dismissed EB-1A Case: Physics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 7 2005 
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. 8 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
p& 87 
r - Ro ert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska 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. Cj 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. Cj 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. Cj 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. Cj 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. Cj 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences as a physicist. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner was employed As a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Physics 
and Astronomy at Northwestern University ("Northwestern"). The petitioner submitted evidence including his 
academic credentials, membership in scientific associations, review of manuscripts for scientific journals in his 
field, copies of some of his co-authored articles and citation thereto, and nine support letters from scientists who 
know or have worked with him. In response fo the director's Request for Evidence (RFE), the petitioner 
submitted additional documentation relating to one of his association memberships, service as a peer-reviewer 
for journals, new co-authored publications, income and position at Northwestern, participation at scientific 
conferences, and two new support letters. On appeal, counsel submits a brief and further evidence of the 
petitioner's service as a peer-reviewer for scientific journals, his position at Northwestern, his presentations at 
conferences, copies of recent articles co-authored by the-petitioner, and two additional recommendation letters. 
On appeal, counsel repeatedly cites an unpublished decision.of this office. Counsel's reliance on that decision is 
misguided. Although designated and published decisions of the AAO are binding precedent on all Service 
employees in the administration of the Act pursuant to 8 C.F.R. fj 103.4(c), unpublished decisions have no 
such precedential value. We address counsel's remaining contentions and the evidence submitted 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 thejeld of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion through his second-place award in the 1995 Ukrainian National 
Student Physics Olympiad. Although the petitioner includes this award in his curriculum vitae, the record 
contains no documentation of this prize. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Ca'lifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Even if 
documented, the award would not meet this criterion because it is a scholastic award for which only other 
students - not established scientists - compete. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
I 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classz~cation is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of the& members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion through his membership in the Institute of Nanotechnology, the 
Optical Society of America (OSA), and th'e American Physical Society (APS), but only submitted evidence of 
his membership in the former two associations. The record shows that the petitioner is a "professionaE member" 
of the Institute of Nanotechnology. A submitted printout from the Institute's website explains that professional 
membership includes two subcategories, "Fellow" and "Full Member," and that applicants for professional 
membership must "provide information on their experience and evidence of their qualifications. Applications 
will be assessed as to 'Fellow' or 'Member' status by the board." The printout does not show that outstanding 
achievements are prerequisite to professional membership in the Institute. Similarly, the submitted printout 
from the OSA website states that regular membership (the level held by the petitioner) is for "scientists, 
engineers, technicians, and individuals currently working or interested in optics or a related field." The record 
contains no evidence that outstanding achievements are prerequisite to OSA regular membership. Accordingly, 
the petitioner does not 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 alliedfield of speciJcation for which classijication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted numerous copies of correspondence from scientific journals in his field requesting his 
review of manuscripts submitted for publication. While these requests indicate that the petitioner has expertise 
in his field, they do not document his actual review of the manuscripts. However, the record does document his 
review of eight manuscripts for the Journal of the Optical Society of America B, Applied Optics, Applied 
Physics Letters, Physical Review Letters, and Physical Review B. On appeal, the petitioner submits two letters 
confirming his service as a referee for OSA and APS. In a letter dated November 4, 2003, - 
Director of the OSA Manuscripts Office, confirms that the petitioner completed "reviews of five manusc*s for 
Applied Optics, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, and optics Letters -during the two years." In a letter alsodated 
November 4, 2003, Stanley G. Brown, APS Editorial Director, confirms that the petitioner serves "as a referee 
for Physical Review B and Physical Review Letters" and that he has completed four reviews since April 2002. 
Neither Ms. Cohen nor Mr. Brown state how many reviews the petitioner completed before his petition was 
filed. 
We cannot ignore that most scientific journals ,are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to evaluate 
submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field ad not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained 
national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets a petitioner apart from others in his or her field, 
such as evidence that he or she has reviewed an unusually large number of articles or has served in an editorial 
position for a distinguished joukal, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. The record in 
this case shows that the petitioner completed eight reviews for reputable journals in his field from 2002 to 2003. 
While this evidence indicates that the-petitioner was beginning to be recognized as an expert in his field at the 
time of filing, it does not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original ScientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJicance in the5eld.- 
The record contains 13 support letters from scientists who discuss the petitioner's research and its significance 
to their field. Individuals who know or have worked with the petitioner wrote ten of these letters and other 
scientists who are familiar with the petitioner's work only through his publications and presentations wrote the 
remaining three letters. 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 irnmigration-petition cany 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. 
Alexander Lisyansky, Professor and Chair of the Physics Department of Queens College at the City University 
of New York and the petitioner's doctoral advisor, describes the petitioner as an "internationally recognized 
scientist with broad range [sic] of interests who has success~lly tackled a broad range of problems in physics 
localization, optical spectra or complex crystals, and wave propagation in heterogeneous structures." 
Specifically, Professor Lisyansky explains that the petitioner's "work on the electromagnetic wave propagation 
through heterogeneous nanostructures opens new horizons in creating ultrafast electrooptic devices. . . . [His] 
research of optical spectra of mixed crystals led to [an] explanation of numerous experiments that were not 
understood for decades. He was also the first who obtained a correct criterion for single parameter scaling in 
absorbing localized systems." 
Lev Deych, Assistant Professor of Physics and the petitioner's former colleague at Queens College, states that 
the petitioner "made important contributions in the theory of optical properties of Bragg Multiple Quantum Well 
Structures with defects. Later these results laid a foundation for my proposal funded by the Air Force Office of 
Scientific Research." Professor Deych also notes the petitioner's work "on optical properties of mixed crystals 
[where] he skillfully applied a concept of local polaritons, developed earlier by my colleagues and me, to mixed 
crystals, and contributed to developing a clear physical explanation to a vast number of previously unexplained 
experimental results." M. Foygel, Professor-of Physics at the south Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 
also worked with the petitioner at Queens College on c'electro-magnetic properties of semiconductors in the so 
called polariton region" and their collaborative work has been published in journals and presented at 
conferences. 
Bart Van Tiggelen, Research Professor of Physics at the Centre National de la Recherche ScientiJigue, states 
that he met the petitioner when the petitioner was a graduate student at Queens College. Professor Van Tiggelen 
explains that the petitioner introduced "the concept of a local polariton'' and that "[aln extremely convenient 
feature of local polaritons discovered by [the petitioner], and-with potential applications, is that they can be 
'tuned' (in energy) by thermo- and photo-excitation of the localized electron states or by trapping of injected 
charge carriers." Yet Professor Van Tiggelen also notes that the petitioner received his doctoral degree just one 
year ago and that "[iln science that is just too early to judge the impoflance or impact of scientific activities." 
Ara Asatryan, Research Fellow at the University of Technology, Sydney, Australia, states that he met the 
petitioner at a conference and again later at Northwestern. Dr. Asatryan explains that the petitioner "developed 
a theory of localized optical phonons/polaritons in mixed polar crystals and studied how these optically active 
modes influence a so-called restrahlen band . . . of the host ionic'lattice. The work by [the petitioner] represents 
a fundamental contribution to infra-red optics of phonons in polar crystals." 
Vladimir Sobolev, on the faculty of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, states that he has 
known the petitioner since his graduate studies at Queens College. Dr. .Sobolev explains that "among the most 
important results achieved by [the petitioner] is the large enhancement ofrspontaneous emission rates of InAs 
quantum dots in GaAs microdisks, manifestation of photonic band structure in small clusters of spherical 
particles, study of random laser modes in disordered photonic crystals, and dynamic nonlinear effect on lasing in 
random medium. These results stand a; the forefront of modern photonics and are important for development of 
new materials known as photonic crystals." 
i 
Allen Taflove, Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Northwestern, states that 
he is very familiar with the petitioner's work at Northwestern and his previously published research. Professor 
Taflove explains that the petitioner "achieved a key nonintuitive insight (since experimentally verified) that a 
finite amount of disorder in a photonic st'mcture can actually reduce the lasing threshold. Based upon his 
scaling analysis, it appears that partially otdered random lasers could have ultra-low lasing thresholds. The 
success of [the petitioner's] research will result in a new class of low-cost, highly efficient lasers that would 
boost U.S. industrial competitiveness broadly ;n ?reas from telecommunications to consumer electronics." 
Sergey A. Gredeskul, Research Professor at the Department of Physics at Ben Gurion University in Isreal, states 
that he does not know the petitioner, but is familiar with his published work. Professor Gredeskul describes the 
petitioner as "one of the top experts in the field of polariton optics of mixed crystals" who "made a fundamental 
contribution in this field by explaining what happens when two crystals with different polariton gaps are mixed 
together. . . . Prior to the [petitioner's work] there were no consistent physical models able to describe the 
observed optical phenomena or predict new one[s]." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits support letters from two independent experts in his field: Valdimir M. 
Shalaev, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Purdue University, and Gennady Shvets, 
Page 6 
Associate Professor in the Department of Biological, Chemical and Physical Science at the Illinois Institute of 
Technology. Professor Shalaev states that the petitioner "made a key contribution to the understanding the [sic] 
physical mechanism of formation of the defect band (impurity polariton band) in the impure polar crystals in the 
infrared part of the spectrum. His discovery has led, for the first time, to the explanation of the 
phenomenological classification ("table of elements") of the' mixed polar crystals based on their optical 
properties." Professor Shalaev further states that the petitioner's work has formed a basis for other studies in 
this area, but he does not cite any of these studies. 
Professor Shalaev also explains that the petitioner "made important contributions in the area of wave 
propagation in random media. . . . His study of ordered photonic crystals made a significant impact in 
bringing the potential applications closer to final comniercial products. . . . [His] study opened a path to low 
cost ultra-low threshold photonic lasers, which was not- feasible before. His contributions to the field have 
opened inroads for further scientific development in the field of laser optics, and are a watershed event in this 
area of science." 
Professor Shvets states that "[iln a series of papers dated in 1999-2002, [the petitioner] introduced and 
successfully applied a novel physical concept: local polariton: . . . His finding promises a whole new generation 
of photo-sensors, switches, and other optical devices based on Multiple Quantum Well (MQW) nano- 
structures." Professor Shvets further explains that "[iln his'groundbreaking work, [the petitioner] was able to 
obtain a unified description of IR optical properties of mixed polar crystals. . . . [His] discovery has finally 
given the answer to the long standing question ofthe nature of defects appearing in polariton bandgap. I am one 
of the large number of researchers working in the field of optics, who have directly benefited from the crucial 
findings of [the petitioner]. His works were instrumental in my current research project on left-handed . . . 
materials in infra-red spectrum." 
Despite the importance attributed to the petitioner's graduate work by the recommendation letters, the record 
contains little evidence that the petitione;i.'s work has made a significant contribution to his field at large. The 
petitioner submitted copies of ten articles concerning his graduate work at Queens College and co-authored by 
Professors Lisyansky, Deych, and Foygel. Two of these articles have been cited once each in the publications of 
other researchers. The petitioner also submitted copies of several abstracts of his work presented at various 
conferences in his field between 1999 dd 2001, but no evidence that he was an invited or featured speaker at 
any of these events. 
Regarding the petitioner's subsequent research at Northwestern, Hui Cao, Associate Professor in the 
Department of Physics and Astronomy at Northwestern, explains that the petitioner came to Northwestern in 
2001 and that his work "bridges the two important and hot areas in physics: photonic crystals and light 
localization. His pioneer work is very important not only to the advancement of fundamental physics, but also 
to the practical applications." Professor Cao states that the petitioner presented his findings at the Optical 
Society of America Annual Meeting in 2002 where his talk "was well received by the international audience of 
peers." The record contains an excerpt from the program for this meeting which includes a listing for the 
petitioner and Professor Cao, but the program indicates that theirs was not an invited presentation and the record 
is devoid of any other evidence that the petitioner's work was particularly well received at the conference. 
R.P.H. Chang, Professor and Director of the Materials Research Science and Engineering Center at 
Northwestern and a member of the hiring committee for the petitioner's postdoctoral fellowship at 
Northwestern, states that "[iln less than one year, [the petitioner] has begun to make major contribution[s] to the 
- Page 7 
study of the mechanism of action of random laser, one of the smallest source%of coherent radiation. [The 
petitioner] has already published two papers in peer-reviewed journals in this area of research . . . . [He] was 
able to demonstrate that introduction of the order in random laser significantly reduces the value of the laser 
threshold needed to achieve lasing. This work opens up a possibility for a practical/commercial use of these 
devices in the integrated optical circuits, inscription and optical communication devices." Dr. Asatryan also 
affirms that the petitioner was "one of the first people who proposed to take advantage of light confinement in 
photonic crystals to improve the performance of a random laser, opening the road to the potential applications." 
At the time of filing, the petitioner had co-aythored only one published article concerning his work at 
Northwestern. The record documents the petitioner's presentation of his work at three conferences, but contains 
no evidence that his work was specially featured or particularly well received at these events. In his RFE 
response, the petitioner submitted a letter inviting him to present a paper at an international conference in his 
field, but we cannot consider this letter because it was written after the petition was filed. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits copies of his three more recent articles, which we also cannot consider because they were 
published 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. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Similarly, we cannot consider the 
evidence concerning the petitioner's contributions to the National Science Foundation @SF) grant, which the 
record indicates was awarded to Professor Cao after the petition was filed. Id. 
The evidence shows that the petitioner has made valuable contributions- to his field as a graduate student at 
Queens College and a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern, as attested by the 13 support letters. Yet the record 
documents only 1 1 published articles co-authored by the petitioner and only two citations of his work by other 
researchers. This minimal recognition of the petitioner's work by other researchers indicates that he had not 
made major contributions to his field at the time of filing. Accordingly, the petisioner 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 ofconsistent citation by independent experts 
or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in his field. 
In this case, the record contains copies of 11 articles co-authored by the petitioner. The petitioner is the lead 
author of two of these articles. The petitioner submitted evidence that other researchers have cited only two of 
his co-authored articles once each. The petitioner also submitted a citkion list for a third article that consists 
entirely of self-citations. Self-citations, while normal and expected in scholarly articles, do not demonstrate 
national or international acclaim. Although the record documents t petitioner's participation in several 
conferences in his field, there is no evidence that he was a featured, in f ited speaker or that his presentations 
were especially well received at any of these meetings. This minimal documentation of the recognition of the 
petitioner's work does not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Counsel cites internal correspondence of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) as authority 
i 
for the acceptability of scientific conference presentations as evidence undkr this criterion. As clarified by the 
Office of Programs, such letters "do not constitute official Service policy and should not be considered as such 
in the adjudication of petitions or applications." Memo. from Thomas Cook, Acting Asst. Cmmr., Off. of 
Programs, INS, Significance of Letters Draftd by the 08ce ofAdjudications, (Dec. 7,2000). In addition to the 
Act, regulations and AAO precedent decisions, only policy memoranaa are considered official Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (CIS) policy. Id. The cited letter of Acting Assistant Commissioner Lawrence J. Weinig 
is internal correspondence responding to an inquiry from a service center director. It is not a CIS policy 
memorandum and thus warrants no deference. We have considered the evidence regarding the petitioner's 
conference presentations in our discussion under the fifth and sixth criteria. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading .or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion through his work as a postdoctoral researcher at Northwestern. The 
director determined that "the evidence does not reflect the alien petitioner's ,role at [Northwestern] would be 
considered 'leading or critical' such as a department head or lead researcher." On appeal, counsel contends that 
"[tlhere is no statutory requirement that one has to be in a pmition of formal authority, nor specifically a 
department head or lead researcher, to be considered playing critical role or being lead [sic] figure at the 
institution." Counsel then refers to two Nobel laureates whose award winning work was performed very early in 
their careers. While a position of formal leadership is not required to meet this criterion, the 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 crifical role+for a section of a distinguished 
organization or establishment, the petitioner must establish the reputation of that section independent of the - 
organization itself. Moreover, although an alien's early work may later be recognized as seminal to his or her 
field, we are bound to assess the petitioner's 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. fj 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Professors Lisyansky and Cao attest to the importance of the petitioner's work to their respective research 
teams. Professor Lisyansky states that the petitioner "obtained the most important results published by 
[Professor Lisyansky's research] group within the last five years [and] his research determined main 
directions where group efforts are currently being applied. His results in electromagnetic wave propagation 
through [a] multiple quantum well Bragg structure were instrumental for securing a substantial grant from US 
Air Force Research Office . . . . This is the largest grant ever obtained by the Physics Department of Queens 
College." Professor Lisyansky further explains that "the progress of the work being conducted here would be 
imperiled if [the petitioner] were to be replaced by a lesser talent." Yet Professor Lisyansky wrote his letter 
over a year after the petitioner had left his laboratory to work at Northwestern. Professor Lisyansky does not 
state that he was unable to find a qualified replacement for the petitioner or that the progress of his team's 
research has been otherwise obstructed by the petitioner's departure. In addition, the record contains no 
evidence to establish the distinguished reputation of Queens College or its Physics Department. 
In her second letter submitted with the RFE response, Professor Cao states that the petitioner's "contributions to 
the publications by our group is crucial," but only references articles published after the petition was filed. 
Professor Cao also discusses the "critical" contribution that the petitioner made to the group's NSF grant 
proposal and his resultant promotion to "Research Associate," but Professor Cao clearly states that these events 
occurred after the petition was filed. Accordingly, we cannot consider Professor Cao's second letter. The 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. Id. In addition, the record contains no evidence 
regarding the reputation df the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Northwestern. Accordingly, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has vommanded a high salary or other signifcantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the$eld 
In her RFE response, counsel claims the petitioner meets this criterion because his salary and total benefits 
package for 2003 was $49,850, which "significantly exceeds the average wage and benefit package offered a 
typical non-faculty PhD research appointment in the United States which can be as low as under $30,000 with 
no benefits." The record contains no evidence to corroborate this statement. Without documentary evidence to 
support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). The petitioner submitted a copy of a letter offering the petitioner a postdoctoral position at the 
University of Iowa with a salary of $38,000, but this letter provides no evidence that the petitioner's salary or 
remuneration at Northwestern at the time of filing was significantly higher than other physicists in his field or 
comparable to physicists at the very top of his field. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be g-antkd 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. In this case, the 
record does not establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or international acclaim as a 
physicist 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)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 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. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.