dismissed EB-1A Case: Physics

U.S. Department of TIorneland Security 
LIN 07 128 52980 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
NOV 19 2009 
ZNTER Date: 
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 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
$ 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). 
,A,@, $di*;'(dL 
f Perry Rhew 
d,{chi;f, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 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 qualify for classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had 
failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at 
least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner meets the statutory requirements and 
at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the 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 has 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. 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 national or international acclaim at 
the very top level. 
This petition, filed on April 13, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research associate. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates 
that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one- 
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt 
of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for 
an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability7' as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner stated that he has received the following awards: Best Thesis Award and the 
Toulouse Medal in 2002 from the Chemical Division of the Indian Institute of Science, a Senior 
Fellowship Award from the Indian University Grant Commission (1998-2001), a Junior Fellow 
Award from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) (1996-1998), and Second 
Position University and Fourth Position University (no dates given). 
The petitioner stated that these academic awards are significant because the Indian Institute of 
Science "is a premier post-graduate institution of research" and "is the best in India in terms of 
research output." The petitioner further stated that "Junior Research Fellowships are awarded by 
the [CSIR] with a minimum 55% marks" on a qualifying test administered by CSIR twice yearly. 
Senior Research Fellowships are awarded by the CSIR "to those holding a Master of Science, 
BE, Btech with minimum 60% marks and at least two years of post MSc, Btech, research 
experience." 
There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's fellowships and other university honors, 
regardless of the stature of the institution, are tantamount to nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. The petitioner's receipt of an award 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
limited students at his university reflects institutional recognition rather than national or 
international recognition. Further, university study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training 
for future employment in a field of endeavor. Honors and scholarships limited by their terms to 
students are not an indication that the recipient "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 petitioner's receipt of such 
honors offers no meaningful comparison between him and experienced professionals in the field 
who have long since completed their educational training. The petitioner does not address this 
issue further on appeal. 
The petitioner has failed to establish 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 field for which classzfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In order to meet this criterion, published materials must be primarily about the petitioner and be 
printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national distribution and be published in a 
predominant language. Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of a significant national 
distribution. 
In his initial submission, the petitioner claimed to meet this criterion based on citations to his 
research work by others in the field. In his August 1, 2008 request for evidence (WE), the 
director advised the petitioner that "this criterion requires the evidence of articles about the 
beneficiary's work, not articles that reference them to support their own." The petitioner 
submitted no additional documentation in support of this criterion in response to the WE and 
does not pursue the issue on appeal. 
The petitioner has failed to establish 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 allied field of speczfication for which classzfication is 
sought. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on his service as a reviewer for "such 
prestigious international journals" as the Journal of Applied Physics, Journal of Electroceramics, 
Journal of American Ceramic Society and Journal of PhysicsD: Applied Physics. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he had reviewed a manuscript for the 
Journal of American Ceramic Society in 2005, for the Journal of Applied Physics in 2006 and 
four manuscripts for the Journal of PhysicsD: Applied Physics in 2006 and 2007. The petitioner 
also submitted documentation indicating that he had reviewed five manuscripts for the Journal of 
Electroceramics between 2003 and 2007. The petitioner also provided evidence that he had 
volunteered to sit on a panel as a reviewer for the National Science Foundation (NSF). 
In resvonse to the WE. the ~etitioner provided letters from several individuals regarding the 
selection of individuals to review manuscripts for publication. - 
a professor of Ceramic Science and Engineering, stated in an August 17,2008 letter that: 
[Wlhen an editor or associate editor assigns a reviewer to a scientific paper, there 
are multiple factors for which helshe is looking: 
An expert in the field who is qualified to judge the technical quality of the 
work and who will provide a thorough, articulate analysis of the 
manuscript 
Someone who will do so in a timely fashion 
Someone that will not let their personal knowledge of individuals color 
their judgment. 
the petitioner's selection to serve as a reviewer "for many well-respected scientific journals . . . 
means that the journal editorslassociate editors place value on his scientific judgment, and his 
ability to evaluate the work of others." 
Publishing, Ltd., confirmed that the petitioner joined "the panel of IOPP referees in June 2006'' 
and had "accessed a total of 11 research papers for the Journal ofPhysicsD: Applied Physics and 
one for Journal of PhysicsD: condensed Matters." did not provide any insight on 
the petitioner's selection as a referee. 
2008 letter: 
[Tlhe editorial board constantly looks for experts in the respective fields and ask 
[them] to peer review the submitted articles to the journal. Prior to selecting a 
reviewer from a particular field, the editorial board and the Editor-in-Chief go 
through various data bases including one's citation record, publications and their 
impact on science and technology etc. 
then summarized the petitioner's experience and stated that the petitioner &'has 
been doing an excellent job in reviewing papers for our journal . . . He has made significant 
- - 
contributions to many important issues in electro-ceramic materials science. I will definitely call 
upon him to review more papers in the future where his expertise is needed." We note that the 
petitioner submitted no documentation of having reviewed any articles for the Journal of Porous 
Materials. 
In his August 26, 2008 letter, 
 editor of the Journal of the American 
Ceramic Society, stated: 
In selecting reviewers, I seek those who have established a record of publication 
in high quality journals in the area of interest. I also seek those who have 
established a record of submission of quality reviews for the Journal. [The 
petitioner] has qualified in both categories. He has demonstrated breadth and 
depth of knowledge in the field of materials science and has also demonstrated 
insight and understanding with his reviews. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted documentation reflecting that he has served on a review 
panel for the NSF. However, the documentation indicates that the petitioner volunteered for this 
position and there is no evidence that he was selected based on his standing in his field. In fact, 
it appears that the original request was submitted to the petitioner's professor who turned down 
the request but suggested the petitioner contact the NSF to volunteer. The petitioner also 
provided documentation on appeal that he was asked to review a proposal for the Technology 
Foundation STW. However, this request is dated February 11, 2008, after the petition was filed. 
Accordingly, it cannot establish his eligibility for this visa classification under this criterion. A 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future 
date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l) and (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these 
requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), therefore, depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, 
or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field 
of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(2). 
We cannot ignore that peer review is a routine element of the process by which articles are 
selected for publication in scientific journals. Occasional participation in the peer review process 
does not automatically demonstrate that the petitioner has sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a professional 
obligation of researchers who publish themselves in scientific journals. Normally a journal's 
editorial staff will enlist the assistance of professionals in the field who agree to review 
submitted papers. It is common for a publication to ask multiple reviewers to review a 
manuscript and to offer comments. The publication's editorial staff may accept or reject any 
reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish or reject submitted papers. 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 
or served in an editorial position in the same manner as and 
we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzjicance in the field. 
The petitioner states that he meets this criterion based on accomplishments which included the 
following: that he designed and optimized a novel vacuum infiltration technique to process high 
aspect ration complex oxide structures, developed electrical characterization setup for sub-pic0 
farad range capacitor measurements to study the size effects in ferroelectric nano/microstructures 
applications, highly accelerated life testing dielectric thin films for capacitor applications, and 
developed a laser annealing technique to reduce processing temperatures of Pb(Zr,Ti)03 thin 
films up to 250°C. 
The petitioner submitted letters of reference from several individuals as evidence that he meets 
this criterion. However, while these references describe the petitioner's achievements as novel 
and innovative and state that he contributed to his field of endeavor, they do not indicate how the 
etitioner's work constituted a contribution of major significance to his field. For example, Dr. 
P wrote on January 10,2007: 
[The petitioner's] work on studies of nonlinear domain dynamics and higher order 
dielectric properties of various bulk and thin films of complex oxide ferroelectric 
materials, yielded a unified description of the frequency dispersion and dielectric 
nonlinearity in ferroelectrics under subcoercive driving fields. The results of this 
study are very useful to control the functionality of piezoelectric 
microelectromechanical systems at various operating fields and frequencies. 
He also stated that the petitioner's "work in the field of unconstrained ferroelectric high aspect 
ratio structures is novel and very useful for future electronic device applications," and that "[hlis 
recent results of reducing processing temperatures of ferroelectric thin films using laser 
annealing are extraordinary. These results are particularly useful to reduce processing 
temperatures of various piezoelectric sensor elements on polymer based substrates." He does 
not, however, indicate how the petitioner's findings have been utilized or applied. 
who served as the petitioner's post-doctoral advisor at Pennsylvania State 
University, stated: 
[The petitioner's] research has a variety of important societal implications. In 
particular, his work on ferroelectric microtube structures has opened up the 
possibility of preparing high frequency biomedical ultrasound arrays at a 
frequency range that was hitherto unavailable. The increasing frequency enables 
higher resolution ultrasound systems, which may in turn, enable earlier diagnoses 
of eye and skin cancers. His work on thin films for infrared imaging systems is 
designed to increase the sensitivity of night imaging systems, which has 
immediate applications for the military. Ultimately, as the systems become less 
costly, his work could ultimately result in inexpensive heads-up displays for 
automobile dashboards to increase visibility for night-time driving. 
, Alcoa Professor Emeritus at Penn State University, writes in his letter 
of August 8, 2006, that the petitioner "has contributed significantly to the ferroelectric 
community through numerous publications in international scientific journals as well as oral 
presentations in international conferences." does not specifically identify the 
petitioner's claimed contributions and does not describe how they constitute contributions of 
major significance to the petitioner's field. We consider the petitioner's published work in the 
criterion discussed immediately below. 
an engineering fellow at L-3 Communications stated in a January 5, 2007 
letter: 
In the case of pyroelectric devices, used as sensor elements for night vision 
applications, [the petitioner] has contributed significantly by developing processes 
to prepare donor modified perovskite films at temperatures compatible with 
standard CMOS read out circuitry. 
[The petitioner] has developed material processes, while at the same time 
performing extensive electrical and physical characterization. This ensured that 
the resulting films met device specifications, and ultimately improved system 
performance. The demonstration of low-temperature processing was a significant 
contribution to the field of pyroelectric materials. 
- emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Penn State, stated in an 
October 9, 2006 letter that he had followed the petitioner's work since 1996 and believes he has 
contributed very substantially to our underitanding of ferroelectric and anti-ferroelectric 
behavior in oxide ceramic, single crystal and thin films systems. 
Early studies of antiferroelectric lead zirconate thin films fabricated by laser 
ablation techniques gave important new information on 
antiferroelectric/ferroelectric switching, the speed and the stability of both 
forward and backward switching. In relaxor ferroelectric perovskite structure 
dielectrics the nature of the limited ordering which takes place in the B site 
caption of this ABO~ structure has always been a challenge. Probably the most 
definitive progress was that produced by [the petitioner] working with Dr. Setter 
at EPFL. From direct observation o the B site behavior in lead magnesium 
tantalite they were able to distinguish clearly for the first time the current 11 1 
random sheet model from the earlier space charge balanced Mg:Nb 1:l ordering. 
Page 9 
A most difficult but crucial piece of work which contributed substantially to our 
understanding of the origin of the nano-polar regions which are at the core of 
relaxor ferroelectric behavior. 
of the Max-Planck Institute of Microstructure Physics in Halle, Germany, stated 
in an August 29,2006 letter: 
The theory and techniques he developed are very unique and also economical to 
process such high aspect ratio structures and clarifies some critical processing 
issues in this scientific area. This is undoubtedly leading edge work in this field 
that can have a number of important applications. His research activity and 
studies at The Penn State University enables to solve certain challenges in 
microelectronic industries significantly . . . I believe the contributions of [the 
petitioner] have made represent major advances in this field and he is a pioneer in 
studying the structure path to establish the electrical as well as mechanical 
properties. 
In summary, [the petitioner's] research has already yielded significant discoveries 
that have and will have significant impact on future generation of electronic 
device systems. 
The petitioner submits additional letters on appeal that describe the petitioner in similar terms. 
For example,of the Nara Institute of Science and Technology, states that the 
petitioner "did an excellent contribution to the scientific world." Director of 
the Center for dielectric studies and profession in the Materials Science and Engineering 
 - 
Department at Penn State, states: 
[The petitioner] is very bright, skilled in research, has excellent problem-solving 
skills, is highly motivated, well read, and hard working . . . His outstanding 
materials science and electrical engineering background and skills will assure that 
his future research has significant direct relevance to our nation's security. 
The director noted that the opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 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 795-796. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance that one would 
expect of a researcher who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
Page 10 
Counsel argues on appeal: 
There exists no reasonable method to inform Service of the petitioner's reputation 
within the scientific community other than obtaining letters from the noted 
scientific figures. Furthermore, Service mentions that the opinions presented n 
letters were written expressly for this proceeding. It is without doubt that any 
extraordinary ability alien applying for an immigrant petition would secure 
testimonials expressly for this purpose. 
Nonetheless, it is reasonable that an individual who has made a contribution of major 
significance to his field of endeavor would be able to demonstrate that achievement without the 
necessity of soliciting testimonial letters from specific individuals. Further, even if the individual 
felt it necessary to solicit testimony of his or her contributions, it would also be reasonable that 
those writing on behalf of the individual would expressly state that contribution and why it was 
of major significance to the field. The ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) reflect the 
statutory demand for "extensive documentation" in section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Opinions 
from witnesses whom the petitioner has selected do not represent extensive documentation. 
Independent evidence that already existed prior to the preparation of the visa petition package 
carries greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has published his work in distinguished journals. As stated 
above, however, publications and presentations are insufficient to meet the regulatory criterion at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they constitute contributions of major significance. 
Kazarian, 2009 WL 2836453 at "6. 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. 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. 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. 
ij 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. 
While the record includes numerous attestations of the potential impact of the petitioner's work, 
none of the petitioner's references provide examples of how the petitioner's work is already 
influencing the field. The evidence demonstrates that the petitioner is a talented researcher with 
potential, however, it falls short of establishing that the petitioner had already made contributions 
of major significance. The petitioner's citation record, however, will be considered below as it 
relates to the publication of scholarly articles by the petitioner pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
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 ntajor media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of numerous articles in prestigious 
professional publications. Moreover, the petitioner submitted evidence of a significant amount 
of articles that cite to his work. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that he performed a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment and that the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on his position as a research associate at the 
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) and Penn State University. While both 
institutions may have distinguished reputations, a finding we do not need to reach here, we cannot 
conclude that every postdoctoral researcher who plays an important role in a distinguished 
university's laboratory plays a leading or critical role for the lab or the university as a whole. 
At issue for this criterion are the position the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the 
entity that selected him. In other words, the position must be of such significance that the alien's 
selection to fill the position, in and of itself, is indicative of or consistent with national or 
international acclaim. 
In his letter submitted with the petition, stated that the petitioner worked for the 
EPFL after receiving his PhD from the Indian Institute of Science, after which he began working at 
Penn State University "as a post doctorate." The petitioner provided no evidence of the leading or 
critical nature of his job in either of these institutions. 
In response to the WE, the petitioner submitted a letter f?om 0 
of the Ceramics Section in the Energy Systems Division of Argonne 
National Laboratory operated by the University of Chicago Argonne, LLC. 
 stated 
that he collaborated with the petitioner on a testing issue that could not be resolved at the Argonne 
laboratory, and that the petitioner's "expert talent in materials science and developing novel thin 
film material composition systems and electrical testing-analysis are real1 
 necessa 
 for the 
success7' of 
 program. The petitioner also submitted letters from -of the 
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory and from - of the U.S. Army Research 
Laboratory, both attesting to the essential nature of the petitioner's work at Penn State for the 
research activities of their respective organizations. However, the petitioner's consultation with the 
Argonne Laboratory and the influence of his work on that of the Navy and Army Research 
Laboratories do not indicate that he performed in a leading or critical role for Penn State University 
or for either of the organizations that use his work. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits documentation indicating that he has served as co-principal 
investigator on several projects for the Army and Navy Research Laboratories at Penn State, and 
that his status was limited because of his immigration status. The petitioner, however, provided no 
documentation that acting as a principal investigator or co-principal investigator for any project was 
in a leading or critical role. 
While the petitioner may have performed admirably on the projects to which he was assigned, 
there is no evidence showing that his role as a research associate was leading or critical to either 
organization. The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his subordinate positions 
differentiated him from the other researchers employed at the university, let alone its tenured faculty 
and other principal investigators. A comparison of the petitioner's positions with those of his 
superiors and of the other individuals offering letters of support indicates that the very top of the 
petitioner's field is a level above his present level of achievement. 
The petitioner has failed to establish 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 postdoctoral research associate, relies on his moderate number of 
publications and presentations, citation record, the praise of his peers and his affiliation with Penn 
State University. While this may distinguish him from other postdoctoral researchers, we will not 
narrow his field to others with his level of training: and ex~erience. According: to her curriculum 
u u 
has authored over 180 papers and has several patents. Professor 
is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, has written more than 500 
research papers and has 20 ptents.has published over 540 articles and has 12 patents. 
Whlle the caliber of these references is a favorable factor and has been taken into account in 
evaluating the petitioner's contributions, the record reflects that the top of the petitioner's field is far 
higher than the level he has reached. 
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 his field of endeavor. Review of the record, 
however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that 
she 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. 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. tj 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.