dismissed EB-1A Case: Postdoctoral Research

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarrantect 
invasion of personal privacy 
l'tlBttc COpy 
DATE: n1' OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
JUtt9Z 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 1090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203 (b)(I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.s.C. § 1153(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I03.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
. fM:n~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on January 20, 2010, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation of his sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203 (b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement, specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such 
an award, the regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if --
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and immigration Services (USerS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. [d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(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 allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles In the field, In 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
Page 4 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.! With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." /d. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, US CIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
I Specifically, !he court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel, substantive, or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on May 14, 2009, seeks to classify the pelitlOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a postdoctoral research associate. The petitioner has submitted evidence 
pertaining to the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 
PuhlLvhed material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which 
classification is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. 
At the time of the initial filing of the petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility based 
on the citation of the petitioner's work by others. The director issued a request for additional 
evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8) and indicated that citations do not 
qualify for this criterion and requested the petitioner to submit published material about the 
petitioner relating to his work. In response, the petitioner failed to address this issue or submit 
any documentary evidence for this criterion. In the director's decision, he found that the 
petitioner failed to submit evidence for this criterion. On appeal, in counsel's brief, he did not 
contest the decision of the director or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers 
this issue to be abandoned and will not further discuss this criterion on appeal. See Sepulveda v. 
U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge (If" 
the work of" others in the same or an allied .field of" specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion because 
the documentary evidence did not reflect sustained national or international acclaim. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specification for which classification is sought." Pursuant to Kazarian, 596 FJd at 
1121-22, the petitioner submitted sufficient documentation establishing that he meets the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore, the AAO withdraws the 
findings of the director for this criterion. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
Page 6 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets the plain language of the regulation for this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in thefield. 
In the director's decision, he concluded that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel argues: 
The fact that [the petitioner] has been invited to present his research findings at 
the most prestigious scientific conferences in the field, combined with the fact 
that he has published approximately 80 publications in prestigious and peer­
reviewed journals, the fact that these publications have been cited over 280 times 
in the top most journals in the field and by respected researchers from all over the 
world in the field clearly illustrates that [the petitioner] has made original 
scientific and scholarly, contributions of major significance to the field of his 
endeavor. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[elvidence of the 
alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain 
language of the regulatory criteria. 596 F.3d at 1121. Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see 
whether it rises to the level of original scientific or scholarly-related contributions "of major 
significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has 
some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28,31 (3,d Cir. 
1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15,2003). 
As it relates to counsel's reference to the petitioner's published articles as evidence to meet this 
criterion, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the 
scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To 
hold otherwise would render meaningless the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least 
three separate criteria. Therefore, while the petitioner's scholarly articles will not be considered 
under this criterion, they will be addressed under the next criterion. The scholarly mticles are 
relevant to the criterion with regard to the impact they have had on the field which is demonstrated 
by citations. 
Regarding the petitioner's work cited by others, at the time of the filing of the petition, counsel 
claimed: 
[P[eers, including experts in their respective fields, have extensively cited [the 
petitioner's] research in various leading, peer-reviewed, prestigious journals .... 
The fact that others in the field have cited [the petitioner's] work speaks for itself 
and is a testament to the outstanding and brilliant work that he is conducting. 
-Page 7 
In addition, the petitioner submitted four self-compiled lists of his purported citations of his work 
by others and indicated at the top of the documents that they reflected "CitationlsJ Based on the 
lSI Web Knowledge." The petitioner also submitted screenshots from hup://admin­
apps.isiknowledge.com regarding the ranking of various scientific journals by lSI Web of 
Knowledge. However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence from lSI Web 
of Knowledge supporting his assertions on his lists of self-compiled citations. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. 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». The AAO notes 
that the self-complied lists claim that the petitioner's four articles were cited 17 times by others, 
with the highest cited article, "Nitrate Uptake, Nitrate Reductase Distribution and Their Relation 
to Proton Release in Five Nodulated Grain Legumes" (Annals of Botany (2002)), cited 10 times. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel claimed that the petitioner's 
work has "been cited by other scientists a total of 282 times." The petitioner also submitted five 
self-compiled lists of his purported citations of his work by others and again indicated at the top 
of the documents that they were "Based on the lSI Web of Knowledge." Once again, however, 
the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence from lSI Web of Knowledge 
supporting his lists of self-compiled citations. The AAO notes that the self-compiled lists claim 
that the petitioner's five articles were cited 29 times by others, with the highest cited article, 
"Nitrogen Losses from Fertilizers Applied to Maize, Wheat and Rice in the North China Plain" 
(Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems (July 2002))," cited 15 times. The AAO further notes that 
the petition was filed on May 14,2009. However, counsel claimed that three of the articles that 
cited to the petitioner's work were cited after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45,49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi. 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 
1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille. 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 
1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition." Jd. at 176. 
Further. the petitioner submitted a document and indicated on the top that it was a 'Translation 
of Citations of Papers Published in Chinese Journals Based on China Citation Database Web 
(CNKI)." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b) provides in pertinent part: 
(3) Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he 
or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
In this case, the petitioner failed to submit "a full English language translation which the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English" as required by the regulation at 8 
Page 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Because the petitioner failed to comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3), the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. 
Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. Moreover, a review of the purported foreign language documents fails to reflect that 
they are, in fact, from the "Citation Database Web (CNKI)," such as the listing of the website 
address or any other identifiers on the documents themselves. The AAO notes that the purported 
translation from CNKI claims that the petitioner's 35 articles were cited 236 times by others, 
with the highest cited article, "Advances in Researching the Rhizosphere pH and Phosphorous 
Utilization" (Chinese Journal of Soil Sciences (1992)), being cited 28 times. The AAO further 
notes that the petitioner indicated that 25 of the articles that cited his work were published in 
2009, however the petitioner failed to include the months that they were published, so as to 
demonstrate that the articles were published prior to the filing of his petition. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted nine self-compiled lists of his purported citations of his work 
by others and again indicated at the top of the documents that they were "Based on the lSI Web 
of Knowledge." Yet again, however, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
from lSI Web of Knowledge supporting his lists of self-compiled citations. The AAO notes that 
the self-complied lists claim that the petitioner's nine articles were cited 46 times by others, with 
the highest cited article, "Nitrogen Losses from Fertilizers Applied to Maize, Wheat and Rice in 
the North China Plain" (Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems (July 2002))," being cited IS times. 
Further, counsel submitted a document and indicated on the top that it was a "Translation of 
Citation of Papers Published in Chinese Journals Based on China Citation Database Web 
(CNKI)," along with an affidavit from counsel stating that "[tJhe documents, Citations for China 
regarding [the petitioner'sl publications in China, translated from Chinese to English are accurate 
and correct." A review of the purported foreign language documents fails to reflect that they are 
from the "Citation Database Web (CNKI)," such as the listing of the website address or any other 
identifiers. In fact, it is the same document that was submitted in response to the director's 
request for additional evidence. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner failed to establish that his work has been cited by 
others in their own work. Nonetheless, while the number of total citations is a factor, it is not the 
only factor to be considered in determining the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. 
Generally, the number of citations is reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that the 
field has taken some interest to the petitioner's work. However, it is not an automatic indicator 
that the petitioner's work has been of major significance in thefield. In this case, according to the 
documentary evidence submitted on appeal, the petitioner's 44 articles have been cited 282 times 
with the highest article cited 28 times, with 36 articles cited 10 or less times, as well as 27 atticles 
cited 5 or less times. The AAO is not persuaded that such citations are reflective that the 
petitioner's work has been of major significance in the field. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to 
submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that his articles have been unusually influential, 
such as articles that discuss in-depth the petitioner's findings or credit the petitioner with influencing 
or impacting the field. In this case, the petitioner's documentary evidence is not reflective of having 
a significant impact on the field. Merely submitting documentation reflecting that the petitioner's 
work has been cited by others in their published material is insufficient to establish eligibility for 
Page 9 
this criterion without documentary evidence reflecting that the petitioner's work has been of a major 
significance in the field. The AAO is not persuaded that the moderate citations of the petitioner's 
articles are reflective of the significance of his work in the field. The petitioner failed to 
establish how those findings or citations of his work by others have significantly contributed to 
his field as a whole. 
On appeal, counsel also argues: 
[The petitioner] has been invited to present his 
prestigious international scientific conferences. 
petitioner's] work has been at the 
findings at several 
that [the 
present his 
research findings. The fact that [the petitioner's] research findings have been 
selected for presentation to the scientific research community is evidence that his 
work is considered to be original and a major contribution of significance in the 
field of his endeavor. Furthermore, selection to present ones [sic] research also 
illustrates that, compared to others in the field of his endeavor his significant 
pioneering contributions are substantially greater accomplishments than those 
made by others in the field and also that his work has been 
nationallylinternationally recognized. 
on In addition, the petitioner submitted 
peltiti'Dn(~r s abstracts entitled, "Tomato Growth, Nitrogen Uptake and Soil 
Mineral N as Affected by Controlled Release Fertilizers in South Florida" and "Effects of 
Temperature and Soil Type on N Release and Nitrification 
Release Fertilizers," at the Joint Annual Meeting of 
SSA, ASA, and CSSA from October 5 - 9, 2008. 
Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to present new work, discuss 
new findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and 
sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government 
agencies. Participation in such events, however, does not equate to an original contribution of 
major significance in the field. There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's conference 
presentations have been frequently cited by independent researchers or have otherwise 
significantly impacted the field, so as to demonstrate that the petitioner has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. In fact, the petitioner submitted a 
recommendation letter from that discussed the petitioner's conference 
presentations at the Joint SSSA, ASA, and CSSA in October 2008, 
and a recommendation letter from at the Third 
Conference in October 2004 that discus s presentations but failed to identify 
--Page 10 
how the ~ s presentations 
example, _stated: 
can be considered of major significance in the field. For 
In his presentation, [the petitioner] introduced a non-linear (NUN) model to 
predict nitrogen release from slow release fertilizers. His model accounted for the 
effects of temperature and soil type on the rate of nitrogen release. His research 
work was very important in the study and application of slow release nitrogen 
fertilizers. [The petitioner 1 investigated the mechanisms controlling nitrogen 
release rates and patterns and the main environmental factors that affect them. 
I The petitioner's I data demonstrated that climatic conditions and soil type are 
important factors affecting the rates and patterns of nitrogen release. [The 
petitioner's] results demonstrated the critical importance of taking into account 
both climatic conditions and soil type in the development of new slow-release 
fertilizer formulations designed to control the release rate of nitrogen, so that the 
needs of the crop are optimally met and loss of nitrogen to the environment is 
minimized. 
While _ identified an original finding made by the petitioner, he failed to discuss the 
significance of the petitioner's findings in the field, so as to demonstrate that the petitioner's 
original contributions are of major significance. Instead, _ generally stated that the 
petitioner's work was "very important" without indicating the impact of influence of his work in 
the field. 
Similarly, _stated: 
At the conference, [the petitioner] reported that nitrogen losses through 
volatilization are very high in rice production in the_Region of China. 
Furthermore, [the petitioner] reported his research showed that the main factors 
determining the amount of nitrogen lost to the environment through volatilization 
are the concentrations of ammonium ions in surface waters and the intensity of 
sun light. In order to reduce these nitrogen losses and to improve the efficiency of 
nitrogen use by rice plants, [the petitioner] recommended changes in the times 
when nitrogen fertilization would be applied. 
[The petitioner's] presentation was a highlight of the Conference. His research 
has contributed significantly to a better understanding of how to improve the 
efficiency of nitrogen fertilizer use in rice production and in reducing the 
environmental impact of excessive nitrogen fertilizer use in rice production .... I 
can definitely say that [the petitioner'sl report was received with great interest and 
that his work has contributed significantly to making agriculture more sustainable. 
_ discussed the original findings and contributions of the petitioner but fell 
substantially short in demonstrating that the petitioner's work has been of major significance in 
the field. While indicated that the petitioner's "research has contributed 
-Page II 
significantly," he failed to provide specific details how the petitioner's research has 
been of major significance in the field. Instead, made general statements without 
demonstrating the significance of the petitioner's field beyond the conference .• 
_ failed to state, for example, that the petitioner's work has been widely applied in the 
field, so as to reflect that his original contributions have been of major significance. 
The petitioner submitted other several recommendation letters, which simply mention that the 
petitioner made presentations at conferences without discussing how the petitioner's 
presentations can be considered original contributions of major significance in the field. For 
example, stated that "[h]is excellent research work is indicated by [the 
pulbli<cation record, which includes numerous journal publications and conference 
proceedings about nitrogen research." stated that "[h]e also 
actively participates and his national and international academic 
conferences." Also, has been invited to attend many 
national and the 
_ Congress, and the present his research findings." 
While _ and made presentations at conferences, 
they failed to identify the presentations or conferences, as well as demonstrating that his 
presentations have been of major significance in the field. Moreover, although_ stated that 
the petitioner "has been invited to attend" conferences, he failed to establish that the petitioner 
actually attended and presented at the conferences, let alone that the petitioner's conference 
presentations resulted in any original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Again, while the presentation of the petitioner's work at conferences may be acknowledged as 
original contributions based on the selection of them to be presented, the AAO is not persuaded that 
presentations of the petitioner's work at several venues are sufficient evidence establishing that his 
work is of major significance to the field as a whole and not limited to the engagements in which 
they were presented. The petitioner failed to establish, for example, that the presentations were of 
major significance so as to establish their impact or influence beyond the audience at the 
conferences. 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitIOner submitted additional 
recommendation letters. In this case, while the recommendation letters praise the petitioner for 
his work and discuss his original findings and research, they fail to indicate that his contributions 
are of major significance in the field. The letters provide only general statements without 
offering any specific information to establish how the petitioner's work has been of major 
significance. For instance,_ stated: 
[The petitioner's] research work has encompassed all aspects of nitrogen in 
agriculture and ecological system. He has investigated the N loss mechanisms 
and processes which include nitrification-denitrification, ammonia volatilization, 
N leaching and N20 emission. His research findings have helped to develop best 
management practices for N fertilization, and development and application of new 
fertilizers materials for improving N use efficiency in agriculture production. 
~ 
Page 12 
While indicated that the petitioner helped to develop best management practices and 
new fertilizers failed to specifically identify any best management practices or new 
fertilizers that were developed as a result of the petitioner's research. There is no indication that 
the petitioner's contributions have been of major significance in the field. Moreover, 
stated: 
[The petitioner] made several significant findings ... that includes: Nitrogen 
efficiency in soils in China, and developed several new methods such as 
nondisturbing micrometeorological technique, continuous airflow method, 
eSNzO+lsN2)-N fluxes, lysimeter method and ISN mass balance method in 
studying the main N cycle processes to monitor nitrogen cycling in main 
agricultural production areas in China. He evaluated the extent of N losses in 
rice, wheat and corn fields and evaluated factors that influencing such losses. 
[The petitioner] developed effective strategies for N fertilizer management 
practices for sustainable crop production in main agricultural areas of China that 
has helped to minimizing N loss into environment. 
_ indicated that the petitioner made "several significant findings," • 
failed to explain how such findings have been of major significance in the field. Instead, 
generally stated that that the petitioner developed effective strategies without 
specifically describing the strategies and demonstrating that they have been of major significance 
in the field. 
summarized the petitioner's research and findings regarding the 
dellitl'ification potential in agricultural soils of China, the usefulness of slow­
release and controlled-release nitrogen fertilizers on the growth of tomato and impact on nitrogen 
leaching in the United States, and the determination of whether temperature and soil type affect 
the nitrogen release rate from slow-release organic nitrogen fertilizers. In conclusion,. 
_stated: 
It is apparent from the above summary of [the petitioner's] research that he has 
demonstrated that his contributions are so significant that many human beings 
benefit from his talents, innovative capability, and ingenious developments. 
Further, he is researching topics extremely valuable to the heath and success of 
major agricultural producers while understanding how to protect the environment 
at the same time. I believe he has further demonstrated that he can improve the 
US healthcare, economy, and society by solving issues important to both 
agriculture and society as a whole (water quality) [emphasis added]. There is no 
doubt that, if he were not admitted to US, works in the field of nitrogen response 
and fate would be adversely impacted. 
While discussed the original findings of the petitioner's research, he failed to 
demonstrate that the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the 
Page 13 
field. indicated that the petitioner's contributions are significant to 
many human beings, he failed to establish ex~ been impacted and how his findings 
have already affected the field. In fact, _ discussed the significance of the 
petitioner's work in terms of future applicability, such as the petitioner "can improve US 
healthcare, economy, and society." Without evidence indicating the petitioner's work is 
already being applied in the field, the petitioner cannot establish eligibility for this criterion 
based on possible or speculative outcomes. 
stated: 
It was [the petitioner] who developed a first-order Model using the non-linear 
curve-fitting procedure NUN to describe nitrogen release from the four release 
organic nitrogen fertilizers. Thus it was possible to identify four products with 
different N release curves. These depended on the chemical composition of a 
slow release fertilizer, soil temperature and soil types. [The petitioner's] research 
is expected to deliver a significant contribution to a more sustainable use of 
fertilizers in the U.S.A [emphasis added]. 
[The petitioner] described iso-curves for the influence of soil temperature on N 
release from different N fertilizer products which deliver an essential contribution 
for an improving timing of N fertilizer applications. A particular benefit can be 
expected for vegetable production in South Florida with high temperature and 
high rainfall and sandy soils r emphasis added I. 
Likewise, _ speculated on the significance of the petitioner'S work at some time in the 
future. Instead of demonstrating that the petitioner has previously delivered 
contribution to a more sustainable use of fertilizers in the United States, 
indicated that the petitioner's research is "expected" to do so. Further, while 
indicated the petitioner's research regarding the influence of iso-curves, 
particular benefit "can" be expected for vegetable production without establishing that vegetable 
production has already been significantly influenced based on the petitioner's research, so as to 
demonstrate an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
I The petitioner's] research focuses on controlled-release fertilizers that supply just 
what plants need, no more no less. This prevents extra fertilizers from 
contaminating our ground water supply and protects the surrounding environment. 
His research will lead to cost-saving utilization by farmers and suburban yard 
owners to help make our environment cleaner [emphasis added]. 
Again, to identify a single cost-saving utilization 
yard owners that can be credited to the petitioner's research. Rather, 
that the petitioner's research "will lead" to it. It is insufficient to meet 
indicated 
HllJ!;U;"!;" of this 
Page 14 
regulation based on possible implications, witbout evidence reflecting that the petitioner's work 
is actually being widely applied in the field. 
stated: 
[The petitioner I carried out extensive research on the nitrogen cycle in Chinese 
agricultural field soils planted with wheat, com and rice. [The petitioner] 
classified the main nine agricultural soils of China into three groups according to 
their denitrification potential. His research determined the extent of nitrification 
and denitrification of nitrogen fertilizers in crop-soil system and identified the 
main contributory factors. [The petitioner] developed an effective management 
strategy for fertilization to reduce nitrogen loss by nitrification and denitrification. 
[The petitioner] has focused his research on slow-release nitrogen fertilizers and 
controlled-release nitrogen fertilizers for vegetable production. [The petitionerl 
investigated several new slow-release organic nitrogen fertilizers and controlled­
release N fertilizers by pot experiments, field experiments, and laboratory 
incubation experiments. All his research results are very useful in modifying the 
formulation of new slow-release and controlled-release N fertilizers for 
sustainable vegetable production in the United States. 
In describing the petitioner's research, indicated tbat the petitioner's research was 
useful but did not indicate that his contributions have been of major significance in the field. In 
fact, failed to indicate that new slow-release and controlled-release N fertilizers have 
been modified using the petitioner's research findings. There is insufficient information 
establishing that the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
indicated and summarized the petitioner's "most important scientific 
contributions." Regarding the characterization of soil minerals in the rhizosphere,_ 
stated that the petitioner "is a leading researcher in rhizoshpere research as evidenced by his 
numerous publications and citations in the I990s on this topic." Regarding the study methods to 
improve cereal and vegetable qualities,_stated that the petitioner's "innovative research 
is of both scientific and socio-economic significance" and "[h]is publications in this area have 
greatly advanced our knowledge of producing higher quality of food in an environment that is 
being changed by human activities." Regarding tbe examination of nitrogen cycling in natural 
and agricultural ecosystems, _ stated that "[hi is work greatly improved our 
understanding of these important processes in the ecosystems and consequently how these 
cycling will affect human health." 
_ made general statements without providing any specific examples, so as to 
demonstrate that the petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Simply stating that the petitioner's research has been published and cited, is of botb scientific 
and socio-economic significance, and has advanced and improved the field's knowledge and 
understanding is insufficient to establish that the petitioner has made original contributions of 
Page 15 
major significance in the field. __ for example, failed to explain how the petitioner's 
research has significantly expanded the field's knowledge and understanding. 
summarized the petitioner's research results from his work regarding 
nitrification and denitrification potential in agricultural soils of China, gaseous loss of nitrogen 
from fertilizers applied to maize and wheat growing on calcareous soil in North China Plain, and 
effects of slow-release and controlled release nitrogen fertilizers on tomato growth and N 
leaching. Instead of discussing the significance of the petitioner's work in the field, ••••• 
indicated that "I the petitioner 1 has the expertise to address these issues in that he has been 
working with slow-release materials for a number of years and thus he is uniquely qualified as a 
research scientist" and that "[h]e has in-depth and unique knowledge in his area of research that 
few if any have and would be an invaluable assess [sic] to this research area in the years to 
come," 
Merely having a diverse skill set is not a contribution of major significance in and of itself. 
Rather, the record must be supported by evidence that the petitioner has already used those 
unique skills to impact the field at a significant level in an original way. Furthermore, assuming 
the petitioner's skills are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate 
skill shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Labor through the alien employment labor certification process. See Matter of 
New York State Dep't. of Tramp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). Regardless,. 
_ failed to demonstrate that the petitioner has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
stated: 
I The petitioner's 1 contributions to this research area are very important. For 
example, a non-linear model to predict nitrogen release from slow release 
fertilizers being developed by [the petitioner] accounts for the effects of 
temperature and soil type on the rate of release of nitrogen. These two factors arc 
critically important in the efficient use of applied fertilizers. Moreover, [the 
petitioner's I research is measuring the nitrogen release rate, nitrogen use 
efficiency and the loss of nitrogen through leaching from the root zone, and thus 
he is generating the data needed to validate the non-linear model. Clearly, [the 
petitioner's I research is contributing substantially to the theory and practice of the 
efficient use of controlled release and slow release nitrogen fertilizers. 
In addition, _ discussed the petitioner's research findings regarding the mobilization of 
plant-available phosphorous in the soil, curbing environmental impacts of nitrogen and 
increasing its use efficiency by crops in China, reducing production of the potent greenhouse gas 
nitrous oxide, and making microelements available for crop growth in calcareous soils. While 
identified original contributions made by the petitioner through his research and 
findings, he failed to discuss the impact of the work on the field, so as to demonstrate original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Finally, _ indicated that the petitioner 
Page 16 
"has made substantial contributions" regarding inflating fertilizer prices, fertilizer impacts on 
natural ecosystems, looming phosphate shortage, a~ the hole in the ozone shield and 
reducing greenhouse gas production. Although _ claimed that the petitioner has 
substantially contributed to solving these problems, he failed to provide specific examples 
explaining how the petitioner's research has influenced these issues. ~ade general 
statements without establishing that the petitioner's work has been of major significance in the 
field. There is no evidence in the record of proceeding, for example, demonstrating that the 
petitioner's work has impacted the inflation of fertilizer prices or mended the hole in the ozone 
shield and reduced greenhouse gas production . 
• stated: 
[The petitionerj is currently investigating the effects of slow-release and 
controlled-release nitrogen fertilizers on tomato growth and nitrogen leaching into 
ground water. . .. [The petitioner] discovered that higher efficiency of nitrogen 
use, greater yields of tomatoes, and considerably less leaching of nitrate-nitrogen 
can be achieved by using slow-release and controlled-release nitrogen fertilizers. 
Significant improvements can be made in tomato production and in the reduction 
of nitrogen loss by applying slow-release and controlled-released N fertilizers 
[emphasis added [. [The petitioner I has developed a key approach regarding how 
to recommend the most suitable slow-release and controlled-release N fertilizers 
to tomato farmers for improving crop production and sparing the environment. 
[The petitionerj has shown that it is most important to evaluate the performance 
of slow-release N fertilizers in each individual soil under different conditions of 
moisture and temperature. 
[The petitionerj designed new devices to measure nitrogen release rates and 
nitrogen losses from slow-release fertilizers. [The petitioner] determined the 
nitrogen release rates in different soils at various soil temperatures. He developed 
a non-linear model to describe nitrogen release from slow-release nitrogen 
fertilizers, and then applied the model to evaluate the dynamics of nitrogen 
release from slow-release fertilizers under different conditions. This is a 
significant step toward understanding the characteristics of slow-release fertilizer 
under different environmental conditions. . .. Results from his research will be 
very useful in modifying and designing new fertilizers, and in further research to 
develop the best slow-release and controlled-release N fertilizers for vegetable 
production [emphasis addedj. 
While _ discussed some of the petitioner's original research and discoveries, _ failed to 
demonstrate that they have been of major significance in the field. Instead, ~ated that 
"[ s lignificant improvements can be made in tomato production and in the reduction of nitrogen 
loss [emphasis added]" without establishing that the petitioner's research has already becn 
credited with significantly impacting tomato production and reducing nitrogen loss. Likewise, in 
discussing the petitioner's design for new devices to measure nitrogen release rates and nitrogen 
Page 17 
losses from slow-release fertilizers,_stated that "[rJesults from his research will be very 
useful in modifying and designing new fertilizers [emphasis addedJ." Dr. failed to indicate that 
the petitioner's research has already been used to modify and design new fertilizers. It will not 
suffice to meet this regulatory requirement based on possible or future implications without 
evidence that his work has already been widely applied or utilized in the field. 
in discussing the significance of the petitioner's work regarding the 
development of determining nitrification and denitrification with (15N20+15N2)_N fluxes in 
incubation experiments and field experiments and its application to the studies of nitrification 
and denitrification in main upland soils of China, in the nitrogen cycle in crops-soil system of 
region, China in its effects on crop production and environment, and the 
development of a first-order kinetics model using the non-linear regression-fitting procedure 
NUN to describe nitrogen release curve from slow-release organic nitrogen fertilizers, _ 
_ indicated that the petitioner's research is "important." However, __ failed to 
explain how the petitioner's research has widely impacted the field in a significant manner. _ 
_ general assertion that the petitioner's research is important does not necessarily equate 
to an original contribution of major significance in the field. _ failed to indicate the 
impact or influence on the field, so as to demonstrate that it has been of major significance. 
As indicated above, the recommendation letters reflect that the petitioner has made original 
contributions based on his research. However, the letters fail to indicate that his contributions 
are of major significance in the field. Moreover, a petitioner cannot file a petition under this 
classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. Given the many descriptions in terms 
of future applicability and determinations that may occur at a later date, it appears that the 
petitioner's research, while original, is still ongoing and that the findings he has made are not 
currently being implemented in his field. Again, while the AAO acknowledges the originality of 
the petitioner's findings, the letters do not indicate that anyone is currently applying the 
petitioner's research findings, so as to establish that these findings have already impacted the 
field in a significant manner. Accordingly, while the AAO does not dispute the originality of the 
petitioner's research and findings, as well as the fact that the field has taken some notice of his 
work, the actual present impact of the petitioner's work has not been established. Rather, the 
petitioner's references appear to speculate about how the petitioner's findings may affect the 
field at some point in the future. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a 
future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of [zummi. 22 
I&N Dec. at 175. That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 
114, that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition." [d. at 176. The assertion that the petitioner's research results are likely to be 
influential is not adequate to establish that his findings are already recognized as major 
contributions in the field. While the experts praise the petitioner's research, the fact remains that 
any measurable impact that results from the petitioner's research will likely occur in the future. 
While those familiar with the petitioner's work generally describe it as "important," "valuable," 
and "significant," there is insufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's 
Page 18 
work is of major significance. This regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner to make 
original contributions, the regulatory criterion also requires those contributions to be of major 
significance. The AAO is not persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply repeat the 
regulatory language but do not explain how the petitioner's contributions have already 
influenced the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy 
the petitioner's burden of prooe The lack of supporting evidence gives the AAO no basis to 
gauge the significance of the petitioner's present contributions. 
Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the 
petitioner's personal contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also 
Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008). Thus, the content of the writers' statements 
and how they became aware of the petitioner'S reputation are important considerations. Even 
when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration 
petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of 
major significance. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "Ie]vidence of 
the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in the field [emphasis added]." Without additional, specific evidence 
showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, or has otherwise risen to the 
level of contributions of major significance, the AAO cannot conclude that he meets this 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of'scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 
In the director's decision, although he found that the petitioner published scholarly articles in 
scientific journals, he found that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion as 
the petitioner's work was not cited extensively by others and did not gamer any national or 
international attention. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
requires Hie ]vidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media." Pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122, the 
petitioner submitted sufficient documentation establishing that he meets the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore, the AAO withdraws the findings of the director 
for this criterion. 
) Fedill Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, IID8 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates. file. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Page 19 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets the plain language of the regulation for this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peiformed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
At the time of the initial filing of the petition, counsel claimed the petitioner's eligibility for this 
criterion based on his roles as an assistant establishments such as the 
o:>peCIlll;all.y, counsel to the previously discussed recommendation letters 
as evidence of the petitioner's leading or critical roles. The director issued a request for additional 
evidence, including a detailed description of the petitioner's role as an . professor and 
deputy director. In response, counsel addressed the petitioner's role with The director 
found that the role with as well as his associate in the 
failed to reflect that the 
petitioner's roles were leading or critical. On appeal, counsel argues: 
[Olver the course of a seven (7) year period, Ithe petitioner] served as an 
Again, counsel failed to address any of the petitioner's previously mentioned roles other than his 
role as an for ISS within_ The AAO, therefore, 
considers of the petitioner's roles with the universities and institutions to 
be abandoned and will not further discuss this issue on appeal. See Sepulveda v. u.s. Att'y Gell" 
401 F.3d at 1228 n. 2. Regardless, the AAO notes that a review of the recommendation letters 
fail to demonstrate that petitioner performed in a leading or critical role pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Moreover, while the petitioner submitted screenshots 
from the websites of the universities and institutions, the petitioner failed to submit independent, 
objective evidence of their distinguished reputations. 
petitioner submitted a letter from 
who stated: 
Page 20 
* * * 
Du~ent in our 
m~~ =of~~y 
departments in our Institute. role as [the petitioner] 
investigated the trends in leading edge research in soil and plant nutrition in the 
most advanced countries. Also, [the petitioner] sought information on how state, 
national and international cooperative projects were orgmized, coordinated, led 
and managed to assure efficient use of scarce human md financial resources and 
the timely accomplishments of objectives. This information informed the actions 
he took to strengthen his Department. 
Although_ indicated that the petitioner "was a key performer," he failed to demonstrate 
that the petitioner performed in a leading or critical role fo~ The petitioner failed to submit 
any documentary evidence comparing his roles and responsibilities to the other scientists or 
employees of _ The petitioner failed to submit, for example, an orgmizational chart or other 
similar documentation that demonstrated the leading or critical role of the petitioner. Moreover, 
while the petitioner served as within a single department at. of _ the 
petitioner failed to establish that his roles were leading or critical to _ as a whole. In fact, 
according to the screens hots from website submitted by the petitioner, there are "five 
Academic Divisions, 108 scientific research institutes, over 200 science and technology 
enterprises, md more than 20 supporting units including one university, one graduate school and 
five documentation and information centers." The petitioner failed to establish that his 
performance as was leading or critical compared to the other 107 
"scientific including the director of his department and the 
director's deputy directors of other departments within.. The AAO notes that the 
screenshots indicate that Clearly, the 
president of _who has a staff of over 58,000, performs in a far more or critical role 
when compared to the role of the petitioner. Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires that the leading or critical role be "for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation" As indicated, the only documentary evidence submitted by 
the petitioner regarding. was screenshots from its own website. The petitioner failed to submit 
independent, objective evidence reflecting that. has a distinguished reputation. Moreover, the 
screenshots only provide background information and missions of the establishment but fails to 
provide my evidence that. has a distinguished reputation. 
Moreover, even if the petitioner demonstrated that he met every element of this criterion 
regarding _ which he has not, section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act requires the submission of 
extensive evidence. Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain lmguage of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the petitioner to perform in a leading or critical role with 
more than one organization or establishment. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory 
criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 
Page 21 
C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the 
AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different 
context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the 
singular or plural is used in a regulation4 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish he meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opmlon, the AAO must next conduct a final merits 
determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of thelirJ field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 
and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.s.C. § l1S3(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1115. The petitioner established that he met the plain language of the regulation for two of the 
criteria, in which at least three are required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3). In this 
case, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already 
been addressed in the preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3). 
In evaluating the final merits determination, the AAO must look at the totality of the evidence to 
conclude the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act In this case, the 
petitioner has demonstrated that he has reviewed some manuscripts, authored several scholarly 
articles, and has conducted research in his field of endeavor. However, the accomplishments of 
the petitioner fall far short of establishing that he "is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor" and that he "has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(2), section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l1S3(b)(1)(A)(i), and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition for an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." The 
weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), therefore, 
depends on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A 
lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of 
4 See Maramjaya v. USClS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. 
Chertoff. 2006 WL 3491005 at * I 0 (D. Or. Nov. 30. 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory 
requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single 
degree rather than a combination of academic credentials), 
--Page 22 
"extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the AAO found that the petitioner met the judging criterion pursuant to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), an evaluation of the significance of the petitioner's judging 
experience is sanctioned under Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-11 to determine if such evidence is 
indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. The 
petitioner submitted documentary evidence reflecting that he has served as a member of the 
review board for Pedosphere, reviewed 12 manuscripts for the Journal of Soil Science and 
reviewed a manuscript for Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment, the Journal oj' 
Environment Management, and the Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. The AAO notes 
that peer review is a routine element of the process by which articles are selected for publication 
in professional journals or for presentation at conferences. Occasional participation in the peer 
review process does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. Reviewing manuscripts is recognized as a 
professional obligation of professors or scholars who publish themselves in journals or who present 
their work at professional conferences. Normally a journal's editorial staff or a conference 
technical committee will enlist the assistance of numerous professionals in the field who agree to 
review submitted papers. It is common for a publication or technical committee to ask multiple 
reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The publication's editorial staff or the 
technical committee may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to 
publish, present, or reject submitted papers. Without evidence pre-dating the filing of the 
petition that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has 
received and completed independent requests for review from a substantial number of journals or 
conferences, served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, or chaired a technical 
committee for a reputable conference, the AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner is among that 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
Furthermore, a review of the credentials of the individuals who submitted reference letters on the 
petitioner's behalf demonstrates that there is stark contrast between their achievements and the 
claimed achievements of the petitioner. For example, the references have the following 
experience as judges: 
1. - Appointed member of the advisory board for fertilization at 
of the Agenda 21 for 
Editorial board member for Encyclopedia of Soil Science, Journal of Plant 
Nutrition, Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, Precision Agriculture, 
AgroPrecise, Brassica, Polish Electronic Journal of Agriculture, FAL­
Agricultural Research; Pedosphere, Egyptian Journal of Desert Ranch, 
and Arab Journal of Biotechnology; 
2. _- Reviewer for Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Critical 
Reviews in Environment Science and Technology, Journal of Irrigation 
and Drainage Engineering, Water Resources Research, Journal of the 
American Water Resources Association, Journal of Environmental 
Engineering, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 
Coastal Engineering, The West Indian Journal of Engineering, and Soil 
Science Society of America Journal; Reviewer for the New Jersey Sea 
Grant Program, Hydrology Program at the National Science Foundation, 
and Groundwater Contamination and Control; and 
3. for Bioresource Technology, Chemosphere, 
vlronmental and Experimental Botany, New 
Phytologist, Oecologia, Plant and Soil, Plant, Cell, and Enivironment, 
Restoration Ecology, Science of Total Environment, Tree Physiology, and 
Zhejiang University Science; 
The AAO also determined that the petitioner met the authorship of scholarly articles criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). A review of the documentary evidence 
reflects that the petitioner submitted 32 scholarly articles that were published at the time of the 
filing of the petition. However, when compared to the authorship of the petitioner's references, 
it appears that his references are far above the accomplishments of the petitioner. For example: 
I. ~ 136 publications; 
2. 352 publications; 
3. 307 publications; 
4. _-85 publications, including 3 books and 4 book chapters; and 
5. __ - 96 publications, including 4 book chapters. 
Although the petitioner met the plain language of the regulation through his co-authorship and 
authorship of scholarly articles, he has not established that the moderate publication of such 
articles demonstrates a level of expertise indicating that he is among that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scholars, the AAO will also evaluate a citation 
history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles to determine the impact and 
recognition his work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. For 
example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the petitioner would provide 
solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that other researchers have been influenced 
by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to 
Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. On the other hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the 
-Page 24 
petitioner may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field. As previously 
discussed, the petitioner failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that his 
work has ever been cited by others. Regardless, the AAO is not persuaded by the purported 
claim that the petitioner's highest cited article was cited 28 times is sufficient to demonstrate that 
his article, as well as his other less cited articles, have attracted a level of interest in his field 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Furthermore, while the AAO found that the petitioner failed to meet the original contributions 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and the leading or critical role 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner based his claims 
of eligibility almost entirely on recommendation letters. It must be emphasized that the 
favorable opinions of experts in the field, while not without evidentiary weight, are not a solid 
basis for a successful extraordinary ability claim. Again, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters 
from individuals, especially when they are colleagues of the petitioner without any prior 
knowledge of the petitioner's work, supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's 
eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 500, n.2. Again, none of 
the letters submitted on behalf of the petitioner reflect any original contributions of major 
significance made by the petitioner or evidence that the petitioner performed in a leading or 
critical role for establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Finally, the AAO cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of his sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)( 1 )(A) of 
the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the 
Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary 
ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive 
documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5. 
1991 ). 
In this matter, the evidence of record falls short of demonstrating the petitioner's sustained 
national or international acclaim as a postdoctoral research associate. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) requires "[ a] petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by 
evidence that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and this his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." While the petitioner has 
conducted routine research and published his findings in journals, the record is not consistent 
with or indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
The conclusion the AAO reaches by considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
Page 2S 
petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields. In this case, the petitioner has not established his achievements at the 
time of filing the petition were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or 
that he was among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act, and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
afj'd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 V.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.