dismissed EB-1A Case: Particle Physics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
kl-dstPdddsdw : 
U. s. citizenship 
and Immigration 
PPred -ted Services 
hvmhn ~Fd~nal &acg 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: KC 0 2 201i5 
7 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
cided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
: . Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
$1 
?; Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualifL for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and evidence, the vast majority of which was already part of the record of 
proceeding. For the reasons discussed below, we'concur with the director that the petitioner has not established 
that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria as required for eligibility. Rather, we find that the petitioner 
has established only that he meets the scholarly articles criterion set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(2). 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that he has sustained natiwal or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a research associate. The 
record reveals that the petitioner was working as a postdoctoral researcher at the time of filing, generally 
considered an entry level training position for recent Ph.D. graduates. While nothing in the statute or 
regulations precludes someone at the beginning of their postdoctoral career from establishing eligibility, we will 
not narrow the petitioner's field to recent Ph.D. graduates. Rather, the petitioner must compare with the most 
experienced and renowned members of the field. 
At the outset, we acknowledge that as a postdoctoral researcher at Southern Methodist University (SMU), the 
petitioner resides at Cornell University, participating in the university's associated particle detector (CLEO). 
According to the National Science Foundation materials in the record, CLEO is a collaboration consisting of 
150 researchers from 25 U.S. institutions. Other than published presentations credited to the presenter "on 
behalf of the CLEO Collaboration," CLEO'S published articles are credited to approximately 150 authors. We 
recognize that science is typically advanced by collaborations and do not discount scientific work simply 
because it resulted from a collaboration. In situations where there are an unusually high number of credited 
authors, however, the petitioner must establish the significance of his own role within the collaboration beyond 
simple participation. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award). Barring 
the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied 
for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualifl as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien S work in thejeld for which classifcation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner initially asserted that the citations of his work serve to meet this criterion. He also referenced 
"230 results" of his work in the 2004 version of Review of Particle Physics and "33 results" that "will miss the 
deadline of the 2004 version." Finally, he relied on the comments of reviewers of his submitted manuscripts. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's citation record was not indicative of national or international 
acclaim. On appeal, counsel asserts that the pktitioner7s citation record is impressive, but does not specifically 
state that citations can serve to meet this criterion. 
While we concur with the director that the petitioner does not meet this criterion, we withdraw any implication 
that typical citations can serve to meet this criterion. Articles which cite the petitioner's work are primarily 
about the author's own work, not the petitioner. As such, they cannot be considered published material about 
the petitioner. 
As evidence of the "230 results," the petitioner submits several pages from an article in Physics Letters B with 
highlighted citations of CLEO collaboration results and other technical equations. This article does not mention 
the petitioner by name and cannot be considered an'article "about" the petitioner. 
Finally, the peer reviews of the petitioner's manuscripts are not published materials. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an alliedjeld of specijcation for which classiJication is sought. 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
The petitioner submitted e-mail messages between himself and other CLEO collaborators regarding "paper 
committees." The director determined that this evidence was not indicative of the petitioner's preeminence in 
the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from David G. Cassel, a professor at Corqell University, affirming the 
petitioner's participation on two CLEO Paper Committees. Professor Cassel reiterates the prestige of the CLEO 
collaboration and asserts that any "publication by the collaboration must be validated in a rigorous process by 
other recognized experts in the specific field within the collaboration before it is presented to the public." 
One of the petitioner's initial references, James Alexander, a professor at Cornell and CLEO collaborator, 
indicates that CLEO produces between 25 and 30 publications per year. As each df these publications will be 
submitted only after review by a Paper Committee made up of CLEO collaborators, the petitioner has not 
established that serving on two such committees during a period of four years as a collaborator is notable. 
Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an 
unusually large number of articles, received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or 
served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signijkance in the field. 
As noted by the director, the petitioner relies on his publication record and letters from collaborators to meet this 
criterion. The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a ., 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) " 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS may even 
give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread acclaim and 
vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify contributions and 
provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. In addition, letters from 
independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through his reputation and who have 
applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from independent references who were not previously 
aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae 
and work and provide an opinion based solely on this review. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in publishing 
research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of major significance. We 
Page 5 
must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. 
See Walters v. Metro. E&. Enters.,5 19 U.S. 202, 209 (1997); Bailey v. US., 5 16 U.S. 137, 145 (1995). 
Thus, the mere assertion-that the petitioner's work is original is insufficient. 
The petitioner obtained his Ph:D. from the Chinese Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP), location of the 
international BES collaboration: While working towards his Ph.D., the petitioner was the first to observe 
"more than 10 yr(2S) decay channels." Zhengguo Zhao, then head of the IHEP Physics division, asserts that 
the "observation and study of these decay channels are important contributions to the understanding of strong 
interaction." He notes that this work has been published. Alan J. Weinstein, a professor at the California 
Institute of Technology and a CLEO collaborator, asserts that the petitioner's "detailed and challenging 
measurements of the decays of charmonium particles (the yr(2S): and X,o mesons)," major contributions to the 
field, were remarkable achievements "for such a young scientist." Finally, Professor Zhao asserts that based 
on this work, the petitioner "was appointed,to chair [the] BES yr(2S) Physics Analysis Group from January 
2000 till [sic] his graduation." Professor Zhao notes that the petitioner was the only Ph.D. student appointed 
to chair a BES group in its 20-year history. Any Ph.D. thesis or other research, however, in order to be 
accepted for graduation or publication, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It 
does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of 
knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole. Moreover, as 
stated above, we will not narrow the petitioner's field to Ph.D. students or postdoctoral researchers. Thus, 
the fact that he may compare well with other Ph.D. students in being appointed to chair a physics group for 
BES does not necessarily place him at the top of the field nationally or internationally. 
Professor Weinstein praises the petitioner's work with the CLEO collaboration, including the "first 
observation of a very important class of decays of the B meson (to the D'*)K* final state) which will (in the 
future) give key information about the mechanism of CP violation in quark decays." Professor Weinstein 
further asserts that this complex work "earned the confidence of the entire collaboration." Professor 
Weinstein further asserts that the petitioner "pioneered the use of CLEO new, state-of-the-art Ring Imaging 
Cernkov Counter, an exceedingly complex and precise device for distinguishing charged pions from charged 
kaons." According to Professor Weinstein, the petitioner's results were among the first results CLEO 
obtained using this device. Other references praise specific decay results obtained by the petitioner. 
In summary, however, Professor Weinstein states that the petitioner's accomplishments in several subfields is 
"exceptional for new PhDYs" with any one of those accomplishments demonstrating his status "as one of the 
best and brightest postdoctoral scholars studying elementary particles in the United States." Professor 
Weinstein speculates that the petitioner will "play an ever more significant role in CLEO and in future major 
scientific projects," suggesting the petitioner has yet to reach the pinnacle of his field. 
Similarly, the remaining letters attest to the petitioner's skill given the early stage of his career, but do not 
place him at the top of the field. Richard Stroynowski, a professor at SMU, ranks the petitioner as one of the 
"best postdoctoral fellows we ever had at SMU" and "within [the] top 15-20% of all postdoctoral researchers 
working currently on the CLEO project." As stated above, however, we will not narrow the petitioner's field 
to postdoctoral researchers. Professor Stroynowski characterizes the petitioner as "very productive" and 
notes that he has authored published articles in refereed journals. While Professor Stroynowski identifies the 
petitioner's area of research, heavy quarks and leptons, he does not identify a specific contribution to this 
work that has significantly impacted the field of physics. 
Ian P. J. Shipsey, a professor at Purdue University, co-spokesperson of CLEO and Fellow of the American 
Physical ~ociety,~ asserts that the petitioner's intellectual capabilities and achievements place him at the top 
of the "fifteen highly selected and very talented research associates" with whom Professor Shipsey has 
worked. 
The references also discuss the petitioner's technical contributions to CLEO. Yongsheng Gao, an assistant 
professor at SMU, asserts that the petitioner "proposed the best procedure for particle identification which is 
widely adopted by the collaboration." James Alexander, a professor at Cornell, asserts that the petitioner has 
contributed to the "technological underpinnings of elementary particle physics through his detailed examination 
of charged particle tracking phenomena in the CLEO detector." Professor Alexander continues that the 
petitioner's technical contributions "have leveraged the work of the entire remainder of the Collaboration and 
been a significant factor in the steady stream of publications resulting from the CLEO dataset." Professor 
Shipsey provides a similar assessment. Richard Galik, a professor at Cornell, however, asserts that "[elvery 
collaborator spends time helping understand, maintain, and calibrate the experimental apparatus." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's work is the c continuation of work pioneered by Nobel 
Laureates Samuel Ting and Burton Richter. The fact that the petitioner works in a subfield pioneered by 
Nobel Laureates, however, does not establish his own acclaim. Not every physicist focusing on relativity, 
now a basic principle of physics, enjoys the acclaim of Albert Einstein. 
Counsel further notes the prestige of the journals publishing the petitioner's work. We will not infer the 
significance of an individual article from the publication in which it appears. Rather, we look for evidence of 
the impact of the specific article itself, such as evidence that it is widely cited. For the reasons discussed 
below, we are satisfied that the petitioner meets the separate scholarly articles criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). A presumption that meeting the scholarly articles criterion necessitates a finding that an 
alien meets this criterion, however, would negate the regulatory requirement that an alien meet three separate 
criteria. The lack of evidence of widespread citation of the articles on which the petitioner appears as the 
primary author, as opposed to one of approximately 150 coauthors, is not consistent with the petitioner's 
individual recognition in the field for contributions of major significance. 
The record establishes the international prestige of the CLEO collaboration and the petitioner's contributions to 
that collaboration, comparable to the contributions of the top postdoctoral researchers within the collaboration. 
The classification sought, however, requires that the petitioner enjoy individualized acclaim nationally or 
internationally. The record does not establish that the petitioner is nationally or internationally acclaimed in the 
field independent of the reputation of the CLEO collaboration. The record does not reflect that other large 
accelerator collaborations recognize the petitioner's work individually as a contribution of major significance to 
the field of physics. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of numerous published articles and evidence that his 
presentations have also been published. The petitioner also submitted evidence of citations, although the format 
2 The achievements of the petitioner's references suggest that the top of his field is considerably higher than the level he 
has attained. 
of this evidence makes it difficult to identi@ the citations as citations of articles authored by the petitioner. 
Nevertheless, we are persuaded that the petitioner is a credited author of heavily cited articles. The director did 
not separately discuss this criterion; rather he referenced his discussion of the contributions criterion set forth in 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). In that previous discussion, the director concluded that the petitioner 
had not established his role in the published articles of the ~~~dcollaboration. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner was the "key" or corksponding author of 17 out of 80 of his 
published articles. Counsel further notes the prestige of the CLEO collaboration and the journals that published 
the collaboration's results. Finally, counsel notes that the petitioner's work has been cited. 
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). Based on a review of the record, we are only able to confirm five articles where the petitioner 
is the primary or corresponding author. Nevertheless, given the number of total articles authored by the 
petitioner and the heavy citation of some of those articles, although not those that list the petitioner as the 
primary author, we are persuaded that the petitioner 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 relies on his role with BES to meet this criterion. Initially, Professor Zhao asserts that the 
petitioner was appointed to chair the BES ~(2s) Physics Analysis Group from January of 2000 until his 
graduation. As noted above, the petitioner was the only Ph.D. candidate to be appointed as the chair of a 
physics group in the 20-year history of BES. On appeal, Professor Zhao asserts that as chair, the petitioner 
was "responsible for evaluation and determination of the quality of scientific discoveries before submission 
for publication." Professor Zhao further asserts that the ~(2s) Physics Analysis Group "is the most active 
group at BES and has published a series of significant scientific discoveries which help understand the strong 
interactions of matter." 
As stated above, this role suggests that the petitioner ranks highly with other Ph.D. students, but the record is 
less clear that this role is indicative of or con2istent with national or international acclaim. Specifically, 
Professor Zhao does not indicate how many groups exist within BES or provide the hierarchy of BES such 
that we can determine whether every group chair sg&es a leading or critical role for BES as a whole, beyond 
the obvious requirement that the results for each group be competently evaluated prior to submission for 
publication. 
Thus, while we do not question the national distinguished reputation of BES, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion through playing a leading or critical role for that collaboration. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a physicist to 
such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within 
the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a 
postdoctoral research associate, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly 
above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.