dismissed EB-1A Case: Physics

1.S. Departnant of llorneland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifving data deleted to 
prevent clen i.!:; ::vaamurted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: - Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: $Ep 2 8 2006 
WAC 04 064 5 1500 
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. tj 1153(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Thisis the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. A11 documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u 
pobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1 153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and a letter regarding the petitioner's remuneration. Under separate 
cover, we have received information from the petitioner's mother, - originally sent 
to the U.S. Attorney General. While Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) is under the 
Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Justice, we will consider the information 
forwarded to us. 
i 
Ms. 
 letter is not persuasive. Contrary to her assertions, the petitioner has not established 
that he meets even one of the regulatory criteria for the reasons discussed below, let alone the full ten as 
claimed by Ms. 
 letter. The letters from "well-respected professors" were not ignored. 
Rather, those letters merely recommend the petitioner as a dedicated instkctor at a community college 
and make no attempt to imply that the petitioner already enjoys national or international acclaim. 
Ms. 
 also includes a copy of the petitioner's self-published book, with no ISBN number, 
which has yet to be adopted as a text at any school, asserting that it is proof that the denial of the 
petition demonstrates the director's position that "nobody needs science." As will be discussed below, 
the petitioner's self-published book is not persuasive evidence indicative of hls national or international 
acclaim, the statutory standard in this matter. We do not contest the importance of science. At issue is 
whether the petitioner enjoys the national or international acclaim required for eligibility for the 
classification sought. We find that the petitioner, who has not established any paid employment in his 
field prior to filing the petition, has not established such acclaim, which mandates recognition beyond 
his family and the local areas where the petitioner has studied and volunteered. For the reasons 
discussed below, we find that the petitioner has not demonstrated any notoriety beyond Yerevan State 
University (YSU) where he studied and the State of California where he has volunteered since 2000 
and worked after the date of filing. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
6 
(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 -- 
m 
Page 3 
(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 
5 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavpr. 
8 C.F.R. &204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a theoretical 
physicist. The petitioner obtained his Ph.D. in Armenia in 1997 from Yerevan State University (YSU). 
While the petitioner indicated on his curriculum vitae that he was a research associate at YSU fiom 
1997 through 2000, the petitioner's immigration documentation submitted in support of his Form 1-485 
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status reflects that he entered the United States 
in October 1998 on a visitor's visa and has remained here since that time. After arriving in the United 
States, the petitioner volunteered at a community college and collaborated with other institutions in 
California. After the date of filing in 2004, the petitioner obtained work authorization and secured a 
paying job at the commhity college. While a scientist with little fonnal postdoctoral experience and a 
five-year hiatus from paid employment in the field prior to filing is not precluded fiom establishing 
ability, the petitioner bears' a heavy burden. T#he petitioner's accomplishments and acclaim must 
compare with the most renowned and experienced members bf the field. 
Moreover, the fact that the petitioner's immigrant status precluded paid employment is not a mitigating 
factor. Nonirnmigrant employment-based visa classifications exist, allowing scientists to work in their 
field in the United States prior to obtaining permanent resident status. The petitioner has never worked 
in the United States pursuant to such an employment-based nonimmigrant visa. Nothing in the law or 
regulations permits us to use a lower standard for those without work authorization than for those 
scientists working in the United States pursuant to a valid nonimmigrant employment-based visa. The 
exclusive classification sought requires more than qualification to work in the field and speculation that 
the alien is capable of contributing to the field in the hture. Rather, +e petitioner must already be 
nationally or internationally acclaimed in the field. 
- 
, , Page 4 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
 - 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The criteria follow: 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Initially, counsel asserts: 
[The petitioner] has been awarded [a] Medal for high school graduation with honors by 
the Ministry of Education of Armenian SSR. He also graduated high school in 9 years. 
[The petitioner] contends that the medal is a lesser nationally recognized award. 
The petitioner submitted photocopies of the front and back of the medal with a self-serving caption that 
the medal was awarded for "success in studies, labor and for the [sic] exemplary behavior." The 
petitioner also submitted a letter from the Dean of the Physics Department at YSU asserting that the 
petitioner "was awarded by the Dean's Honor for Excellence in Study during 5 years (1989-1994)." 
While the petitioner did not initially claim that inclusion in Marquis' "Who's Who" serves to meet this 
criterion, the petitioner submitted evidence that he has been solicited for inclusion. 
The director concluded that the honors listed on the petitioner's resume, "selection for 'Marquis Who's 
Who,' diploma with honors from YSU, Deans list, also YSU and Diploma with Honors and Medal for ' 
High School Graduation," were insufficient. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director failed to 
explain why the petitioner's honors were insufficient. Counsel asserts that being "selected repeatedly 
for the [sic] Who's Who and receiving educational horns and medals certainly qualifies as prizes and 
awards." - 
It cannot be credibly asserted that a medal fdr high school achievement is an award for excellence in the 
petitioner's field of physics. The petitioner had not even begun his higher education in this field when 
the medal was issued. Moreover, the record lacks evidence regarding-the number of medals issued by 
the Ministry of Education or other evidence about its significance. A medal for which the most 
experienced and renowned members of the field do not compete is not indicative of the petitioner's 
national or international acclaim in the field. 
Similarly, the petitioner's college graduation with honors and Dean's List achievements are not awards 
or prizes for excellence in the petitioner's, field. Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but 
training for a future field of endeavor. As such, academic scholarships and student awards cannot be 
considered prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Moreover, competition for student 
awards is limited to other students, in this case other students at YSU. Experienced experts in the 
- 
Page 5 
field do not aspire to win student awards. Thus, they cannot establish that the petitioner is one of the 
very few at the top of his field. 
Significantly, this office has held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser classification than the one 
sought in this matter, that academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, is 
not a specific prior achievement that establishes the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. 
Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 219, n.6 (Comm. 1998). Thus, 
academic performance is certainly not comparable to the awards criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(i), designed to demonstrate an alien's eligibility for this more exclusive classification. 
Finally, apiearing as one of thousands of other successful individuals in a frequently published 
directory such as "Who's Who" is not an award or prize indicative of national or international 
acclaim. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classzfication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orJields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence relating to membership in associations counsel characterizes as 
 J 
"highly regarded." Specifically, the petitioner was solicited as a member of the American Chemical 
Society (ACS), the largest scientific society in the world with more than 163,000 chemical 
professionals. The record contains no evidence that he is actually a member. The petitioner also 
submitted a solicitation to join the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 
attached to a membership certificate. That the reply form is still attached to the certificate suggests that 
the petitioner may have never responded. Finally, the petitioner is a member of the New York 
Academy of Sciences. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the above associations require 
outstanding achievements of their members. On appeal, counsel reiteratks that the associations are 
"highly regarded" and asserts that they are "well known groups and their names and titles set forth the 
qualifications necessary." 
Counsel is not persuasive. It is the petitioner's burden to meet every element of a given criterion. We 
will not presume from the name of a professional association that it is exclusive. Some very prominent 
associations remain open to most professionals in the field, gaining their prestige from their 
publications or conferences rather than their exclusive general membership. The fact that ACS has a 
membership of 163,000 suggests that membership is not limited to those with outstanding 
achievements in the field. Moreover, the petitioner is a physicist. Thus, ACS is not an association in 
his own field. Similarly, the inclusion by AAAS of the membership certificate with a reply card to join 
is not consistent with an exclusive association that has national or international experts judge the 
Page 6 
achievements of prospective members. 
 The petitioner submitted no objective evidence of the 
membership requirements of any of the associations, such as their bylaws or membership criteria as 
posted on their websites or other published brochures.' Thus, the petitioner has not established that any 
of the associations require outstanding achievements of their members. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials 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 ojfhe material, and any necessay translation. 
Initially, counsel asserted: 
Enclosed is a lengthy article in the Louys Periodical published in the United States. 
[The petitioner] contends that this is a major media because Louys is nation's [sic] 
largest weekly publication. [The petitioner] also gave a television interview regarding 
his professional activities to [the] Armenian National Network on September 4,2002. 
The petitioner submitted an English-language article entitled "The Young Talent from Armenia" but 
the name of the publication does not appear on the copy of the article. The petitioner also submitted an 
article about his immigration troubles in an unidentified newspaper. The petitioner submitted no 
evidence of the circulation of Louys. The petitioner also failed to submit evidence from the Armenian 
National Network confirming an interview. 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 'director considered only the immigration article and concluded that it did not relate to the 
petitioner's work in the field. On appeal, cbunsel asserts that the director failed to consider the Louys 
article or the interview the petitioner allegedly gave. 
We concur with the director that the immigration article does not relate to the petitioner's work in the 
field. Moreover, the record lacks evidence regarding the circulation of the newspaper in which it 
1 
 Information reviewed on publicly available websites reflects that none of the associations require 
outstanding achievements of their members. According to the ACS website, www.acs.org, regular members 
need demonstrate only a degree in a chemical science, a certification as a teacher of a chemical science or 
relevant work experience. These are not outstanding achievements in the field. The membership application 
for the New York Academy of Sciences can be downloaded from their website, www.nyas.org. The 
membership form does not require the prospective member to list any education, experience or outstanding 
achievements. The website further reflects that the academy has more than 23,000 members. Finally, the 
website for AAAS, www.aaas.org, indicates that membership "is open to all individuals who support the 
goals and objectives" of the association. Thus, AAAS membership is clearly not limited to those able to 
demonstrate outstanding achievements in the field. 
appeared. In addition, the copy of "The Young Talent from Armenia" does not include the name of the 
publication. Assuming the article did appear in Louys, 'the record is absent evidence corroborating 
counsel's assertion regarding the circulation of this publication. Counsel indicates that the publication 
is published in the United States and that it is the largest weekly publication for an unidentified nation. 
Circulation statistics and distribution data are available fiom publications. The petitioner, however, has 
failed to provide objective documentation with this information. Thus, the petitioner cannot meet his 
burden of demonstrating that he has been covered in major media. 
Further, the record contains no evidence confirming the petitioner's interview or the location in which 
the alleged interview was broadcast. Thus, we cannot determine whether the interview took place and, 
if it did, whether it constitutes major media, media aimed at the general population or general physics 
community nationally. 
( 
Finally, we acknowledge that the petitioner has been solicited for inclusion in "Who's Who." The 
record lacks evidence that his biography was actually included. Regardless, a frequently published 
directory that includes thousands of biographies of successful individuals and appears akin to a "vanity 
press" is not qualifirlng media coverage. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge ofthe work of 
others in the same or an alliedJield of speczJication for which classzJication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Professor , Head of the Department of 
Theoretical Physics of YSU confirming the petitioner's graduate work at YSU and asserting: 
Parallel to the scientific research in these years, [the petitioner] also was occupied in 
teaching activities, in work of examination committees and he was also a reviewer of 
diploma works of the Department's graduates. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted evidence for this criterion. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that the director failed to consider the letter from Professor Chubarian. 
/ 
Professor Chubarian implies that the petitioner reviewed "diploma works" for other students in his own 
department. The evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim if that standard is to have any meaning. Reviewing "diploma works" 
. 
 for fellow students at one's own university is not persuasive evidence of acclaim beyond that 
university. Far more persuasive would be evidence that the petitioner served as an external dissertation 
reviewer for a university with which he is not otherwise affiliated. The petitioner submitted no such 
evidence. Thus, the petitioner has ,not established that he meets this criterion. 
- 
Page 8 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzj?~, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signrficance in the field. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner's Bimetric Scalar-Tensor Theory (BSTT) resolves 
anomalies between the Big Bang and inflation and follows fiom Albert Einstein's work. Counsel 
asserts that the petitioner has pursued this work at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and 
Glendale Community College. The petitioner submitted several letters, all from members of the field 
in California and at YSU, published articles and presentations. The director concluded that the 
petitioner had not established the significance of hls work. On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
petitioner has been the primary author of some articles. 
, 
We will evaluate the letters below. At the outset, however, we note that the opinions of experts in 
the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained 
national or international acclaim. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. 
 The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. 
at 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. -190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters fiom independent 
references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a 
solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely 
on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries 
greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. 
Professor 
 asserts that the petitioner offered a mechanism that guarantees the accuracy of 
calculations in many theories of gravitation. While Professor asserts that this work "was 
used in numerous works in the this field," the petitioner failed to submit letters from physicists 
nationwide who have relied on this work or evidence that the petitioner published work in this area has 
been widely cited. Professor also asserts that the petitioner's dissertation solved a 20-year- 
old problem of a theory that satisfies "the cosmogony conception of worldwide acknowledged scientist, 
-~ 
Page 9 
academician V. A. Hambartsurnian." Once again, the record lacks evidence of this accomplishment, 
such as media coverage in the general or trade media or evidence of frequent citation of the petitioner's 
dissertation. 
Dr. 
 of the Institute of Applied Problems in Physics in Yerevan explains that the petitioner 
presented his work at conferences in Germany, Russia and Italy in 1994 and 1995. At issue, however, 
is the impact these presentations may have had. The record lacks evidence that the petitioner's 
presentations, as published in the proceedings of these conferences, have been widely cited. 
Dr. -a physicist at Caltech asserts that the petitioner attends colloquia and seminars at 
Caltech and engages in discussio& with Dr. ~r. notes that the petitioner has been 
published in peer-reviewed journals. While true, not every paper published in a peer-reviewed 
publication is a contribution of major significance to the field. Researchers are expected to publish 
their work in such journals to remain competitive as researchers. Significantly, Dr. asserts that 
the petitioner has already been published in Physical Review. While the petitioner has submitted a 
manuscript to that journal, it had not yet been published as of the dater of filing. In fact, the manuscript 
was returned for resubmission after responding to the reviewer's comments. Significantly, the reviewer 
concludes that the petitioner's model "suffers from a serious fine tuning problem" which makes it "a 
very unattractive alternative to regular inflation." The reviewer continues that this "drastic fine tuning 
requirement which invalideates [sic] the viability of this model as an alternative to inflation." The 
reviewer ultimately recommends the manuscript for publication only if the need for very serious fine- 
tuning is emphasized in the abstract, introduction and conclusion. 
The petitioner has submitted three letters from Dr., the Feynrnan professor of Theoretical 
mat Caltech and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. We acknowledge that Dr. 
is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, an editor of books and articles and the 
recipient of several honorary degrees and prestigious science writing awards. Thus, his opinion carries 
significant weight. That said, Dr. accomplishments reflect that the top of the petitioner's field 
is significantly higher than the level obtained by the petitioner. 
While Dr. 
 opinions carry significant weight, he asserts only that he has read the petitioner's 
work and th& it, is what "one would expect from a young professor at a strong, research-oriented 
university in the United States." In subsequent letters, Dr. 
 recommends the petitioner for a 
teaching position at Glendale Community College and reiterates his conclusion that the petitioner's 
work is of the caliber expected of a young professor at a strong U.S. university. Dr. does not 
assert or imply that the petitioner is one of the few at the top of his field or that he enjoys national or 
international acclaim. Dr. also fails to provide any example of independent researchers 
applying the petitioner's work. While Dr. 
 asserts that he has formed a "good opinion" of the 
petitioner's work, he does not characterize the work as a contribution of major significance in physics. 
Similarly, Dr. 
 of the Jet Propulsion'Laboratory at Caltech asserts that the petitioner has 
assisted him and is "excellent material for a postdoctoral research position.': Postdoctoral research 
positions are typically short-term entry-level positions in the field of research. See U.S. Department of 
Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook 15 1 (2006-2007 ed.). Nothing in Dr. Pi rjanian's letter implies 
that the petitioner is one of the very'few at the top of his field or that he enjoys national or international 
acclaim. 
The petitioner's colleagues at Glendale Community College praise the petitioner's abilities and assert 
that he is capable of more than merely tutoring students as a volunteer. They do not, however, provide 
exarhples of work that has been recognized nationally or internationally as a contribution of major 
significance to the field of physics. As stated above, the petitioner's failure to secure nonimmigrant 
status allowing him to work does not relieve him fiom demonstrating national or international acclaim. 
This visa category is for aliens who have> already demonstrated achievements indicative of national or 
international acclaim, not those that, if given permanent resident status, may someday do so. 
The above letters are all fiom individuals at YSU or in California. While such letters are important 
in providing details about the petitioner's role in various projects, they cannot by themselves 
establish the petitioner's national or international acclaim, which implies acclaim beyond one's local 
colleagues regardless of whether those colleagues may reside in two countries. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has published his work in Russian journals and has presented his 
work overseas and in the United States. Not every published study constitutes a contribution of major 
significance. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner has been frequently and widely cited 
or comparable evidence that the petitioner's published work has been influential. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a book with no ISBN number that the petitioner appears to have 
published on his own as no publisher is listed in the book. The "reviews" are both from professors at 
Glendale Community College. A letter fiom the college indicates that they are "considering" using his 
book as a text. Without evidence that hs book is already widely adopted as a text, we cannot conclude 
that it constitutes a contribution of major significance. 
The petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of 
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 
thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of 
science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by 
other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the 'impact of the 
petitioner's work. The record includes no letters from independent experts or evidence that the 
petitioner has been frequently and widely cited. While the eyidence demonstrates that the petitioner 
is a talented researcher with potential, it falls far short of establishing that the petitioner had already 
made contributions of major significance. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Page 11 
' 
 Evidence of the alien j. authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he has authored published articles and presented his work at 
conferences. The petitioner also submitted the aforementioned self-published book. The director 
concluded that the petitioner had not established that any of the petitioner's articles or presentations 
were considered significant in the field. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has been the main 
author of some articles. 
The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its 
Report and Recommendations, March 3 1, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral 
appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the acknowledgement thd "the 
appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic andlor research career," and that "the 
appointee has the fi-eedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her research or scholarship 
during the period of the appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of one's 
, 
 work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun "a full-time academic andlor 
research career." This report reinforces CIS'S position that publication of scholarly articles is not 
automatically evidence of sustained acclaim; we must consider the research community's reaction to 
those articles. 
The record contains no evidence that the petitioner's articles or presentations have been cited. The fact 
that a single community college where the petitioner has been volunteering and now works is 
donsidering adopting the petitioner's self-published book as a text is not evidence of the book's 
significance. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thejeld at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The director concluded that this criterion was not applicable to the petitioner's field. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that the petitioner's ~elf-~;blished book, lectures at a community college and 
conference presentations serve to meet this criterion. A self-published book is not an artistic exhibition 
or showcase. Moreover, as stated above, it has not been widely adopted and, as of the date of filing, 
had yet to be adopted at the community college where the petitioner volunteered and now teaches. 
Scientific lectures and conference presentations are not artistic exhibitions or showcases. Moreover, 
class lectures are inherent to the field of community college instructor. Not every instructor enjoys 
national or international acclaim. Conference presentations are far more comparable to scholarly 
articles and the petitioner's presentations have been considered above pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Page 12 
\ 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
 , 
Counsel does not contest the director's failure to address this criterion and we find that the record lacks 
evidence that the petitioner, a Ph.D. student and community college volunteer as of the date of filing, 
has ever performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished 
reputation as a whole. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signlJicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in thejeld. 
The director noted that the petitioner's Form 1040 Individual Tax Return for 2004 reflected only 
$4,765 in wages. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner now earns a salary of $5,574.66 plus 
$176 for his doctorate per month. The petitioner submits a letter from the President of Glendale 
Community College confirming this information. The petitioner, however, does not submit any 
statistics that would allow us to compare this month salary with the top monthly salaries in the field. 
Thus, the petitioner has not established that this salary is significantly high for a physicist. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, br video sales. 
The director concluded that this criterion does not apply to the petitioner as he is not a performing 
artist. On appeal, counsel asserts that 10,000 copies of the petitioner's book were printed and notes that 
the petitioner initially submitted letters from Glendale Community College indicating that text books at 
the college range from $75 to $150 and confirming that they would consider the petitioner's book as a / 
text. Counsel asserts that 30,000 students attend the college. 
The petitioner must establish eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). The petitioner submits no evidence that he has 
actually sold a single copy of his book for any amount. The fact that the petitioner's book may 
eventually be accepted as a text is not evidence that he already enjoys commercial success. Moreover, 
as'discussed above, the book appears self-published and there is no evidence that the book is being 
adopted as a text nationwide. Commercial success implies success beyond a single community college. 
Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
physicist to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the 
Page 13 
petitioner shows talent as a physicist, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him 
significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
thelAct, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER : 
 The appeal is dismissed.