
While characterizesthisworkas"record-breaking"and"outstanding,"hedoesnotprovideany
examplesof howthepetitioner'swork is alreadybeingusedin biophotonicimaging,chemicalsensing
or otherareas.Rather, concludesthatthepetitioner'stechniques"canleadto manyimportant
applicationsin nanoscienceandengineeringaswell asultrasensitivebiosensing"and"canpotentially
resultin significantimprovementin axialimagingspeedandcanopennewpossibilitiesfor studying
fastbiologicalprocesses."
a professorattheStateUniversityof Pennsylvania,assertsthatheknowsof the
petitionerthroughhis publishedwork. We cannotignorethat the petitionerworks in the same
departmentas predictsthat in "the nearfuture"he will seethe "world's first
commercialoptical tweezersbasedon singleparticleCARS sensingsystem"which will "createa
whole new industrybasedon the CARDStechnology."M however,doesnot identifyany
companydevelopingsuchatoolbasedonthepetitioner'swork.
Accordingto the petitioner'scontributionsincludefive optical achievements.
however,doesnotelaborateonhowthesecontributionsareinfluencingthefield.
anotherprofessorat theStateUniversityof Pennsylvania,notesthatthepetitionerhas
publishedhiswork in distinguishedjournalsandassertsthattheimportanceof thiswork"is reflectedin
thelargeamountof citationsbyotherresearchersin theopticalfieldthatoccurredin thelastfewyears
As discussedabove,however,the petitioner'sscholarlyarticlesqualify undera separateregulation,
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi),andthe petitioner'scitationrecorddoesnot suggestthat his articlesalso
constituteacontributionof "major significance"under8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v).
The petitioner also submitted letters from three individuals outside of the State University of
Pennsylvania.As statedabove, is oneof collaborators. asserts
thatoneof the petitioner's"mostsignificantcontributionsis thedemonstrationof a supercontinuum
optical trappingand spectroscopysystemthat is ableto carry out chemicallyselectivesensingat
microscopicscalefor the first time." notesthatthis work waspublished"in the most
prestigiousopticaljournals." As notedabove,however,scholarlyarticlesformtheir own categoryof
evidenceundertheregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi)andcannotserveaspresumptiveevidence
underthis categoryof evidenceabsentadditionalevidencethat the reportedresearchconstitutesa
contributionof "major significance"in the field. further statesthat this work was
"reported by" two "highly regarded"websites. As discussedabove,however,the websitepostings
constitutepressreleasesfrom theStateUniversityof Pennsylvaniaratherthanindependentjournalistie
Pagel I
coverage.Thefactthatthe StateUniversityof Pennsylvaniaissueda pressreleasereportingresearch
on whichthe petitionerparticipatedasa graduatestudentdoesnot establishthatthe opticalsciences
communityasa wholeviewsthepetitioner'sworkasa contributionof majorsignificance.At issueis
whetherthepetitioner'sworkhasactuallyhadanimpactin hisfield. concludes:
Specifically,[thepetitioner's]exceptionalcontributionsto the field of opticalscience
andtechnologieshaveresultedin the inventionof ultra-sensitivebroadbandcoherent
anti-StokesRamanscattering(CARS) spectroscopyat single particle level. This
inventionwill resultin a substantialadvancementfor thefield of CARSspectroscopy
and imaging.The CARS technologyis crucial for detectionand imagingof DNA,
tissuesandorgansdueto its highsensitivityandchemicalselectivity.
conclusion,however,ismorespeculationastohowthepetitioner'sworkmightbeused
ratherthananexplanationof howthepetitioner'sworkisalreadybeingused.
. a professorattheUniversityof Kansas,explainsthathelearnedof thepetitioner's
work throughhis publications. expresseshis belief that the petitioner's"achievementof
single-particle-levelCARSspectroscopywill bringabouta neweraof CARStechnology."It canbe
expected,however,thata contributionof majorsignificancewill havealreadybroughtaboutanewera
of technology. doesnotsuggestthathehasbeenimpactedbythepetitioner'sresearch.
Similarly anassociateprofessorattheMassachusettsInstituteof Technology,
providesgeneralpraisewithoutprovidin ecific examplesof how the petitioner'swork is already
impactingthe neld. Onceagain, doesnot suggestthat he has personallybeen
influencedby thepetitioner'swork.
The Boardof ImmigrationAppeals(theBoard)hasheld thattestimonyshouldnot be disregarded
simplybecauseit is "self-serving." See,e.g.,Matter of S-A-,22 I&N Dec. 1328,1332(BIA 2000)
(citing cases).TheBoardalsoheld,however:"We not only encourage,but requirethe introduction
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." 1d If testimonial
evidencelacks speciñeity, detail, or credibility, there is a greaterneedfor the petitioner to submit
corroborativeevidence.Matterof Y-B-,21I&N Dec.I 136(BIA 1998).
As statedabove,theopinionsof expertsin thefield arenot withoutweightandhavebeenconsidered
above. USCIS may, in its discretion,useas advisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedas expert
testimony. SeeMatterof CaronInternational,19I&N Dec.at 795. However,USCISis ultimately
responsiblefor makingthefinal determinationregardinganalien'seligibility for the benefitsought.
Id The submissionof lettersfrom expertssupportingthe petitionis not presumptiveevidenceof
eligibility; USCISmay,aswe havedoneabove,evaluatethecontentof thoselettersasto whether
theysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at 795. USCISmayevengivelessweightto anopinion
that is not corroborated,in accordwith otherinformation or is in any way questionable. Id at 795;
Page12
seealso Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec.at 165(citing Matter of TreasureCraft ofCalifornia, 141&N
Dec.at 190).
Thelettersconsideredaboveprimarilycontainbareassertionsof talent,originalityandvagueclaims
of contributionswithout specificallyidentifyinghow thosecontributionshaveinfluencedthe field.
Merely repeatingthe languageof the legalrequirementsdoesnot satisfythe petitioner'sburdenof
proof.5Thepetitionersubmittedthreeindependentlettersbuttheselettersdonot suggesttheauthors
haveappliedthe petitioner'swork. Thepetitioneralsofailed to submitcorroboratingevidencein
existenceprior to the preparationof the petition, which could havebolsteredthe weight of the
referenceletters.
In light of the above,thepetitionerhasnot submittedqualifyingevidencethatmeetstherequirements
intheregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v).
Evidenceof the alien's authorshipof scholarlyarticles in thefield, in professionalor major trade
publicationsor othermajor media.
Thepetitionersubmittedevidenceof severalscholarlyarticlesthathaveappearedin professionalor
majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia.Thus,thepetitionerhassubmittedqualifyingevidence
thatmeetstheplainlanguagerequirementsof 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Summary
In light of the above,the petitionerhasnot submittedtherequisiteevidenceunderat leastthreeof the
evidentiarycategoriesfor which evidencemust be submittedto meet the minimum eligibility
requirementsnecessaryto qualifyasanalienof extraordinaryability. Nevertheless,wewill reviewthe
evidencein theaggregateaspartof our final meritsdetermination.
B. Final Merits Determination
In accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, we must next conducta final merits determinationthat
considersall of the evidencein the contextof whetheror not the petitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a
"level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewho haverisento the
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2);and(2) "that the alien hassustained
nationalor internationalacclaimandthathisor herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of
expertise."8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).SeeKazarian,596F.3dat1119-20.
FedinBros.Co..Ltd v.Sava,724F.Supp.I 103,1108(E.D.N,Y.1989),aff'd,905F.2d41(2d.Cir. 1990):
AvyrAssociates.Inc. v. Meissner,1997WL 188942at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly,USCISneednot accept
primarilyconclusoryassertions.1756,Inc. v. TheAttorneyGeneralof theUnitedStazes,745F.Supp.9, 15
(D.C.Dist. 1990).
Page13
As discussedabove,thepressreleasescannotqualifyaspublishedmaterialaboutthepetitionerunder
8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iii) as they are not "about" him and do not include an author. Even
consideringthe evidencein our final meritsdetermination,it is not persuasive.Regardlessof the
reputationof the websiteson which the identicalpressreleaseappeared,it remainsthat a press
releasefrom the petitioner's own employerthat focuseson andmentionsthe petitioner only
as oneof graduatestudentsis not indicativeof or consistentwith sustainednationalor
internationalacclaim.
As statedabove,therecordreflectsthatthepetitionerwasinvitedto refereearticlesfor threejournals.
Evenif thepetitionerdid completethosereviewspriorto thedateof filing despitethelackof evidence
that he did so,the natureof the beneficiary'sjudging experienceis a relevantconsiderationasto
whetherthe evidenceis indicative of the beneficiary'snational or internationalacclaim. See
Kazarian,596F.3dat 1122.
We cannotignorethat scientificjournalsare peerreviewedand rely on manyscientiststo review
submittedarticles. Thus,asnotedby thedirector,peerreviewis routinein thefield; not everypeer
reviewerenjoysinternationalrecognition.Onappeal,counselassertsthatthisreasoningwould lead
to the conclusionthat a Nobel Prizewinner performingreviewsis not set apartfrom his peers.
Counselis not persuasive.In the situationproposedby counsel,it is the NobelPrize,andnot the
participationin thewidespreadreviewprocess,thatwouldsetthereviewerapartfrom hispeers.We
notethata NobelLaureate,throughhis receiptof thatmajorinternationallyrecognizedprize,meets
theone-timeachievementrequirementat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)and,thus,wouldnotneedto provide
anyotherevidenceof acclaim.SeeH.R.Rep.No.101-723,59(Sept.19,1990).
Without evidenceofjudging that setsthepetitionerapartfrom othersin his field, suchasevidence
thathe hasreviewedmanuscriptsfor ajournal thatcreditsa small,elite groupof referees,received
independentrequestsfrom a substantialnumberof journals,or servedin aneditorialpositionfor a
distinguishedjournal, we cannotconcludethat the petitioner'sjudging experience,assuminghe
actually performedthosedutiesprior to the dateof filing, is indicative of or consistentwith national
or internationalrecognition.
As statedabove,the pressreleasesarenot independentjournalistic coverageof the petitioner or his
work. Rather,they representthe StateUniversity of Pennsylvania'spromotionof the ongoing
researchat that institution. Suchevidenceis not indicativeof or consistentwith the petitioner's
personalnationalor internationalacclaim.
As statedabove,thepetitionerhasauthoredscholarlyarticles.Pursuantto thereasoningin Kazarian,
596F.3dat 1122,however,thefield's responseto thesearticlesmaybeandwill beconsideredin our
fmal meritsdetermination.The recordcontainsevidenceof no morethan 12citationsof anyone
article. As discussedabove,most of thesecitationsmerelycite the petitioner'swork as one of
severalexamplesof otherwork beingconductedin thefield. Therecorddoesnot establishthatthe
Page14
petitioner'spublicationrecordis indicativeof or consistentwith sustainednationalor international
acclaimin thefield.
Ultimately,the evidencein the aggregatedoesnot distinguishthe petitioneras one of the small
percentagewho hasrisento the very top of the field of endeavor.The petitioner,a postdoctoral
associate,relieson his educationalscholarship,his volunteerparticipationin the widespreadreview
process,pressreleasesfrom his own employer,his publicationrecord,andthe praiseof his peers.
Whilethis maydistinguishhim from otherstudentsandpostdoctoralresearchers,we will not narrow
his field to otherswith his level of training andexperience. receiveda CAREER awardfrom
theNationalScienceFoundation. is a"fellow member"of several rofessionalassociations.
is an electedfellow of SPIEandtheOpticalSocietyof America. hasservedasan
associateeditorfor twojournals. Thus,it appearsthatthe highestlevelof thepetitioner'sfield is far
abovethelevelhehasattained.
HI. Conclusion
Thedocumentationsubmittedin supportof a claimof extraordinaryability mustclearlydemonstrate
thatthealienhasachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandis oneof thesmallpercentage
whohasrisentotheverytopof thefieldof endeavor.
Reviewof the record,however,doesnot establishthatthe petitionerhasdistinguishedhimselfasan
optics researcherto suchan extentthat he may be said to have achievedsustainednationalor
internationalacclaimor to be within the small percentageat the very top of his field. The evidence
indicatesthat the petitionershowstalentasa postdoctoralassociate,but is not persuasivethat the
petitioner'sachievementssethim significantlyabovealmostall othersin his field. Therefore.the
petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of the Act andthe petition
maynot beapproved.
Theburdenof proof in visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner. Section291of
theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361. Here,thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.Accordingly,theappeal
will bedismissed.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.