dismissed EB-1A Case: Power Systems Economics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit)· 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Ma~sachuselts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
FEB 28 2011 
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. § 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 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(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, 
/tIr,. '(';1);' "!' 
" v - __ t-- "-""'-
I' erry Rhew 
" Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on October 15, 2009, 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)(1)(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)(l )(A)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(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: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified 
immigrants who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if --
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 10 1" 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 111 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. USC/S, 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. l 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." Id. 
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)." 1£1. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The COUlt also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is onc 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of thelirl 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. § 1 1 53(b)(I)(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), qfj'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9
th 
Cir. 2003); 
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). 
t Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed nove!, substantive. or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) aod 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on March 16. 2009, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as an analyst in power systems economics and intelligent systems 
applications. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 2 
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 specification .ji)r which 
classification is sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner's documentary evidence reflecting his peer reviews 
for journals failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[ e lvidence 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 F.3d 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, we withdraw the findings of the director for this criterion. 
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 the field. 
In the director's decision, he concluded that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner demonstrated eligibility for this criterion 
based on his "record of publication in impressive journals," "numerous conference 
presentations," "impressive and numerous citations of his work," and "statements of many 
independent experts and requests to serve as a reviewer." 
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-related contributions "of major significance in 
the field." 
As it relates to counsel's reference to requests for the petitioner to serve as a reviewer to meet this 
criterion, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the participation as a judge of the 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discus.o::.ed in this decision. 
Page 6 
work of others. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Furthermore, 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 published articles. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not 
presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the judging criterion and publication of scholarly 
articles criterion are presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold 
otherwise would render meaningless the regulatOlY requirement that a petitioner meet at least three 
separate criteria. Therefore, while the petitioner's judging and authorship of articles will not be 
considered under this criterion, the judging criterion has already been addressed above in the 
previous criterion, and the authorship of articles criterion will be addressed under the next criterion. 
Regarding the citations of the petitioner's work by others, at the time of the filing of the petition, 
the petitioner submitted documentary evidence from as well as articles that cited 
the petitioner's work, reflecting that his work was cited 40 times. 
proceeding reflects the citation of the petitioner's following articles from 
l. "An Unconditionally Stable Three Level Finite Difference Scheme for 
Solving Parabolic Two-Step Micro Heat Transport Equations in a Three­
Dimensional Double-Layered Thin Film" - Ten citations; 
2. "Integral Square Generator Angle Index for Stability Ranking and 
Control" - Nine citations; 
3. "Day-Ahead Electricity Price Forecasting in a Grid Environment" - Eight 
citations; 
4. "State-of-the-Art of Electricity Price Forecasting" - Five citations; 
5. "Fast Load Shedding for Angle Stability" - Three citations; 
6. "On the Stability of the FDTD Method for Solving a Time-Dependent 
Schrodinger Equation" - Two citations; 
7. "A Domain Decomposition Method for Solving the Pennes' Bioheat" -
Two citations; and 
8. "Forecasting Transmission Congestion Using Pay-Ahead Shadow" - One 
citation. 
We note that the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence reflecting that two of the 
petitioner's other articles, "A Finite Difference Scheme for Solving Parabolic Two-Step Micro­
Heat Transport Equations in a Double-Layered Micro-Sphere Heat by Ultrashort-Pulsed Lasers" 
and "An Intelligent System for Price Forecasting Accuracy Assessment," have ever been cited by 
others. We also note that in response to the director's request for additional evidence pursuant to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(b)(8), the petitioner submitted updated 
screenshots reflecting that the petitioner's work has been cited 47 times. Based on a review of 
the screenshots, the petitioner failed to establish that the seven additional citations were in 
articles that were published prior to the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at 
the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matterc!l'Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg!. 
Commr. 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of lzummi, 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 
we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." ld. at 
176. 
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 the field. In this case, we are not persuaded that the total number of 40 
citations, as well as ten citations for the most cited article, is reflective that the petitioner's work has 
been of major significance in the field. Furthermore, a review of the submitted articles that cited the 
petitioner's work fail to renect that the petitioner's work has been unusually int1uential, such as 
articles that discuss in-depth the petitioner's findings or credit the petitioner with int1uencing 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 ret1ecting that the petitioner's 
work has been cited by others in their published material is insufficient to establish eligibility for 
this criterion without documentary evidence ret1ecting that the petitioner's work has been of a major 
significance in the field. We are not persuaded that the moderate citations of the petitioner's 
articles are ret1ective 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. 
Regarding the petitioner's seven conference presentations, while the presentation of the petitioner's 
work demonstrate that his work was shared with others and may be acknowledged as original 
contributions based on the selection to be presented, we are not persuaded that presentations of the 
petitioner's work at seven conferences is sufficient evidence establishing that the petitioner's 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 innuence beyond the andience at the conferences. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted several recommendation letters. While the recommendation 
letters praise the petitioner for his work and indicate his original findings, 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 example: 
Page 8 
In his research, [the petitioner] proposed to apply a transparent and interpretable 
intelligent systems algorithm for electricity price forecasting. This systematic 
approach is a significant accomplishment in this field. It has extensive 
application potential for electricity power markets, such as market participants' 
bidding strategies and market operators' monitoring activities. It is an original 
contribution to the field of power system economics. 
* * * 
Electricity price forecasting is on the verge of becoming a highly demanded tool 
in electricity markets, but is not yet extensively accurate or interpretable for use. 
One main problem is that electricity market prices are highly volatile and 
vulnerable to various kinds of physical transmission constraints, such as 
transmission facility outages and extreme high load conditions. Another problem 
is the demand for an appropriate forecasting technology to interpret reasoning 
from forecasting inputs. [The petitioner [ has proposed new techniques and 
developed innovative applications. 
[The petitioner] proposed a series of promising techniques in electricity price 
forecasting. For instance, he proposed a new Fnzzy Inference System algorithm 
to perform the forecasting of electricity prices with a higher accuracy, 
transparency, and interpretability than other existing methods. 
Although the petitioner's original work, _led to indicate that the 
been utilized in the field so as to establish that it is of major significance. 
Instead, _ndicated that the petitioner "proposed" tiichni ues and applications. 
Furthermore, in describing the impact of the petitioner's work, indicated that it "has 
extensive application potential for electricity power markets temp aSIS added[." Eligibility 
must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ()f'Kaligbak, 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'Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. That decision further 
provides, citing Malter of' Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114, that we cannot "consider facts that 
come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." ld. at 176. A petitioner cannot file a 
petition under this classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. The assertion that 
the petitioner's work is likely to be influential or has the potential to be of major significance is 
not adequate to establish that his findings are already recognized as major contributions in the 
field. While_raises the petitioner, the fact remains that any measurable impact that 
results from t er's research will likely occur in the future. 
[The petitioner] proposed a revolutionary algorithm for penalizing outlying 
generators while at the same time respecting steady-state transmission topologies. 
He also made an unprecedented development in pattern recognition tools to 
Page 9 
automate the design of wide-area, response-based stability controls in large-scale 
simulation of power system models. He invented the automated decision tree 
ISGA algorithm to facilitate the progress of adaptive controls for power system 
dynamic stability, which is clearly superior to any other algorithms using loss of 
synchronism for early termination of unstable events. With little loss (0.36% 
error) of accuracy, [the petitioner's 1 research made pragmatic contributions to the 
field of time-domain simulations by computing approximately twice as fast 
compared to conventional techniques. 
Similarly, _ discusses the petitioner's '~ork but fails to establish that it has 
been of m~icance in the field. While_letter demonstrates the petitioner's 
original findings, he failed to establish the impact or influence of the petition_er's work so as to 
establish that it has been of major significance in the field. For example, ailed to 
indicate the effect in the field of "computing approximately twice as ast compared to 
conventional techniques." 
[The petitioner 1 has established a new and accurate contingency ranking and 
screening model, called This particular 
model is not only able ze diverging from 
synchronization frequency of 60 Hz, but also accounts for steady-state transfer 
levels. Using this model one is able to judge the severity of transient events (Such 
as the Northeast Blackout of 2003, which affected an estimated 40 million people 
in eight U.S. states, and was the most widespread electrical blackout in history at 
the time) during simulation, and measure the relative severity of stable and 
unstable transient events in contingency ranking and screening, as well as for 
combining one-shot controls to stabilize transient events. 
Ulscw;seu the petitioner's work that indicated its originality, • 
the petitioner's work has been of major significance in the field. 
able to judge the severity of transient 
events." However, 
or even at all, in the 
to that th_has been widely utilized. 
so as to establish that it has been of major significance in the field. 
stated: 
[The petitionerJ also created a novel econometric formulation that has proven to 
be very successful for the prediction of various time horizons of electricity market 
prices. He further theorized a new time series algorithm for formulating a 
correlation of electricity price forecasts with the demand forecasts of electricity 
loads. [The petitionerJ also proposed an input selection concept and developed 
the corresponding algorithms to automatically prioritize explanatory variables that 
interpret electricity price forecasts. Ultimately, [the petitionerJ was able to 
Page 10 
establish a new systematic theory for electricity price forecasting. Similarly, via 
blueprinting forecasting technique categories by classifying the literature based on 
the technical perspective, concept, time, horizon, input -output characteristics, and 
level of accuracy, [the petitioner] has made a decisive breakthrough in the 
advancement of electricity price forecasting. Such improvements will 
undoubted I y bring electricity price forecasting to new levels of accuracy and 
practical usefulness, much like what has happened with electricity load 
forecasting. [The petitioner] is the first researcher to propose a fundamental 
taxonomy to support the validation, comparison, and enhancement of a specific or 
combined method of price forecasting in competitive electricity markets. 
Once more, escribed the petitioner's original findings but failed to indicate the 
impact or influence of the petitioner's to establish that it has been of major 
significance in the on the future implications of his 
work. For example, improvement will undoubted I y bring 
electricity price forecasting to new levels of accuracy and practical usefulness lemphasis 
added]." Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); 
Matter of" Katighak, 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" hummi. 22 I&N Dec. at 175. 
That decision further provides, citing Matter of" Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114, that we cannot 
"consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." [d. at 176 .• 
_failed to demonstrate the current impact of the petitioner's work in order to reflect 
that it has been of major significance in the field. 
stated: 
Because of lthe petitioner's] esteemed accomplishments in research, we invited 
him to join our project ["Price Forecasting with Market Power Analysis in Market 
Monitoringi in June of 2003. . .. [The petitioneri combined fuzzy inference 
system and least squares estimation, discovering for the first time the coexistence 
of accuracy and transparency for electricity price forecasting. This particular 
development marks a significant contribution to powcr system economics. His 
approach clearly shows that that electricity price forecasts can also be utilized to 
accurately predict market power indices. For example. CESI Transmission & 
Distribution Networks in Italy have since implemented his approach as an 
intelligent system for price forecasting accuracy assessments. 
* * * 
Once again, for the very first time, [the petitioner] found that the forecasting of 
transmission congestion is substantially dependent on day-ahead shadow prices. 
This discovery represents a considerable advancement for our project. It is an 
indication for performing day-ahead shadow price forecasting, as well as 
providing interpretable signals for different congestive conditions. 
Page II 
Yet again, ~escribed the original findings and work of the petitioner; however, • 
_ failed to establish that the original contributions of the petitioner have 
significance in the field and not limited to project. 
provided one example of the implementation of the petitioner's "nnrr)"c'h 
we note that according to _ is 
contributing to the research. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that the application by a single 
entity demonstrates the significance of the petitioner's work in the field as a whole. 
stated; 
[The petitioner] presented a critical classification and comparison of state-of'-the­
art price forecasting techniques based on their research categories, input -output 
selections, accuracy and performance. As market price is the most volatile 
element in the electricity markets and price forecasts plays a vital role in all 
market participant bidding activities, lthe petitioner's] unprecedented work allows 
for general categorization and detailed evaluation of emerging price forecasting 
techniques proposed by researchers of electricity markets in the world. Therefore, 
[the petitioner] made a major contribution to the development of electricity price 
forecasting techniques on a global scope. 
* * * 
[The petitioner'sl groundbreaking study is the first fuzzy-rule based technique on 
electricity price forecasting, and has several important implications: in addition to 
offering valuable insights to our understanding of how electricity price is 
factorized into significantly correlated explanatory variables in a non-linear 
transparent visualization, it also provided rich interpretable price signals to aiding 
decision-making of market participants' bidding. He established the 
fundamentals of this method and demonstrated its applicability as a promising 
expert system technique for the advancement of price forecasting in electricity 
market bidding strategies. [The petitioner's] significant work also leads to 
promising research directions from mixed techniques of intelligent systems and 
times series to feature selection of variable correlations. 
Once more, while described the petitioner's original contributions, he failed to 
establish that the petitioner's work has been of major significance in the field and made only 
general statements regarding the influence or impact of the petitioner's work, such as that the 
petitioner's work "allows for general categorization and detailed evaluation of em~ 
forecasting techniques proposed by researchers of electricity markets in the world." _ 
failed to provide one example where the petitioner's work has been implemented and the result 
of the implementation in order to demonstrate that it has been of major significance. 
Page 12 
As an industrial researcher who relies on the evolutionary designs to improve 
power system performance, I can certainly attest the great impact [the 
petitioner's] novel design will have on the research of power system analysis 
when its full potential is realized .... My above statement is solely based on his 
published work. 
~ade only broad assessments of the petitioner's work and indicated that it "will" 
have a great impact "when its full potential is realized I emphasis addedl." Eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of" Katighak, 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 (!f" Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114, that we cannot "consider facts that come into being 
only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Clearly, __ failed to establish 
that the petitioner's work has been "realized" so as to establish that it has been of major 
significance in the field. It is unclear from whether he offered his opinion 
based on a review of the petitioner's published works for this petition or whether he was 
previousl y aware of the petitioner's work in the field. 
[The petitioner] has been instrumental in the research progress towards the 
understanding of electricity power markets. I have no doubt that [the 
petitioner'sJ research has made significant influence in this field and will 
have profound impact on our research efforts improving the performance 
of electricity price forecasting. 
My above statement is solely based on his published papers. The papers 
he has published show research results that are markedly great 
significance and quality as a researcher with extraordinary ability. 
is equally unclear as to whether his opinion is based upon his knowledge 
petlllcme:rs work prior to the filing of the petition or whether it is based only upon his 
review of the petitioner's published material. Regardles, ~dicated that the 
petitioner's work "will have profound impact on our research efforts [emphasis added]." 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter (d' 
KatiRbak, 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 o(Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114, that we cannot "consider facts 
that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." [d. at 176. 
stated: 
Page 13 
know [the contribution to the development of electricity price 
I'IL.ee1eUlIlg' "ilI.eL "State-of-the-Art of Electricity Price 
in 2005. 
Though this to 
treatment of the existing price forecasting models in the form of a survey. This 
significant work is critical to further research on electricity markets. [The 
petitioner's I contributions in this survey paper lie in the novel illustration that he 
used in classifying and comparing the literature based on research category, time 
horizon, accuracy, and performance. These results have provided valuable 
insights into the electricity price forecasting mechanism and helped explain 
various properties of electricity prices, which make Ithe petitioner's I work an 
important tool in electricity market research. Moreover, [the petitioner's] study is 
fundamental to research directions of price forecasting, which has become an 
increasingly important activity for both electricity producers and large consumers 
in restructured markets. IThe petitioner'sl research has significant impact on the 
formulations of accurate forecasting models, which are very challenging tasks 
given variations in the large number of factors that affect the electricity prices. In 
addition, I the petitioner I has made significant contributions to our understanding 
because he was able to draw several insightful conclusions about properties and 
attributes of electricity price forecasting. These results not only extended our 
understanding of electricity price forecasting, but also found important 
applications in relevant research. 
_ failed to specifically indicate how the petitioner's original work has been of major 
significance to the field. Instead, ~ade general statements, such as "[t]hese results not 
only extended our understanding of electricity price forecasting, but also found important 
applications in relevant research." ~ailed to identify what understanding was extended 
and what important applications were found. 
While the recommendation letters generally describe the petitioner's work as "novel" 
"groundbreaking," and "revolutionary," the letters contain general statements that lack specific 
details to demonstrate that the petitioner's work is of major significance. This regulatory 
criterion not onl y requires the petitioner to make original contributions, but also requires those 
contributions to be significant. We are not persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply 
repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how the petitioner's contributions have already 
int1uenced the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy 
the petitioner's burden of proof.' The lack of supporting documentary evidence gives the AAO 
no basis to gauge the significance of the petitioner's present contributions. 
[n addition, given the descriptions in terms of future applicability and determinations that may 
occur at a later date, it appears that the petitioner's work, while original, is still ongoing and that 
'Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 11m, 1108 (ED.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates. Inc. v. Meissner. 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Page 14 
the findings he has made are not currently being implemented in his field. Again, while we 
acknowledge the originality of the petitioner's findings, the letters do not indicate that his work 
is being currently applied so as to establish that these findings have already impacted the field in 
a significant manner. Accordingly, while we do 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 oIIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. 
That decision further provides, citing Matter !!lBardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114, that we cannot 
"consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
Many of the letters proffered do in fact discuss far more persuasively the future promise of the 
petitioner's research and the impact that may result from his work, rather than how his past 
research already qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field. A petitioner cannot 
file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of future eligibility. 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 
letters praise the petitioner's research and work as both novel and of great potential interest, the 
fact remains that any measurable impact that results from the petitioner's research will likely 
occur in the future. 
USC IS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; US CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. 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. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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. Without extensive documentation showing 
that the petitioner's work has been unusually innuential or widely accepted throughout his field. 
or has otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, we cannot 
conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence olthe alien's authorship o,lscholarly articles in the/ield, in prolessional 
or major trade publications or other major media, 
Page 15 
In the director's decision, although he found that the petitioner published 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. The plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]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, we withdraw 
the findings of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets the plain language of the regulation for this 
criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) 
a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of thefir1 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)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ I I 53(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1115. The 
petitioner met the plain language of two of the criteria, in which at least three are required under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In this case, many of the deficiencies in the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding 
discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In evaluating our final merits determination, we must look at the totality of the evidence to 
conclude the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(I )(A) of the Act. In this case, the 
petitioner has authored some scholarly articles, has made presentations at conferences, has peer­
reviewed articles, and has had his work cited by others in the field. 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. § 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.c. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a1 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 
petitioner's evidence must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to 
evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion 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 
Page 16 
standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a 
level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
While we determined 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 
on his review of three 
(October 
y-n.HC-"U Flp0tr;r·;t" Prices" (June 2008), 
(January 2008)." We note that the petitioner submitted 
numerous emails requesting the petitioner to review additional manuscripts. However. the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence establishing that he actually reviewed these 
other manuscripts. Moreover, the petitioner submitted emails from him to the requester claiming 
that the review was completed and attached. However, the petitioner failed to submit primary 
evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2) demonstrating that he performed 
the reviews. Furthermore, in response to the director's request for additional evidence, the 
petitioner submitted screenshots from http://mc.mal1uscriptccntral.com/ctcp reHecting that the 
petitioner reviewed some manuscripts after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katighak, 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 (!f' Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. at 114, that we cannot "consider facts that come into being 
only subsequent to the filing of a " Jd. at 176. Final the submitted a letter 
dated September I, 2009, 
Electrical Power, who stated that 
1II1~;';~~:i7'~~d as a a I failed to indicate how many and when the petitioner reviewed the research 
papers. 
Wc cannot conclude that the petitioner's minimal participation as a reviewer 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). We note that peer review is a routine 
element of the process by which articles are selected for publication in scientific or scholarly 
journals or for presentation at scientific 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 researchers and scientists who publish themselves in joumals or who 
present their work at professional conferences. Normally ajoumal's editorial staff or a conference 
technical commi ttee 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 
Page 17 
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, we 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 experiences and the 
claimed experience of the petitioner. For example, the references have the following experiences 
as judges: 
1. Letters and _ 
2. 
3. Rpvi",.,,'r for 35 publications; 
4. 
Page 18 
S. 
When compared to the petitioner, the petitioner's references have considerably distinguished 
themselves based on their editorial and review experience. 
We also determined that the petitioner met the plain language of the authorship of scholarly 
articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv). A review of the 
documentary evidence reflects that the petitioner submitted ten scholarly articles. Again, 
however, when compared to the authorship of those in his field, the record reflects: 
1. ~thored 96 papers and 19 book chapters; 
2. ~ Authored 43 articles, 12 book chapters, and 23 conference 
papers; 
3. Authored 102 articles; 
4. 33 articles; 
S. Authored 11 books; and 
6. ~uthored 42 papers. 
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 minimal 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.S(h)(2). As authoring 
scholarly articles is inherent to researchers, we will 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 int1uence 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 petitioner may indicate that 
his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field. As previously discussed, the petitioner 
submitted documentary evidence reHecting that his work has been independently cited 40 times. 
While these citations demonstrate some interest in his published work, they are not sufficient to 
demonstrate that his articles have attracted a level of interest in his field commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner also submitted documentary evidence reflecting seven 
presentations at conferences. However when compared to the petitioner's references, the number 
of the presentations by the petitioner's references again are far above the accomplishments of the 
petitioner. For example: 
I. ~ 56 presentations; 
2. _ 40 presentations; 
3. ~e - 61 presentations; and 
4. _-48 presentations. 
As indicated previously, the petitioner submitted numerous 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. [d. 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. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008). 
Finally, we cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive 
documentation" of the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
203(b)(1)(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). The petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that he "is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field." In addition, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated his "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
The conclusion we reach by considering the evidence to meet each criterion separately is consistent 
with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not 
distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. The 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. 
III. Conclusion 
Page 20 
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, 
afrd, 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 U.s.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.