dismissed EB-1A Case: Physical Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PlJBTJ!!C COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
"b' 
FILE: fi SRC 07 800 23433 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: OCT Q 5 2009 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative 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). 
,UtJ@dl?clb 
p - Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and additional evidence. 
 The petitioner's specific 
concerns, at least one of which arises from a misreading of the director's request for additional 
evidence (RFE), will be addressed below. For the reasons set forth in this decision, we uphold the 
director's finding that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification 
sought. As explained in the conclusion, our decision, based on an evaluation of the evidence under the 
various regulatory criteria, is consistent with an evaluation of the evidence in the aggregate. 
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, 60898-9 (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.R. $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. 
According to Part 6 of the petition, this petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a physical scientist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an 
award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to 
establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner 
has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
Although the petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion, he lists two academic awards on his 
curriculum vitae. He did not submit either award as evidence. In response to the director's request for 
evidence of the significance of these awards, the petitioner did not address this criterion. Thus, the 
director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted evidence to meet this criterion. The petitioner 
does not challenge that conclusion on appeal. We concur with the director that the record lacks copies 
of the awards or evidence of their significance. Moreover, we note that the most experienced and 
renowned members of the field do not compete for academic awards. Thus, they cannot be considered 
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence such that they are 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in the field for which classiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orJields. 
Initially, the petitioner asserted that he meets this criterion based on his past membership in the 
American Physical Society (APS) and his current membership in the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), "which are among the prestigious professional associations in the 
according field." The petitioner submitted evidence of his student membership in IEEE and asserted 
that it has been upgraded to regular membership. He further asserted that IEEE requires certain 
combinations of education and experience for membership but submits no supporting evidence of this 
assertion. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm'r. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comrn'r. 1972)). 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
The director's WE requested evidence of the actual membership requirements and who judges 
eligibility for membership. The petitioner submitted no new evidence relating to this criterion. The 
director concluded that while the petitioner had established his IEEE membership, he had not 
established that IEEE requires outstanding achievements of its members. The petitioner does not 
contest this conclusion on appeal. 
The petitioner did not submit the primary evidence necessary to establish eligibility under this criterion, 
the actual membership requirements for IEEE. Even if we accepted the petitioner's assertion that IEEE 
has education and experience requirements, we are not persuaded that a certain level of education 
and/or experience is an outstanding achievement. While APS, assuming the petitioner was a member 
of APS, and IEEE may be prestigious associations, we will not presume the membership requirements 
for these associations based on their overall reputation in the field, which may be earned in ways other 
than exclusive membership. 
In light of the above, 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 the jield for which classlJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner relies on a 2007 article in Laser Focus World reporting that physicists at the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, Stanford University and Northwestern University have built 
micron-size solid-state lasers in which a single quantum dot can play a dominant role in device 
performance. The petitioner, who received his Ph.D. from Stanford in 2005, is not mentioned by name 
in the text of the article, but his first-authored article is cited in the article's only footnote. 
The petitioner also relies on a 2007 article in EE Times reporting that Applied Materials, Inc., where the 
petitioner has been employed since August 2005, has "claimed" two new breakthroughs in the 
patterning arena for chip designs, rolling out a self-aligned double patterning technology and a 
hardmask svstem. Versa TTN. The ~etitioner is not named in this article although the record contains a 
the petitioner is the technology node owner for Versa TTN. The petitioner also submitted evidence that 
EE Times' website cites "a recent study" finding that the publication is the most preferred industry 
publication by a three-to-one margin over the second most preferred publication. 
Further, the petitioner relies on what appears to be a promotion of Versa TTN in Semiconductor 
International as it concludes with contact information for Applied Materials. This promotion does not 
name the petitioner or, contrary to the petitioner's assertion, cite his paper. Finally, the petitioner relies 
on the selection of his 2007 article in Physical Review Letters for reprint in the March 26,2007 edition 
of the Virtual Journal of Nanoscale Science and Technology. The petitioner submitted evidence that 
this weekly journal reprints articles, mostly from the previous week, from participating source journals 
that fall within a number of contemporary topical areas in nanometer-scale science and technology. 
The director's RFE advised that evidence submitted to meet this criterion must be "about the alien." In 
response, the petitioner reiterates the previous evidence submitted and asserts that he has authored a 
chapter in a book that is reviewed on the publisher's own website. He submitted selected pages from 
the book establishing his authorship of a chapter. 
The director concluded that the petitioner has not submitted any published material about himself. On 
appeal, the petitioner reiterates his previous claims and asserts that a journal or newspaper will usually 
report a scientist's work and not the scientist himself. Assuming that to be the case, it does not change 
the fact that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires published material "about" the 
petitioner relating to his work. Compare 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C). It must be noted that the criteria 
are not designed to be met by the majority of successful members of the field but only by those who are 
truly among the small percentage at the top of the field. Ultimately, we are not persuaded that 
published material that does not even mention the petitioner by name can be considered indicative of or 
consistent with national or international ac~laim.~ 
Moreover, the petitioner did not submit any evidence to support his assertions about Laser Focus 
World. As stated above, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). The reference to information 
"claimed" by Applied Materials, suggests that the EE Times article may derive fiom a press release 
rather than journalistic reporting. Finally, the publisher's own review of a book on its own website, had 
the petitioner submitted this review, is not indicative of the national or international acclaim of the 
author of one chapter of that book. 
In light of the above, the evidence submitted to meet this criterion does not fall within the plain 
language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and fall far short of being 
indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. Thus, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speciJication for which classiJication is sought. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence that he had refereed one manuscript for the Journal of 
Quantum Electronics. In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted evidence of requests 
for manuscript reviews that postdate the filing of the petition. The requests all ask that if the petitioner 
See generally Negro-Plurnpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). While we acknowledge that a district court's 
decision is not binding precedent, the decision underscores the fact that USCIS's interpretation is reasonable. 
is unable to complete the review, he recommend an alternate reviewer. In thanking the petitioner for 
completing a review, the editor of the Journal of Lightwave Technology asks that the petitioner update 
his profile with his "fields of interest" to serve as a reviewer in the future. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's participation in the widespread peer review process was 
commensurate with being a published author. On appeal, the petitioner asserts (grammar as it appears 
in original): 
It is not surprising to take more responsibilities for a senior education dedicated 
professional, such as a university professor. At my current stage (2-3 years after PhD 
graduation), it is a reasonable load considering the research work on hand. It should 
NOT be considered as "rare." 
As a summary, I have submit[ted] evidence to serve as a peer reviews [sic] from 
multiple invitations, for multiple scientific journals (such as, Journal of Quantum 
Electronics, and Journal of Lightwave Technology). It must [be] due to a sustained 
national and international acclaim that I will be picked by these international 
publications (journal) for multiple times. The judging (peer reviewer) is of no question, 
on an international level since they are all international published journals and the 
authors and readers are word [sic] wide. While the review process is anonymous and I 
have no access to get another reviewer's information, they usually are from some 
professors in a research university (considered to be accomplished professionals). 
(Emphasis in original.) 
The evidence submitted to meet this criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with 
sustained national or international acc~aim.~ We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed 
and rely on many scientists to review submitted articles. The petitioner himself acknowledges that 
professors typically complete peer reviews. While professors may be "accomplished professionals7" we 
are not persuaded that the majority of professors are nationally or internationally acclaimed. Given the 
widespread nature of the peer-review process, participation in this process is routine in the field and, by 
itself, is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Without 
evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed 
manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of referees, 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. 
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 *l 1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26,2005). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner asserts on appeal that the WE and final decision are contradictory in that the WE 
concluded that the petitioner's contributions were sufficiently original and scientific but in the wrong 
field but the final decision concludes that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his contributions 
were original. This assertion is based on the petitioner's misreading of the concerns stated in the WE. 
Contrary to the petitioner's assertion, the WE clearly states that while the petitioner's contributions are 
original and scientific, they have not been demonstrated to be of major significance, an element of the 
regulatory criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). In the final decision, the director's complete 
conclusion states that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his work "constitutes original 
contributions of major signzjicance." (Emphasis added.) Thus, we find no contradiction between the 
two notices. 
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 must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of "major significance" in the field 
of science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by 
other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the 
petitioner's work. 
According to the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), available at 
www.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htn~#nature, accessed October 1, 2009 and incorporated into the record of 
proceeding), most physicists work in research and development. Some do basic research to increase 
scientific knowledge. Others conduct applied research to build upon the discoveries made through 
basic research and work to develop new devices, products, and processes. For example, basic 
research in solid-state physics led to the development of transistors and, then, integrated circuits used 
in computers. 
The OOH further states, at ww.b1s.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#nature7 that engineers apply the principles 
of science and mathematics to develop economical solutions to technical problems. Their work is the 
link between scientific discoveries and the commercial applications that meet societal and consumer 
needs. Many engineers develop new products. Thus, the development of a new product, in and of 
itself, does not set an engineer apart from the remaining members of his occupation. Significantly, 
this office has previously stated that a patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success 
with some degree of influence over the field as a whole. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of 
Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15,22 1 n. 7, (Comm'r. 1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation must 
be determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles 
criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would 
render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that 
a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. See also Kazarian v. USCIS, 2009 WL 2836453, "6 
(9' Cir. 2009) (publications and presentations are insufficient absent evidence that they constitute 
contributions of major significance). 
While we acknowledge that a few of the petitioner's references appear to be independent members of 
his field,4 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. USCIS may, in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS 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; 
USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See 
id. at 795. USCIS 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'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 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/*her 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. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition 
carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues or letters that do not 
specifically identify contributions or how those contributions have influenced the field are 
insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2009 WL 2836453 at *5. 
The petitioner obtained his Ph.D. at Stanford University in 2005. Since that time, he has worked as a 
process engineer for Applied Materials. He submits letters from one of his professors at Stanford,- 
and a manager at Applied Materials, 
 in addition to letters from those who 
purport to be independent of the petitioner. 
- 
4 
 As will be explained below, some of the references claimed to be independent have a clear connection to 
the petitioner. 
asserts that the petitioner was one of his Ph.D. students and that he worked with the 
petitioner "on a daily basis." 
 however, is not listed as a coauthor on any of the petitioner's 
articles. While asserts that there is a national shortage of individuals in the petitioner's field, 
the issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. New York Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. at 221. At issue 
for the classification sought is whether the petitioner is nationally or internationally acclaimed in his 
field. explains that the petitioner "played a critical role" on a project involving Terahertz 
emissions, which has defense and homeland security "implications" and was supported by the Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Army Research Office (ARO). - 
asserts that this area of research is unique and "completely new." According to 
 the 
petitioner used MBE regrowth to align quantum dots with lithographically defined microdisk cavities, 
which has been a challenge over the past 20 years. While 
 asserts that this work has 
advanced work on semiconductor based Terahertz quantum dots and has changed the way other 
scientists now utilize semiconductor quantum dots, he does not provide any specific examples of 
independent research institutions or private companies applying this work. The record contains no 
patents or articles citing the petitioner's work as the foundation of the work in the citing article or 
patent. 
an associate professor at Northwestern University, claims to know the petitioner because 
their interests overlap. We note that 
 is a coauthor of three of the petitioner's articles in 2003, 
2005 and 2007 and, as such, is not an independent reference. asserts that their joint article 
"will be a milestone" and "will lead [the] computer industry toward quantum computation, with faster 
speed and more compact devices at extremely low power dissipation." further asserts that the 
petitioner's proposal to use intra-band transition of quantum dots as a Terahertz emission source "will 
be [a] very promising method" for the development of practical Terahertz emission devices. These 
speculative statements cannot establish that the petitioner has already impacted his field such that he 
has made a contribution of major signiJicance. 
Director of the Center for the Computational Design of Nanomaterials at the University 
of Utah, asserts that he is an independent reference who has not worked with the petitioner but does not 
explain how he knows of the petitioner's work. 
d 
asserts that the petitioner "developed a 
revolutionary method to grow low-density InAs quantum ots and accurate1 control the alignment of 
these nano-emitters with [sic] semiconductor optical cavity." While db explains that InAs 
materials are extensively used, he does not assert that the petitioner's method for growing those 
materials is widely used. In fact 
 merely speculates that this method "may be widely sought 
after." further asserts that the impact of the petitioner's nano-laser based on a few quantum 
dots is apparent from the "many independent researchers" who cite this work. As of the date of filing, 
however, the petitioner claimed only five citations for all of his articles and did not document any of 
those citations. 
a scientist at the California Institute of Technology and graduate of Stanford University 
where the petitioner also obtained his Ph.D., asserts that the petitioner's wide impact in the field is 
apparent from the petitioner's publications. As stated above, however, the publication of scholarly 
articles is a separate criterion, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and cannot serve as the sole basis to meet this 
criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v). See Kazarian, 2009 WL 2836453 at *6. -then 
provides speculation about the future use of the petitioner's work similar to that contained in - 
letter. 
Berkeley National Laboratory, asserts that he met the petitioner when the petitioner was a finalist for a 
fellowship at the laboratory. praises the value of the petitioner's research but does not 
provide any examples of the petitioner's work being applied in the field. 
a senior engineer at IBM Microelectronics, asserts that he learned of the 
~etitioner's work "from some conference talk" and ~rovides general  raise of the ~etitioner's research 
as having important future applications. 
 does nit state ;hat he has personally applied the 
petitioner's work or that IBM has done so. 
discusses the petitioner's work at Applied Materials but concedes that he is not the 
petitioner's supervisor. - asserts that the petitioner has made an "irreplaceable 
contribution" to several nano-engineering projects at Applied Materials. 
 One of those projects, 
according to 
 is the Versa TTN process and engineering development, for which the 
petitioner is the L'technology node owner." 
 explains that Versa TTN is the fastest 
deposition method for Titanium Nitride (TIN), a widely used material in the semiconductor industry. 
asserts that after the petitioner's renovation to this project, "it has been widely applied in 
meta-gate and 3D memories, which are the backbone of next-wave semiconductor industry 
development and will have [a] direct impact on com uter techniques and consumer electronics." 
Specifically, according to Samsung and IBM have adopted Applied 
Materials' technology. fi , however, while working at IBM, does not confirm this assertion. 
Finally, 
 asserts that Versa TTN is also applicable to solar energy cells, although he 
provides no examples of its use in this industry. As noted above, Versa TTN is promoted on EE Times 
&d semiconductor International, although these materials appear to be based-on press releases. As 
- - 
stated above, it is inherent to the positionif an engineer to develop new products. That the petitioner's 
product has applications in the real world does not necessary demonstrate that his product is a 
contribution of major significance. The record lacks objective evidence, such as widespread coverage 
in major trade journals-not merely reporting the release of this product but its significance, of the 
impact of the petitioner's product. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or other research, in order to be accepted for graduation, 
publication or funding, 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. 
Ultimately, the record includes attestations of the potential impact of the petitioner's work without 
concrete examples of how the petitioner's work is already influencing the field. While the evidence 
demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented researcher and engineer with potential, it falls short of 
establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions of major signiJicance. 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. 
Initially, the petitioner asserted that most Nobel Prizes in physics are based on work reported in 
Physical Review Letters. The prestige of the Nobel Prize is not in dispute. It remains, however, that 
the petitioner is not a recipient of the Nobel Prize. Thus, its significance is irrelevant. That a journal 
has published the work of those who have won the Nobel Prize does not impart that distinction to the 
vast majority of its authors who have not been so recognized. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statistical analysis purportedly derived from the Stanford Alumni 
directory and Google.Scholar indicating that of the 343 Ph.D. graduates in Physics from Stanford 
between 2000 and 2008, only 19.5 percent have published articles in Physical Review Letters. The 
petitioner concludes that his publication record "is very distinguished" in his field for Ph.D. graduates 
with two to three years of experience. This analysis assumes that Physical Review Letters is the only 
prestigious physics or applied physics journal through which a Ph.D. student might demonstrate a 
distinguished publication record. We note that 
 asserts that he published a 2002 article in 
Science which has been cited 82 times. Regardless, the petitioner may not narrow his field to recent 
graduates. Rather, he must compare with the most experienced and renowned members of his field. 
While we would not expect the petitioner to have the same quantity of publications as a more 
experienced member of the field, the petitioner must demonstrate comparable significance. 
While we acknowledge that we must avoid requiring acclaim within a given criterion, it is not a circular 
approach to require some evidence of the community's reaction to the petitioner's published articles in 
a field where publication is expected of those merely completing training in the field. Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 2009 WL 2836453, at *6. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a short list of articles that purportedly cite his 2005 article in Physical 
Review Letters. On appeal, the petitioner submits a list of 19 articles that purportedly cite his various 
articles. First, as stated above, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Moreover, the 
petitioner must demonstrate his eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 4 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). Moreover, citations that postdate the 
filing of the petition cannot demonstrate the petitioner's acclaim as of that date. As discussed above, 
the petitioner also submitted an article in Laser Focus World that includes a citation to the petitioner's 
2007 article. 
While Laser Focus World covered one of the petitioner's recent articles, the record does not establish 
that the petitioner's publication record is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. Even if we were to conclude that the petitioner's publications alone are 
sufficient to meet this criterion, and we do not, the record falls far short of establishing that the 
petitioner meets any other criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzjicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's conclusion that the record does not establish 
that the petitioner meets this criterion. As the petitioner submitted evidence of his own salary without 
any means of comparing this salary with other process engineers, we cannot determine whether the 
petitioner's remuneration is significantly high "in relation to others in the field." Thus, we uphold the 
director's finding that the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Finally, the conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is 
consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The petitioner, a process engineer, relies on his professional memberships, his volunteer 
services as a manuscript reviewer, his publication record and the praise of his immediate circle of peers. 
While this may distinguish him from other recent graduates, we will not narrow his field to others with 
his level of training id experience. 
 is afellow of the IEEE, the Optical Society of American 
and the APS and is an editor for the Journal of Lightwave Technology. 
 has published an 
article in Science that, according to his letter, has been cited 82 times. Thus, it appears that the highest 
level of the petitioner's field is far above the level he has attained. 
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 
physical scientist 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 physical scientist and engineer, 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. 3 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.