dismissed EB-1A Case: Physics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
aWh?&!mt;i 
prevent clearly unrrrrrranted 
invnsfrr -f -V()II~ prfvacy 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: %p 1 6 2005 
EAC 03 224 52360 
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. fj 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 
ed your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
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. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), must depend 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. tj 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences as a physicist 
working in the areas of optical physics, nanonmaterials and materials science. At the time of filing, the 
petitioner was a research associate in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Princeton University. The 
petitioner submitted supporting documents including his academic credentials, copies of his published scholarly 
articles, evidence of the citation of some of these articles, evidence of his judgment of the work of other 
researchers in his field, four media articles about work to which the petitioner contributed, evidence of the 
presentation of his work at conferences and seminars, and nine letters of recommendation. 
Page 3 
The director determined the record did not establish that the petitioner had achieved the requisite sustained 
acclaim. On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence including updated lists of citations to 
his work, evidence of his service as a reviewer for scientific journals, invitations for the petitioner to present his 
work at various forums in 2005, and a copy of his article that was recently published in the Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences. This article and many other documents submitted on appeal arose after the 
petition was filed and consequently cannot be considered. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The petitioner's 
claims and the remaining evidence submitted on appeal do not overcome the deficiencies of the petition and the 
appeal will be dismissed. We address the evidence submitted and the petitioner's claims in the following 
discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion because he received his Bachelor of Science degree with honors and 
was "a winner of the National Ukrainian Olympiad in Physics in 1993." The record contains a copy of the 
petitioner's bachelor of science degree in applied mathematics and physics from the Moscow Institute of 
Physics and Technology, which was awarded "with highest honors" in 1998. A letter from Andrey K. Sarychev, 
Senior Research Scientist at the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Purdue University and a 
collaborator of the petitioner, affirms that the petitioner was in the top two percent of his class. The petitioner 
also submitted a copy of his award as a "Winner of Ukrainian National Olympiad of Young Physicists" granted 
by the Ministry of Education in the Ukraine in 1993. The petitioner explains that less then two percent of the 
competitors in this national competition for high-school students win such an award. While this evidence 
documents the petitioner's academic excellence as a high school and undergraduate student, the honors do not 
meet this criterion because they are scholastic awards for which only other students - not established scientists - 
compete. In addition, the petitioner's undergraduate honors were internal to one academic institution and not 
national in scope. Finally, the petitioner's honors and award were granted in 1993 and 1998, ten and five years 
before his petition was filed, and do not reflect sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien S work in theJield for which classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director stated that the record contained no evidence of published material about the petitioner's work. 
However, the petitioner submitted four media articles about research to which he contributed. The first article is 
entitled "'Nanoantennas' Could Bring Sensitive Detectors, Optical Circuits" and was published on September 3, 
2002 on Photonics.com and reprinted later that month on SpaceDaily.com. The article discusses research on 
left-handed materials and repeatedly quotes the petitioner's doctoral advisor, Vladimir Shalaev, Professor of 
Electrical and Computer Engineering at Purdue University. The article states that the reported research was 
published in the Journal of Nonlinear Optical Physics and Materials in a paper written by Professor Shalaev, 
the petitioner and Mr. Sarychev. The submitted printout of the first article states that Photonics.com is "A 
Laurin Web site." The petitioner includes a quote attributed to www.- that states that Laurin 
Publishing's web site is "the most comprehensive, respected Internet site in the photonics industry," but the 
record contains no copy of the source of this quotation or other evidence that Photonics.com or SpaceDaily.com 
are professional or major trade publications. 
The second article is entitled "Unnatural Optics Create Precise Photonic Lens" and was published on August 27, 
2002 in EETimes. This article states, "Optical experiments using arrays of nanowires are demonstrating that the 
concept of a negative refractive index could be realized in practical systems." The article repeatedly quotes 
Professor Shalaev and notes that he "is assisted by Viktor Podolskiy, a postdoctoral fellow at Princeton 
University, and Andrey Sarychev, a senior researcher at Purdue." The record indicates that EETimes is a 
professional or major trade publication with international circulation. 
The third article is entitled "Topsy-Turvy World of Materials" and was published in the January 2003 edition of 
Materials Today. The article briefly discusses the collaborative work of the petitioner, Professor Shalaev and 
Mr. Sarychev on nanowire composites as a basis for thin-film negative index materials and cites their paper 
published in 2002 in the Journal of Nonlinear Optical Physics and Materials. The article quotes Professor 
Shalaev, but the petitioner is the lead author of the cited manuscript. The record contains a printout from the 
website of Materials Today, which indicates that the magazine is a scholarly publication with international 
circulation. 
The fourth article was published in the January 2003 edition of Popular Science and is entitled 
"Nanotechnology Teeny Antennas." The article discusses research on nanoantennas done by "Vladimir Shalaev 
and colleagues" and quotes Professor Shalaev, but does not name the petitioner. However, the record contains a 
letter from the article's author, Greg Mone, who affirms that his piece was "based on the article 'Plasmon modes 
in metal nanowires and left-handed materials,' which appears in the Journal of Nonlinear Optical Physics and 
Materials, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2002. The authors of this paper are V.A. Podolskiy, A.K. Sarychev, and V.M. 
Shalaev." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from Professor Shalaev attesting to his collaboration with the petitioner 
on research concerning the optical response of nanostructured materials. In particular, Professor Shalaev states 
that their research "show[ed] that it is possible to construct these unique materials in visible light" and was 
published in two articles of which the petitioner is the lead author. Professor Shalaev explains that this work 
"enjoyed not only professional, but also major press attention. During 2002-2003 I was frequently interviewed 
by professional journalists regarding this piece of our work (performed under Viktor's leadership). The articles 
describing our ground-breaking findings appeared on the pages of EE Times magazine, Popular Science 
magazine, Materials Today magazine, and other online and in press publications." 
The petitioner's work has been discussed in four media articles, three of which appeared in professional or 
major trade publications with national and international circulation between 2002 and 2003. Three of these 
reports cite or were based on a published scholarly article of which the petitioner is the lead author. This 
evidence reflects sustained acclaim and is sufficient to meet this criterion. 
(iv) 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 alliedJie2d of speciJication for which classiJication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Stanley G. Brown, Editorial Director of the American Physical Society, 
affirming that the petitioner had reviewed three manuscripts for the Society's journal, Physical Review Letters, 
between March 2001 and May 2003. In addition, the petitioner submitted electronic mail correspondence 
regarding his invitation and agreement to review a manuscript for the Journal of the Optical Society ofAmerica 
B, but no evidence that he actually reviewed the manuscript. Similarly, the petitioner submitted documentation 
of his invitation to review two grant proposals for the Petroleum Research Fund, but the record contains no 
evidence that he completed the requested reviews. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a second letter from Mr. Brown of the American Physical Society that is dated 
January 27, 2005. Mr. Brown confirms that the petitioner serves as a referee for three journals of the Society: 
Physical Review B, Physical Review E, and Physical Review Letters. Mr. Brown notes that since March 2001, 
the petitioner completed 21 reviews, a number which "is significantly more than the average referee." Yet Mr. 
Brown does not indicate how many reviews the petitioner completed from March 2001 through July 5, 2003, the 
date he signed the Form 1-1 40. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits 28 electronic mail messages requesting his review of manuscripts for various 
scientific journals, but submits evidence that he actually completed only one of these requested reviews prior to 
filing his petition. The record contains documents showing that he reviewed three additional manuscripts and 
one grant proposal after his petition was filed, but we cannot consider this evidence. In addition, 21 of the 
review requests submitted on appeal were made after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Although the petitioner has received numerous requests to review manuscripts and grant proposals of other 
researchers in his field, the record shows that the petitioner had actually reviewed only three manuscripts for 
Physical Review Letters prior to filing this petition. This limited service as a referee for one journal is not 
consistent with sustained national acclaim as a scientist. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientijk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions oj 
major significance in the$eld. 
The petitioner cites nine recommendation letters from scientists in his field as evidence under this criterion. 
Five of the letters' authors have supervised or collaborated with the petitioner. While such letters provide 
relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the 
alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major 
significance in his field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even 
when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less 
weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has 
sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence 
of the petitioner's contributions. 
Professor Shalaev, in his first letter submitted with the petition, states that the petitioner's "contribution to the 
prediction of construction of the first in the world left-handed optical media, optical properties of 
nanocomposites and nanophotonics are internationally recognized." Professor Shalaev discusses the petitioner's 
contributions in six specific areas: "studies of the optical response of the fractal aggregates [that] revealed giant 
local optical activity of such media," "studies of the percolation composites show[ing] the unique optical 
properties of such media," "a way to use a percolation composite as a source of extremely - short [sic] 
attasecond energy pulses," "extraordinary transmittance of light through the extremely - small [sic] apertures,'' 
optical left-hand media, and deformed microcavities. 
Professor Shalaev states that the petitioner's "inventions in the area of nano-photonics are patented in the U.S." 
The record is devoid of any evidence to support this claim. Simply going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). The petitioner submitted a copy of a U.S. Patent Application entitled "Plasmonic 
Nanophotonics Methods, Materials, and Apparatuses" that was published on March 6, 2003. The petitioner is 
listed as a co-inventor, but the record contains no evidence that this application has been approved. 
Evgenii E. Narimanov, Assistant Professor in the Electrical Engineering Department of Princeton University 
and the petitioner's collaborator and co-author, states that the petitioner is an "internationally recognized 
Physicist for his contribution to the optical physics of nano-materials. His main results are the discovery of the 
giant field excitations in the random metal-dielectric films, generation of ultra-fast (attosecond) response by the 
percolation composites, and discovery of the local optical activity in fractal aggregates and percolation films are 
recognized to have an extreme importance for the science [sic]. He also made a major contribution to the field 
of the Left-Handed materials, pioneering the field of optical left-handed media." Professor Narimanov explains 
that he has collaborated with the petitioner on researching "the physics of partially chaotic systems, and its 
application to the deformed microresonators," the results of which have been submitted for publication in 
scientific journals. 
Gennady Shvets, Associate Professor of Physics at Illinois Institute of Technology and Associate Scientist at the 
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, explains that "[dlespite the significance of the left-handed media in the 
visible (optical) frequency range, there is only one system which supposed [sic] to have these properties. This 
system has been originally suggested by [the petitioner] and his collaborators." Professor Shvets notes that this 
work was reported in several scientific publications, some of which were submitted by the petitioner and are 
discussed above under the third criterion. Dr. Sarychev, of Purdue University, notes that the petitioner's 
"recent work on the Left-Handed media could lead to a new era in the optical imaging, building the 'perfect 
lens' with the resolution above 'used-to-be-theoretically unreachable."' Dr. Sarychev explains that "our group 
was the first in the world to propose unique 'left-handed' media in the optical frequency range, and [the 
petitioner] was the 'driving force' of this project. Our results are published in the prestigious scientific journals 
and are also covered in the major-trade media." Francesco Stellacci, Assistant Professor of Materials Science at 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explains that he has "read numerous seminal papers of [the 
petitioner]. His understanding of metallic surface plasmon is unique and has helped me develop my own lines 
of research." Professor Stellacci further states that to the best of his knowledge, the petitioner's "idea on how to 
realize an optical left-handed material is THE ONLY ONE around. In modern science with hundreds of people 
working on any given problem this is the only example I know of such a case." 
As discussed above under the third criterion, the petitioner's work on left-handed media was reported in 
Photonics.com, EETimes, Materials Today, and Popular Science between 2002 and 2003. These articles 
report research that was published in an article of which the petitioner is the lead author that is entitled 
"Plasmon Modes in Metal Nanowires and Left-Handed Materials" and appeared in the Journal of Nonlinear 
OpticaI Physics and Materials in 2002. The record indicates that at the time of filing this article had been 
cited once in the scholarly publication of one other research team. The petitioner is the lead author of 
another article in this area, "Plamon Modes and Negative Refraction in Metal Nanowire Composites," which 
Page 7 
was published in 2003 in Optics Express. The record contains no evidence that this article had been cited by 
other researchers at the time of filing. 
Vladimir P. Safonov, Head of the Laser Physics Laboratory at the Institute of Automation and Electrometry of 
the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences who has worked with the petitioner, states that their 
collaboration "has led to the discovery of the photomodification effect in the semicontinious [sic] metal- 
dielectric films, and local optical activity in the fractal composites. The photomodification effect proved the 
existence of the huge local fields in the metal-dielectric composites." Dr. Safonov explains that their research 
also discovered "local optical activity (or chirality) in fractal composites." He notes that their collaborative 
work was published in four articles and one invited book chapter. 
The record contains copies of four articles co-authored by the petitioner and Dr. Safonov and their collaborators. 
The first article, "Percolation and Fractal Composites: Optical Studies," was published in 2000 in the Journal 
of Nonlinear Optical Physics and Materials. The record indicates that this article had been cited six times by 
other researchers at the time of filing. The second article is entitled "Near-Field Optical Studies of 
Semicontinuous Metal Films," was published in 2001 in Physical Review B, and had been cited four times at the 
time this petition was filed. The third article, "Large Local Optical Activity in Fractal Aggregates of 
Nanoparticles," appeared in 2001 in the Journal of the Optical Society of America and had been cited twice at 
the time of filing. The fourth article is entitled "Low-Threshold Lasing and Broad-Band Multiphoton-Excited 
Light Emission from Ag Aggregate-Adsorbate Complexes in Microcavity," was published in 2002 in the 
Journal of Modern Optics and had not been cited at the time of filing. Finally, the petitioner submitted a copy 
of the book chapter, "Fractal-Microcavity Composites: Giant Optical Responses," from "Optical Properties of 
Nanostructured Random Media" edited by Professor Shalaev and published in 2002 by Springer-Verlag. The 
record contains no evidence that this book chapter had been cited by other researchers at the time of filing. 
P.Scott Carney, Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University 
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, states that he has met the petitioner at scientific conferences in their field and 
has followed his scholarly publications. Professor Carney discusses the petitioner's research in four areas. First, 
he explains that the petitioner's work on the percolation effects in the optical response of composite materials 
"has led to a deeper understanding of the information content of the data in optical studies of material near the 
percolation threshold as well as the prediction of interesting new phenomena." Second, Professor Carney states 
that the petitioner's discovered "highly localized, extremely large fields" in fractal materials "even when the 
illuminating field is relatively weak. Thus nonlinear spectroscopy may be carried out without the usual need for 
ultra-fast, high-intensity lasers." Third, Professor Carney notes that the petitioner and his collaborators 
explained why "periodically structured metal films exhibit anomalously large transmission of light," an effect 
that had been inadequately explained for several years. Fourth, Professor Carney states that the petitioner has 
recently "made a significant break-through in the burgeoning field of negative index materials," which will be 
"useful in creating a new generation of super-lenses." 
Patrice Gadenne, Professor of Physics and Head of the Optics Group at the University of Versailles Saint 
Quentin in France and a co-author of the petitioner, explains that the petitioner contributed "to the theoretical 
calculations instigating the very recent developments of the enhanced field physics, allowing studies in linear 
and nonlinear regimes. The [petitioner's] calculations for giant near-field fluctuations and localization did very 
well account for our recent experiments (see e.g. Europhysics Letters, 53, pp. 364-370 (2001)), instigated by the 
first experimental observation of giant optical fields (See e.g. Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol. 82, 4520, (1999)). This 
work was recognized as opening new fields of research as winning [sic] the 1999 'Langlois Prize' in France. 
Page 8 
[The petitioner's] participation was very important for planning and interpreting of these experiments as well as 
for reproducing the experimental results in numerical simulations." The record contains a copy of the first 
article cited by Professor Gadenne, of which the petitioner is a co-author, and documentation of one citation to 
this article by another research team. 
Professor Shvets states that he first became familiar with the petitioner by reading his articles and later met him 
at Princeton University. Professor Shvets explains that the petitioner is "widely known for his work in the area 
of the optics of random media, where he made a major contribution to the development of the theory of 
localized plasmon modes, predicted the local chirality of the metal nano-composites and explained the 
interaction between the optical phonons and plasmons - the problem which puzzled experimentalists for years." 
The record includes a copy of the petitioner's co-authored article on this topic, "Plasmon-Enhanced Absorption 
by Optical Phonons in Metal-Dielectric Composites," that was published in 2001 in Europhysics Letters and 
evidence that the article had been cited once at the time of filing. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from Igor Kaganovich, Research Staff Physicist at the Plasma Physics 
Laboratory (PPPL) at Princeton University. Dr. Kaganovich states that he was responsible for the 2003 PPPL 
Theoretical Physics Seminar series. Dr. Kaganovich explains that the purpose of this series is "to enhance the 
research potential of our laboratory through interaction with world-known experts in the fields related to 
propagation of electromagnetic radiation in complex media. We continuously screen the candidates for our 
speakers and invite the ones whose scholar [sic] findings have drastically affected the research in our 
international scientific community." Dr. Kaganovich invited the petitioner "and 21 other researchers from US, 
Japan, Germany, and Switzerland . . . . [The petitioner's] work on plasmon mode localization, strong local field 
enhancement, and surface-enhanced nonlinear scattering in percolation films . . . represent [sic] a counter-stone 
[sic] of modem theory of these incredible structures, and has significantly shaped our understanding of the 
field." 
The record indicates that the petitioner has made valuable contributions to his field. The submitted evidence 
shows that his work has been published in scientific journals, that one project to which he contributed was 
reported in four scientific periodicals, and that he gave one invited talk at Princeton University. Yet apart from 
the recommendation letters' attestations to the importance of the petitioner's work, the minimal citation of the 
petitioner's published articles by other researchers indicates that his work was not recognized as making major 
contributions to his field at the time of filing. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does not 
necessarily indicate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent experts 
or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in his field. 
In this case, the petitioner's curriculum vitae lists 15 "refereed journal articles" and 15 "conference proceedings 
and other publications" co-authored by the petitioner, but the record documents only 12 of these articles and one 
conference manuscript. The petitioner submitted copies of ten journal articles and one book chapter that he has 
co-authored and the record contains citations to an additional three manuscripts co-authored by the petitioner, 
but of which he did not submit copies. The petitioner is the lead author of three of his journal articles. The 
, Page 9 
record also contains evidence that the majority of the petitioner's articles have been published in reputable, 
refereed journals in his field. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence that nine of his articles and one of his conference papers had been 
cited a combined total of 25 times by other researchers. Seven of the petitioner's papers have been cited 
between one and two times each and his most-frequently referenced article has been cited just six times. Of the 
three articles of which the petitioner is the first author, only one has been cited once. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits printouts from two sources showing 72 and 76 citations to his work, excluding self-citations. We 
cannot consider this evidence because the lists contain citations made after the petition was filed. The petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The record shows that the petitioner has co-authored 14 articles that were published in refereed journals in his 
field and has also co-authored one book chapter. Yet only nine of these articles have been minimally cited in the 
publications of other researchers. At the time of filing, the petitioner was the lead author of only three articles, 
only one of which had been cited once. This minimal citation record does not demonstrate the requisite 
sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner claims to satis@ this 
category because he "has held a leadiiroleinseveralir, as illustrated by his leading 
authorship of several scholar publications [sic]." We do not dispute that the petitioner has played an important 
role on several research projects as described in the recommendation letters discussed under the fifth criterion. 
Yet to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish the nature of the alien's role within the entire organization 
or establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. Where an alien has a leading or critical 
role for a section of a distinguished organization or establishment, the petitioner must establish the reputation of 
that section independent of the organization itself. The record does not show that the petitioner held a leading or 
critical role for Princeton University as a research associate or for New Mexico State University as a graduate 
student. Moreover, the record does not corroborate the petitioner's alleged "leading authorship" of several 
scholarly publications. To the contrary, the record shows that at the time of filing the petitioner had published 
only three articles as a lead author, only one of which had been cited by one other research team. 
On appeal, the petitioner also claims to satisfy this criterion through his current position as an Assistant 
Professor at Oregon State University (OSU). We cannot consider evidence regarding the petitioner's current 
position because the record indicates that OSU offered the petitioner this position on May 25, 2004, nearly a 
year after the petition was filed. Again, the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner requests that we consider additional accomplishments as comparable evidence of his 
eligibility pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). However, all of the evidence cited by the petitioner arose after 
his petition was filed and consequently cannot be considered. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing. Id. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner is an accomplished physicist, some of whose work has been reported by 
professional scientific publications. However, the record does not establish that the petitioner had achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim as a scientist placing him at the very top of his field at the time of 
filing. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), and his 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. This decision is rendered without prejudice to the filing of a new petition under section 203(b) of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b), with the requisite supporting documents. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.