dismissed EB-1A Case: Physics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
'nmsion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: LIN 04 098 52977 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: HAY 1 9 2006 
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. 3 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. ~ni further inquiry must be made to that office. 
v 
aobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Y 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN 04 098 52977 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. 5 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 was involved in 
the 900 person collaboration that discovered the top quark and has served as a group leader for groups 
of between 20 and 75 members of the DZero (D0) experiment that includes more than 600 researchers 
total. For the reasons discussed below, while we acknowledge the petitioner's contributions and 
scholarly articles, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria as 
required. Specifically, we find that the petitioner meets only two. More generally, while the petitioner 
has demonstrated impressive accomplishments for his years of experience, he has not demonstrated that 
he compares with the most renowned and experienced members of his field with respect to his 
reviewinglediting responsibilities and his role for his more than 600-person collaboration. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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. 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. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
LIN 04 098 52977 
Page 3 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classifL the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a research 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.' 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the Jield for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted a March 1, 1995 press release from the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory 
(Fermilab) announcing the discovery of the top quark. The press release notes that the discovery was 
the result of two collaborations, each with about 450 members. Several U.S. newspapers, including the 
Washington Post covered the story. None of these newspaper stories mention the petitioner by name. 
India Abroad and Indian Express also covered the story and both name the petitioner as one of several 
Indian nationals involved in the discovery. 
The director questioned the petitioner's role in the discovery of the top quark, noting that the petitioner 
was identified as a "research scholar," and not as a scientist. The director concluded that the petitioner 
had not established the significance of the two papers that mention him by name and that articles from 
1995 were not evidence of sustained acclaim in 2004 when the petition was filed. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he has submitted letters attesting to his role in the discovery and 
that his ability to make a contribution while still a doctoral student emphasizes his abilities. He submits 
evidence that Indian Express is one of India's largest English language daily newspapers with a 
circulation of 519,000 in 17 cities. The petitioner has now established that Indian Express is major 
media. 
While the press coverage of the top quark discovery relates to the significance of the study and will be 
considered below as evidence of the significance of the petitioner's contributions to his field, none of 
the materials, including those that name the petitioner, can be considered to be "about" the petitioner. 
Moreover, we concur with the director that a single major media article in 1995 that merely names the 
petitioner as one of two students in a nine person Indian team involved with a 900-person project is not 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim in 2004, when the petition 
was filed. 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
LIN 04 098 52977 
Page 4 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established 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 alliedjeld of speczjcation for which classzjcation is sought. 
Initially, the petitioner asserted that he had served on editorial boards to review two papers submitted to 
- - 
and subsequently published in Physical Review Letters and eight papers presented at conferences. He 
further asserted that he was presently serving on another editorial board. He references exhibit 65, a 
letter from a D0 coordinator. While the exhibits are not labeled, exhibit 66 is stated to be an e-mail 
The exhibit that precedes this e-mail is a letter from Professor d-1 
the petitioner "actively participated" in reviewing the work of other members 
of the collaboration as the last step before the paper was submitted for publication, ensuring the 
integrity and correctness of the results. Professor 
 asserts that the petitioner made "significant 
contributions to the review process" and that the collaboration benefited from the petitioner's 
"experience and his broad physics knowledge." 
The director requested evidence of the selection criteria for a reviewer. In response, the petitioner 
Professor - Board Chair of the D0 experiment, asserts that the petitioner has served on five 
Analysis Review Boards that are made up of four to five members of the collaboration. Professor 
further asserts that the review boards are mostly made up of senior professors but that the 
petitioner was selected based on his "demonstrated ability as an expert in the field." Professor a 
member of the D0 collaboration, asserts that the petitioner was on the analysis review board for one of 
his papers that was published in Physical Review Letters. The petitioner was "the junior most member 
of the editorial board, comprising of only 5 members out of 450 scientists from most part [sic] of the 
world." 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that his review responsibilities exceed the 
peer-review duties common within the research profession. On appeal, the petitioner submits two new 
letters addressing this criterion. 
hundreds of ~hvsicists 
A d 
one of two spc 
Physics Coordinator for 2001-2003, asserts that he chose the petitioner out of 
to review new analyses and papers prior to publication. Professor - 
3kesmen for D0 from 1996 to 2002, asserts that data collected at Fermilab is 
typically analyzed by a group of three to ten members. Once the analysis group has produced some 
results, an editorial board is formed, typically consisting of five scientists not involved in the analysis, 
to review the analysis. As the task of the editorial boards is "crucial," experienced scientists are 
typically assigned to the boards. 
LIN 04 098 52977 
Page 5 
Professor Weerts asserts that the D0 collaboration has produced over 120 papers in Physical Review 
Letters. According to the letters provided, each of these papers must have been reviewed by 
approximately five members not involved in the original analysis. It is acknowledged that those who 
review the analysis work are selected based on their experience and knowledge. It may also be a 
reflection of the petitioner's promise in the field that he has been selected with less experience than 
other reviewers. The petitioner, however, cannot narrow his field to junior members of the 
collaboration. The petitioner must compare with the most experienced and renowned members of his 
field. While the petitioner's selection is an indication of his reputation among his superiors, it is not 
indicative of national or international acclaim. 
Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart fiom others in his field, such as evidence that he has 
received independent requests from a substantial number of journals or served in an editorial position 
for a distinguishedjournal, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientlJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in thejeld. 
The director acknowledged the petitioner's original scientific contributions, but concluded that the 
petitioner had not established that these contributions were of major significance through the 
submission of evidence independent of the reference letters prepared in support of the petition. 
On appeal, the petitioner focuses on his participation in the discovery of the Top Quark. The petitioner 
asserts that the muon scintillator detector was a key detector component used in the discovery and that 
he is one of only a "handful of physicists" named as authors of a paper discussing this detector. The 
paper referenced by the petitioner was published in 1997, although it discusses results fiom 1994 
through 1996. The petitioner was a Ph.D. student until 1998. The paper has 71 authors fiom 15 
different institutions. The list of references does not include the 1995 paper in volume 74 of Physical 
Review Letters that reported the measurement of the top quark. The record does not reveal that the 
petitioner's 1997 article has been widely cited. While Dr. , the Experiment Run 
Coordinator of the D0 experiment, asserts that the petitioner developed complex detectors critical to 
the discover of the top quark, the record is absent a letter from the petitioner's Ph.D. mentor explaining 
the petitioner's role in that work. Thus, the petitioner's assertions on appeal are not his most 
persuasive. 
Nevertheless, the record contains far more persuasive evidence regarding the petitioner's work with 
Fermilab's calorimeter. Although the letters are inconsistent as to whether the petitioner supervised 20, 
50 or 75 scientists, they are consistent that the petitioner led the calorimeter group for Ferrnilab. 
Several references discuss the importance of the calorimeter to Fermilab and the D0 experiment. 
Professor Michael Tuts, Director of Nevis Labs at Columbia University, asserts that the calorimeter is 
the "principal detector subsystem" and "heart" of the D0 experiment. The upgrade of this detector was 
a $4 million project. 
LIN 04 098 52977 
Page 6 
-, Professor of Physics at the State University of New York (SUNY), - 
asserts that the petitioner was initially a co-leader of the calorimeter group but in late 2002 became the 
sole leader of the group. A year later, the petitioner "was given the responsibility of determining the jet 
energy scale." a physicist at Brookhaven National Laboratory, elaborates on this 
responsibility, asserting that the petitioner is a "co-convener of a group to calibrate the energy scale of 
particle jets from the measured energy seen in the calorimeter." Mr. her explains that 
determining the jet energy scale "is crucial for all physics analysis that will come out of the D0 
experiment." The petitioner also submitted a leadership update e-mail to the calorimeter group from 
Dr. 
 thanking the petitioner for his efforts in leading the calorimeter group. In a subsequent 
letter, Dr. 
 asserts that the D0 experiment has published 20 papers in the last year based on jet 
energies calculated using the petitioner's methods. 
We concur with the director that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the 
general pool of knowledge has not necessarily made a contribution of major significance to the field 
as a whole. In addition, we typically require evidence of a researcher's impact beyond the assertions 
of his collaborators. In this matter, however, the petitioner has demonstrated that his work is widely 
cited. The director's concern regarding the hundreds of other authors credited with this work is 
understandable. As discussed above, however, the petitioner has not merely provided reference 
letters with general assertions as to his role in these projects, he has demonstrated that he has lead 
two D0 experiment groups. Thus, we are persuaded that the petitioner 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 director noted that it is inherent to the field of science to publish one's work and expressed concern 
that only those articles co-authored with hundreds of other researchers were widely cited. Thus, the 
director determined that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his publication record set him apart 
from others in the field. 
As discussed above, however, while the director's concern with the large number of co-authors is 
understandable, the petitioner has demonstrated that he was a group leader. Thus, we are persuaded 
that he has demonstrated the significance of his role for these widely cited publications. As such, 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. 
At issue for this criterion are the role the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the entity 
that selected him. As discussed above, the petitioner led the calorimeter group and leads the jet energy 
scale group. As also discussed above, the letters are inconsistent regarding whether the calorimeter 
group included 20, 50 or 75 members. While Professor Royon asserts that only two persons in the 
entire collaboration were selected to lead this important group, it is presumed that every group of the 
'~ 
LIN 04 098 52977 
Page 7 
experiment is vital to the success of the experiment and has its own group leader. Professor - 
does not indicate the number of groups and group leaders or how many scientists are above the 
petitioner in the experiment's total hierarchy. Dr. asserts that only "a very few people of [the 
petitioner's] age group get such responsible positions." As stated above, however, we will not narrow 
the petitioner's field to those in his age group. 
We acknowledge the assertions of the petitioner's references that his roles have been critical. 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. Comrn. 1972)). 
Without an organizational chart for the D0 experiment including the number of groups and group 
leaders as well as the hierarchy for the entire experiment, including the coordinators and spokespersons 
who submit letters on the petitioner's behalf, we cannot evaluate whether the petitioner's role as a first 
line supervisor is leading and critical for the entire D0 experiment, which includes upwards of 600 
scientists. 
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 
research 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 research scientist, 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. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.