dismissed EB-1A Case: Programmer Analyst

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
ervices 
SRC 07 282 57451 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5 for the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center. The petition is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (-4-40) on 
appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not 
established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had 
failed to demonstrate receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at 
least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner meets the statutory requirements and 
at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
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 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the 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 56 
Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary 
ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(2). The specific 
requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, 
Page 3 
however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at 
the very top level. 
This petition, filed on July 30, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a programmer analyst. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3) indicates 
that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one- 
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt 
of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for 
an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. A petitioner, however, cannot establish eligibility for this classification merely by 
submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three of the criteria outlined in 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3). In determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself 
must be evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory 
definition of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3).' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the jield of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a document indicating that he received an Outstanding 
Doctoral Dissertation Award from the Stevens Institute of Technology in 2006, a copy of a 
December 7, 2005 certificate from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering of 
the Stevens Institute for the Best Research PosterlPresentation Award, a copy of a September 17, 
2003 letter from the Stevens Institute offering him a "graduate appointment" as a research 
assistant in Electrical and Computer Engineering for the "September 2, 2003 - December 22, 
2003 academic term," and a March 2, 2006 letter from the institution offering the petitioner a 
"Graduate Assistantship for the 2005-2006 academic year." 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE) dated October 9, 2008, counsel stated 
that the petitioner's award for the best research posterlpresentation was awarded to the "top three 
out of about 100 graduate students," and that the Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation Award "is 
only given to the top 5% of research dissertations which places [the petitioner] among a highly 
selected group" at the Stevens Institute. Counsel further stated: 
Even though these awards are only drawn from the candidates from Stevens 
Institute of Technology, the Stevens Institute . . . is one of the top universities in 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
the U.S. . . . The administration of Ph.D. programs is more selective, the awards 
issued [the petitioner] should be weighted. 
Nonetheless, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's university honors are 
tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field. The petitioner's receipt of an award limited to graduate students at his academic institution 
reflects institutional recognition rather than national or international recognition. Further, 
university study is not a field of endeavor, but rather training for future employment in a field of 
endeavor. Honors and scholarships limited by their terms to graduate students are not an 
indication that the recipient "is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner's receipt of such honors offers no 
meaningful comparison between him and experienced professionals in the field who have long 
since completed their educational training. 
The petitioner does not pursue this issue on appeal, and the record does not establish that he 
meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classzfication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orjelds. 
To demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show 
that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to 
membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, 
minimum education or work experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. The overall prestige 
of a given association is not determinative. The issue is membership requirements rather than the 
association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on his membership in the Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and as a member of its Signal Processing Society (SPS). 
The petitioner submitted a copy of his membership card in the IEEE and copies of pages from 
the organization's website. The documentation indicated that the petitioner was a student member 
of the organization and that IEEE has "more than 370,000 members, including more than 80,000 
students." However the petitioner submitted no documentation regarding the membership 
requirements for the IEEE. 
In response to the WE, the petitioner submitted additional documentation from the IEEE 
website. The documentation indicates that a student member "must carry at least 50% of a 
normal full-time academic program as a registered undergraduate or graduate student in a regular 
course of study in IEEE-designated fields; and (2) not yet qualify for Member grade." The 
documentation also indicates that: 
Member grade is limited to those who have satisfied IEEE-specified educational 
requirements and/or who have demonstrated professional competence in IEEE- 
designated fields of interest. For admission or transfer to the grade of Member, a 
candidate shall be either: 
(a) An individual who shall have received a three-to-five year university-level or 
higher degree (i) from an accredited institution or program and (ii) in an IEEE- 
designated field 
(b) An individual who shall have received a three-to-five year university-level or 
higher degree fkom an accredited institution or program and who has at least three 
years of professional work experience engaged in teaching, creating, developing, 
practicing or managing in IEEE-designated fields; or 
(c) An individual who, through at least six years of professional work experience, 
has demonstrated competence in teaching, creating, developing, practicing or 
managing within IEEE-designated fields. 
Nothing in the qualifications indicates that IEEE requires outstanding achievements of its 
members. The petitioner also claims to meet this requirement based on his membership in the 
SPS, one of the "societies" within IEEE. However, he submitted no documentation to establish 
that one may belong to the SPS without first joining IEEE or that qualification for membership in 
the SPS requires outstanding achievement of its members. 
The director determined that the petitioner's evidence did not establish that he meets this 
criterion and the petitioner did not pursue this issue on appeal. We concur with the director that 
the petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
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 classlJication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In order to meet this criterion, published materials must be primarily about the petitioner and be 
printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualify as major 
media, the publication should have significant national distribution and be published in a 
predominant language. Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of a significant national 
distribution. 
In the initial submission, counsel stated that the petitioner's "research and the laboratory he 
worked in were reported by New Jersey News." Counsel provided what he stated was an Internet 
link to the broadcast, a summary of what the petitioner stated was included in the broadcast, and 
the documentation of what counsel describes as photo shots from the video. The screen captions 
and summary of a live broadcast provided by the petitioner do not meet the requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204,5(h)(3)(iii), which requires evidence of published material to be 
accompanied by the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In his letter accompanying the petitioner's response to the RFE, counsel stated that the petitioner 
also meets this criterion based on publication of his work in IEEE journals and makes reference 
to a book chapter that was authored by the petitioner. Counsel renews these arguments on appeal. 
However, the publication of the petitioner's work such as in refereed journals is the subject of the 
criterion listed at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and will be discussed further below. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
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 alliedjeld of speczjcation for which classzjcation is 
sought. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he had reviewed four papers that had 
been submitted for presentation at the 2006 International Conference on Communications 
General Symposium sponsored by the IEEE. The requests to review the papers were from the 
petitioner's advisor, 
 at the Stevens Institute and indicated that if the 
petitioner was unable to perform the review, he was requested to name another individual who 
could be a colleague or one of his graduate students. 
The petitioner also submitted documentation indicating that he had reviewed an article for IEEE 
Transactions on Signal Processing and was assigned by to review an article 
for the IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (JSAC). The petitioner also 
reviewed an article for the IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems.for Video Technology, an 
article for the Image and Vision Computing journal IMVIS, and a paper for Advances in 
Multimedia. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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." 
Evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge must be evaluated in terms of these 
requirements. The weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 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 "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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). 
We cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review 
submitted articles. Thus, peer review is routine in the field; not every peer reviewer enjoys sustained 
national or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart fiom others in his 
field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an unusually large number of articles, received 
independent requests fiom a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a 
distinguished journal, we cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Counsel asserted in his November 7,2008 letter accompanying the petitioner's response to the RFE 
that the petitioner's review of others' work "is aside from peer reviews which are inherent to the 
occupation, but because of his distinguished reputation and expertise in his field." However, the 
record does not support counsel's assertion. While the request for review fiom the editor of IEEE 
Transactions on Signal Processing indicated that the request was made because the petitioner 
was a "recognized expert in the field," others only refer to the requests as being within the 
petitioner's area of expertise. 
The director determined that the petitioner meets this criterion; however, for the reasons 
discussed above, we do not concur and withdraw this determination by the director. The AAO 
maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) ("On appeal 
from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the' initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also, 
Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo 
authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g. Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on his development of several data hiding 
algorithms. The director determined that the petitioner meets this criterion; however, we do not 
concur and withdraw the director's determination. 
In support of his petition, the petitioner submitted letters from several individuals who attest to 
his achievements, intelligence, and skill as a researcher. These individuals attest that the 
petitioner is innovative and contributed significantly to the field. According to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v), however, an alien's contributions must be not only original but of maior 
significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, 
that it has some meaning. 
an assistant professor at the Stevens Institute, provided a comprehensive 
analysis of the petitioner's contributions. In an undated letter submitted with the petition, she 
stated that she had known the petitioner since September 2002 when he entered the graduate 
Ph.D. program. 
[The petitioner] quickly assumed the leading role on the research project: 
"Improving Steganographic Capacity in the Presence of Attacks via Multiple 
Description and Joint Source-Channel Coding" supported by the U.S. Air Force 
Research Lab., Rome, NY. As part of this project, [the petitioner] developed 
several algorithms that improved data-hiding capacity while keeping robustness 
high and distortion low. 
. . . He initially developed several host distribution matched quantizers based data 
hiding schemes, which greatly improved the embedding capacity of quantization 
based data hiding against additive Gaussian noise attack. 
As his next project, [the petitioner] considered attacks on data hiding schemes . . . 
. [He] creatively modeled both the embedding induced noise and quantization 
error due to JPEG compression as additive uniform noise. By analyzing the 
embedding capacity using those models, [the petitioner] became the first to derive 
the optimal quantization based data hiding algorithm against JPEG attack. The 
derived solution provides the best strategy of embedders against non-malicious 
JPEG compression attack. All his work in this project is of utmost importance to 
the information security research field. 
Beginning in September 2005, [the petitioner] was also in charge of the research 
project entitled "Perspectives on Information Hiding for Multimedia Security" 
supported by the National Science Foundation. The goal of this project was to 
study the information hiding problem from both embedders' and attackers' 
aspects, and develop security enhanced information hiding algorithms . . . [The 
petitioner] initially proposed a hash-based randomized embedding algorithm 
(HRE) to enhance the security of the hidden data without impacting the 
robustness-distortion-capacity trade-off. The proposed algorithm showed that the 
security of quantization based data hiding can be enhanced independently from its 
capacity achieving efficiency. 
The final and main problem that [the petitioner] worked on for his dissertation 
was on modeling the data-hiding problem as a game between the embedder and 
the attacker . . . Quantization based data hiding is the most efficient capacity- 
achieving data hiding technology. [The petitioner] creatively proposed to model 
the quantization based data hiding as a two-person continuous game between 
embedder and attacker. Using game theoretic approaches, he derived the closed 
form expression for the solutions of the game. Based on the result, [the petitioner] 
was the first to derive the optimal strategies of both the embedders and attackers 
for the two-person quantization based data hiding game. This result is a great 
breakthrough in the information security research field, because it represents the 
best lower bound for the achieved capacity of secure-data for embedders against 
any additive malicious attacks. More importantly it gives the first closed form, 
full fledged solution to this problem. This result greatly improved the practical 
applications of the data hiding research field and also the possibility of 
commercial success in this field. [Emphasis omitted.] 
Others provide similar information about the petitioner's research. Nonetheless, the opinions of 
experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 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 from experts 
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. 
Thus, the content of the experts' 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 that one would expect of a 
researcher who has sustained national or international acclaim. 
The letters submitted are primarily from the petitioner's collaborators and immediate circle of 
colleagues. While such letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's role in 
various projects, they cannot by themselves establish the petitioner's acclaim beyond his immediate 
circle of colleagues. The ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) reflect the statutory 
demand for "extensive documentation" in section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Opinions from 
witnesses whom the petitioner has selected do not represent extensive documentation. Independent 
evidence that already existed prior to the preparation of the visa petition package carries greater 
weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to 
the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance to the 
field as a whole. The petitioner's references do not indicate that his research was of major 
significance to his field. 
In response to the WE, counsel alleged that the petitioner meets this criterion based on his "great 
original contributions in the system design and software development to CDMA [code-division 
multiple-access] communication system." The petitioner' submitted a November 3, 2008 letter 
from ZTE Corporation R&D Centre indicating that he played a key role in the development of 
the ZTE CDMA wireless communication system project, which became the first commercial 
CDMA wireless system in China. Nonetheless, the petitioner submitted no documentation 
indicating that his participation in helping ZTE to develop its CDMA wireless communication 
system was a contribution of major significance to his field of endeavor. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jeld, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that three articles on which he had served as 
co-author had been published in IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, the International Journal of 
Network Security, and Electrical Engineering 84. The petitioner also submitted an abstract of a 
paper that counsel alleges was published in the Journal of Ton@ University. However, the 
petitioner did not submit a copy of the article, and the abstract, partially in English, was not 
accompanied by a complete English translation and does not identify the publication. The 
document therefore does not comply with the terms of 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), which provides: 
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. 
Because the petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the documents, the AAO cannot 
determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3). 
Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this 
proceeding. 
The petitioner provided a copy of an e-mail indicating that a paper he had submitted for 
publication in IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security had been recommended 
for revision for publication but had not been published as of the date of his petition. The 
petitioner also provided a copy of six papers that he had presented at various conferences and a 
copy of a book chapter that he had co-authored. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted documentation on the ranking of the journal 
IEEE Transactions on Multimedia. The petitioner also provided a listing of the top 65 
conferences in computer science as ranked by cs-conference-ranking.org. Although the petitioner 
indicated that the International Conference on Image Processing was ranked number 31, the 
record does not clearly establish that he had made a presentation at one of these conferences. The 
petitioner also submitted documentation from Amazon.com, Elsevier, Textbookx.com and 
Google. Although the petitioner indicates that this documentation is evidence of the book's 
circulation, the documentation does not indicate the number of books that had been sold. 
The petitioner submitted a list of his publications including a list of those who had cited to his 
work. However, this list was compiled by the petitioner and does not include the source of the 
information. The petitioner provided a list from Google Scholar, accessed by the petitioner on 
November 6, 2008, indicating that one of his articles had been cited 14 times. The report 
indicates that of these 14 citations, at least eight were by one or two of the "key authors" of the 
paper. Google Scholar also indicated that of 16 citations to the petitioner's conference papers, 1 1 
Page 1 I 
were by at least one of the "key authors." The petitioner alleged that his work had been cited by 
"famous scientists for information security research." However, the petitioner provided no 
documentation to establish that his work served as a major stepping stone for these researchers or 
that his research carried more weight than others whose work was also cited. 
In denying the petition, the director stated that "[tlhe evidence does not indicate that the 
petitioner's published articles have garnered national or international attention, for example by 
being widely cited by independent researchers." [Emphasis in original.] On appeal, counsel 
asserts that the petitioner's record of publication in prestigious journals and citation record ("3 1 
times in total (19 times by others)") is a clear indication that the petitioner's research has 
garnered national and international acclaim. As previously discussed, many of the citations to the 
petitioner's work were made by the authors of the original work. Also as previously discussed, in 
determining whether the petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be 
evaluated in terms of whether it is indicative of or consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. The petitioner's research record and his record of independent citations to 
his work are not clear evidence that the petitioner's work demonstrates national or international 
acclaim. 
Counsel further asserts that the fact that the book in which the petitioner contributed a chapter is 
in its fifth edition and is "easily accessed online or in book stores and libraries," and because of 
its "large circulation . . . should be considered a major media." Regarding the petitioner's book, 
the record does not support that it has a "large circulation." The petitioner submitted no 
information regarding the sales of the book, which would be more applicable to the criterion 
listed under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(x). Further, in today's world, many printed materials, 
regardless of size and distribution, are posted on the Internet. To ignore this reality would be to 
render the "major media" requirement meaningless. We are not persuaded that international 
accessibility via the Internet by itself is a realistic indicator of whether a given publication is 
"major media." The petitioner must still provide evidence, such as a widespread distribution, 
readership, or overall interest in the publication in order to demonstrate that the publication is a 
professional or major trade publication or major media in order for us to credit information 
available on the Internet. 
Counsel also asserts on appeal that the petitioner's work has been adapted to industrial use 
including his current job and his work at ZTE. However, the use of the petitioner's work in 
industry is not evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel claims that the petitioner meets this criterion based on serving as chair of a section in an 
IEEE international annual meeting, and on a panel in IEEE meetings. In an undated letter, 
of Media Technologies at Huawei ~echnoi~ies, USA, stated that the 
petitioner was invited to chair a section of the IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia 
(ISM) 2006 because of his "research reputation." However, the 
 submitted no 
documentation to establish that his chairmanship at a section of this symposium was a leading or 
critical role for the IEEE. 
Counsel also asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion based on is review of manuscripts 
for various journals. However, the petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that his 
work as a reviewer was in a leading or critical role and was in some way more significant than 
other reviewers. The petitioner also submitted additional reference letters that counsel stated 
were evidence of the petitioner's distinguished reputation. However, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) requires the petitioner to establish the reputation of the organization or 
establishment, not of the petitioner himself. 
Counsel repeated these assertions in response to the WE. Counsel also assets that the petitioner 
meets this criterion based on his invitation to serve as editor of one of Bentham Books new E- 
books or E-book series and an invitation by VDM Verlag to publish his dissertation. First, both 
of these invitations occurred in 2008, after the petition was filed. A petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l) and (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). Further, the petitioner submitted no 
evidence that his editing of an unspecified E-book for Bentham Books or the publication of his 
dissertation by VDM Verlag would be a leading or critical role for the organizations mentioned 
or that either of the organizations enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director concentrated only on the petitioner's role at the IEEE 
conferences and his role as a reviewer for journals and failed to consider the petitioner's role at 
eSpeed and ZTE Corporation. We note that the appeal was the first occasion that the petitioner 
alleges that his roles with these companies satisfy this criterion. 
In an undated letter, 
petitioner was "now 
stated that the petitioner "is currently playing a leading role in our ongoing 
foreign exchange options development." The petitioner provided no documentation to establish 
that eSpeed is an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a November 3, 2008 letter from ZTE 
Corporation R&D Centre certifying that: 
[The petitioner] had been the principal developer in the CDMA wireless 
communication system project Research and Development ("CDMA R&D") 
Division of ZTE . . . . He played a key role in the development of the ZTE 
CDMA wireless communication system project. This project is one of the C3G 
(China's three generation telecommunication) projects of the national 863 R&D 
program. At the end of 2001, the ZTE CDMA system was released successfully . 
. . . This was the first commercial CDMA wireless system in China. It's a 
breakthrough success in China's communication technology field. Since then, the 
ZTE CDMA system and later versions have taken 32 percent (32%) of the 
national market of CDMA communication equipment in China. 
The petitioner also submitted a printout from the website of China Information Industry (CNII), 
which describes ZTE as "China's largest listed telecom company specializing in offering 
customized network solutions for telecom carriers worldwide" and that the company has 
"become an important global player in the telecommunications industry with products deployed 
in over 40 countries." The document further states that the company's "respected position as a 
forward looking global organization within the industry is also reflected by membership of, and 
participation in, a variety of International Organizations of Standardization." We find that the 
evidence sufficiently establishes that ZTE is an organization with a distinguished reputation and 
that the petitioner worked in a leading role for the organization. 
The record sufficiently establishes that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign2Jicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the$eld. 
The petitioner did not initially allege that he meets this criterion and submitted no documentation 
relevant to this criterion either during his initial submission or in response to the RFE. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that the petitioner failed to submit such documentation in response to the RFE 
because the director failed to request it. Counsel's argument is without merit. As noted, the 
petitioner did not allege or submit any evidence to lead the director to believe that the petitioner 
claimed to meet this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a March 9, 2009 letter from E*Trade Financial, stating that the 
petitioner "has been employed with the Company on a full-time basis since November 3, 2008" 
with an annual salary of $103,000. The petitioner also provides information from the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics indicating that the mean wage for computer software engineers, applications was 
$85,660. However, the petitioner submitted no documentation of his remuneration prior to the 
date he filed his petition. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires the petitioner to 
establish that he "has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration" relative 
to others in his field. The petitioner's salary subsequent to the filing date of this petition is not 
evidence that he meets this criterion. 8 C.F.R. $4 103.2(b)(l) and (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 49. 
Page 14 
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 his field of endeavor. Review of the record, 
however, 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 or to be within the small 
percentage at the very top of his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility 
pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The 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. 5 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.