dismissed EB-1A Case: Radio Frequency-Microwave Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N W , Rm A3042 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
bLlL.{F",, \ 
&Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "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. fj 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences as a 
researcher in the field of radio frequency-microwave engineering applied to nuclear magnetic resonance and 
magnetic resonance imaging. The record shows that the petitioner is currently employed as a postdoctoral 
research associate at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) in Tallahassee, Florida. With his 
petition and in response to the director's Request for Evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted supporting 
documents including eight recommendation letters, copies of his doctoral degree and his dean's list certificate, 
website printouts mentioning the petitioner and some of his work, evidence of his membership in one scientific 
association, a request for him to review an article for a scientific journal, copies of some of his papers and two 
manuscripts that cite his work. The director noted the petitioner's accomplishments, but found that the record 
did not establish that he had earned the requisite sustained acclaim placing him at the very top of his field. On 
appeal, the petitioner submits a six-page letter. The petitioner's claims do not overcome the deficiencies of his 
petition and we affirm the director's decision. The evidence submitted, the petitioner's claims and the director's 
decision are addressed in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(9 Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The record contains a copy of a 
"Certificate of Academic Honor" presented to the petitioner on April 15, 2003 by the University of Alabama in 
Huntsville (UAH) in recognition of his "attainment of the Graduate Dean's List in Electrical Engineering." The 
petitioner also submitted a letter addressed to him from the Dean of the UAH School of Graduate Studies 
commending him for this honor. Academic honors such as placement on the Dean's list do not satisfy this 
criterion because only other students, not experts at the top of their fields, compete for these honors. Although 
admirable, the petitioner's certificate was awarded for scholastic achievement, not excellence in his field as an 
established scientist. In addition, as noted by the director, the petitioner's honor was limited to his university 
and not nationally recognized. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in theJield for which classiJication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
e.xperts in their disciplines or$elds. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner initially 
submitted a copy of an electronic mail message stating that "the Committee on Qualifications and Membership 
has approved your nomination for election to membership in Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society." In 
response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a copy of his membership certificate stating that he was "duly 
elected a Member . . . in the year 2004." We cannot consider this evidence because the certificate shows that the 
petitioner did not become a member of the society until after his petition was filed. The petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 
(Cornm. 197 1). 
Even if we accepted the electronic mail message as evidence of the petitioner'smembership, the record contains 
no evidence that outstanding achievements are prerequisite to membership in Sigma Xi. In his RFE response, 
the petitioner cited the Sigma Xi website and explained that full membership in the society is granted to 
individuals who have "shown noteworthy achievement as an original investigator in a field of pure or applied 
science or engineering" and who have at least two first-authored, refereed papers or patents. The petitioner did 
not submit a printout from the society's website or any other documentation of these eligibility criteria and he 
repeats his original claim on appeal. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornrn. 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). Even if these 
membership requirements were sufficiently documented, they would not constitute outstanding achievements. 
Obtainment of patents or publication of at least two articles as a lead author in peer-reviewed journals are 
accomplishments common to many scientists actively worlung in their fields and do not necessarily reflect 
outstanding achievements. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien S work in theJield for which classzjication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The record contains a printout 
from the website of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
- (NASA) entitled "Supercomputing ." The slide is titled "A Parallel 3d 
Relativistic Electromagnetic PIC Cod University of Alabama at Huntsville." 
The record contains no evidence ajor trade publication or other major 
media. The petitioner also submitted from the website of the-u~~ ~e~artment of Electrical and 
Computer Engineering that describe and list some of the petitioner's research projects as a graduate student. 
Again, the record contains no evidence that this university department website is a professional, major trade 
publication or other major media. 
The petitioner also claims that his research has been cited in two journal articles, but submits evidence of only 
one article authored by N. Singh. As the director noted, citations of an alien's work do not constitute published 
material about the alien because the citing article is primarily about the author's own research. Moreover, the 
submitted citing article was published in 2004, after the petition was filed and consequently cannot be 
considered. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence of the alien S participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an alIiedJield of speczjication for which class$cation is sought. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner initially cited the 
letter of Dr. Jonathan E. Jones, an Aerospace Engineer at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, who states that 
he was the "Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) on a contract with UAH for which [the 
petitioner] performed computational calculations for a plasma sail propulsion concept." Dr. Jones explains that 
during the petitioner's "doctoral research, he completed significant work on a plasma sail concept also known as 
the Mini-Magnetospheric Plasma Propulsion (M2P2) . . . . He was also invited to speak at the Marshall Space 
Flight Center (MSFC-NASA) to present his results on the M2P2 concept. He was required to critically examine 
the work of others in this field in the process of completing his work." This undocumented statement is 
insufficient to meet this criterion. Duties or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the 
occupation itself. Critical examination of others' research is inherent to the work of research scientists. The 
petitioner explains on appeal that his work built on the concept of M2P2 that "was first discovered by scientists 
from the University of Washington," but he does not explain or document that his work involved the critique of 
other scientists' work in this field beyond the judgment normally inherent in any original scientific research 
project. 
In his RFE response, the petitioner also submitted an undated electronic mail message from the associate editor 
of the Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing requesting his review of an article submitted to the 
journal. The record contains no evidence that the petitioner actually reviewed the article, such as copies of his 
reviewer sheets or comments. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scient$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signz9cance in the field. 
The director correctly determined that the petitiqner did not meet this criterion. The record contains eight 
recommendation letters written by the petitioner's doctoral and postdoctoral supervisors and other experts in his 
field who have collaborated with him on various research projects. While such letters provide relevant 
information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's 
eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in 
his field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he has worked directly. Moreover, letters 
solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has earned sustained national or 
international acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's 
contributions. 
Dr. Laurie L. Joiner, Assistant Professor at UAH, served on the petitioner's doctoral committee. Professor 
Joiner explains that the petitioner "has conducted research in the area of space physics for five years and has 
authoredlco-authored several scholarly scientific articles in leading professional publications including 
international conferences. Moreover, his original contributions in the field of deep space propulsion are of 
significant importance for NASA's next generation space transportation program." Willie B. Maddox, of 
Electronic Warfare Associates, states that he worked with the petitioner when he was a doctoral student at UAH. 
Mr. Maddox explains that the petitioner "developed a 3-Dimensional electromagnetic wave interaction model. 
This highly sophisticated model is used extensively to study the interaction of radio frequency waves with 
metallic objects for US strategic military as well as for local law enforcement purposes. I also recognize that 
[the petitioner's] original contributions in the field of computational electromagnetics and space science are of 
critical and significant importance." The letter of Dr. Jones previously discussed under the fourth criterion also 
praises the petitioner's work as a graduate student on the plasma sail concept M2P2. 
The record contains insufficient evidence to corroborate the significance of the petitioner's graduate work. The 
petitioner submitted a copy of an article entitled "Parallelization and Performance of a 3-D Electromagnetic 
Plasma PIC Code" of which he is the sole author and which was published in 2002 in the International Journal 
of Computational Engineering Science. The record is devoid of any evidence that this article has been widely 
cited or otherwise recognized by independent researchers as a major contribution to this field. The record also 
contains a copy of an article entitled "Parallel 3-D Hybrid Particle-in-Cell Model for Electromagnetic Plasma" 
of which the petitioner is the sole author that was published in Communications in Nonlinear Science and 
Numerical Simulation. The petitioner initially submitted a draft of this manuscript titled "Article in Press." 
With his RFE response, the petitioner submitted a reprint of the article indicating that it was not actually 
published until 2005, although it was "[a]vailable online 28 August 2003." Regardless of the exact publishing 
date, the record is devoid of any evidence that this article has been widely cited or otherwise recognized as a 
major contribution to this field. 
We are also unable to consider two manuscripts that cite papers co-authored by the petitioner because the 
manuscripts were published or presented after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish eligibility at 
the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The petitioner 
submitted an article by N. Singh that cites a paper co-authored by the petitioner. As previously explained under 
the third criterion, we cannot consider this citation because the citing article was published after the petition was 
filed. Even if we could consider the article, it would not demonstrate recognition of the petitioner's work by 
independent researchers in his field because the cited paper was co-authored by N. Singh and the petitioner. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of a paper entitled "Plasma Sail Concept Fundamentals" written for NASA 
which cites a conference paper of the petitioner's. The NASA paper is apparently an internal document that has 
not been published. Regardless, the paper is dated April, 2004 and also cannot be considered because it was 
published after the petition was filed. 
The petitioner submitted five recommendation letters that discuss his subsequent work at the National High 
Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) as a postdoctoral research associate. The petitioner's supervisor, Dr. 
William W. Brey, wrote two letters, one submitted with the petition and another submitted with the RFE 
response. In his first letter, Dr. Brey states that the petitioner has only recently been appointed to his laboratory. 
He explains that his laboratory is "developing novel radio frequency (RF) circuits for the world's largest NMR 
(nuclear magnetic resonance) magnet which has been developed at the NHMFL and which is just starting its 
commissioning process. [The petitioner] is playing the leading role in designing and developing the crucial 
multiply-tuned sample probe circuits upon which experiments in the magnet will critically depend." Dr. Brey 
does not describe any accomplishments made by the petitioner on this project. 
In his second letter dated September 24,2004, Dr. Brey reports that the petitioner's work on "High Temperature 
Superconducting (HTS) 1 mm NMR probes . . . . was presented to national experts on the NM review panel in 
April, 2004, who were highly impressed and encouraged him to move forward with his research." Dr. Brey also 
notes the petitioner's work on "the electromagnetic field analysis of a birdcage head-coil and transverse 
electromagnetic head-coil design for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) at 7 Tesla, which is the latest in the 
field of MRI." Dr. Brey praises the petitioner as "one of the leading experts in area [sic] of RF-Microwave 
engineering applied to NMR-MRI," but notes that this research has not yet been published. Gregory S. 
Boebinger, NHMFL Director, Timothy A. Cross, NHMFL Program Director, and Rex E. Gerald 11, of the 
Argonne National Laboratory who has collaborated with the petitioner, also discuss the recent work of the 
petitioner and its subsequent presentation to the NIH and at various scientific conferences. The letters of Dr. 
Boebinger, Dr. Cross, Dr. Gerald and Dr. Brey's second letter all discuss work completed and presented by the 
petitioner after his petition was filed and consequently cannot be considered as evidence of the petitioner's 
contributions to his field. Again, the petitioner must establish eligbility at the time of filing; a petition cannot 
be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The record contains no other evidence that the petitioner's work at NHMFL has made major contributions as 
recognized by other scientists in his field beyond his supervisors and collaborators. Apparently, none of the 
petitioner's recent work has been published. Although the petitioner's recommendation letters speak highly of 
his research contributions, the record contains insufficient corroborative evidence that his work had made major 
contributions to his field at the time of filing in a manner consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner claims to have 
authored 13 "scholarly published articles" at the time of filing, but the record does not support this claim. 
Moreover, mere publication of scientific work is insufficient to satisfy this criterion. Frequent publication of 
research findings is inherent to success as an established scientist and does not necessarily indicate the sustained 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Evidence of publications must be 
accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent experts or other proof that the alien's 
publications have had a significant impact in his field. 
The petitioner's list of 13 "scholarly published articles" includes his doctoral dissertation, but the record 
contains no evidence that his dissertation was published in a professional, major trade publication or other major 
media, or that his dissertation has been widely cited or otherwise recognized by other experts in his field. The 
list also includes one article that had been submitted, but not published, at the time of filing; three "Workshop" 
presentations; and six papers presented at scientific conferences. The list includes only two articles published in 
scholarly journals. The petitioner is the sole author of both articles, but the record contains no evidence that 
these articles have been cited or otherwise significantly recognized by other researchers in the field. As 
discussed above under the fifth criterion, two abstracts co-authored by the petitioner have been cited. One 
reference is a self-citation by the petitioner's co-author and the second was made in an apparently internal 
manuscript prepared for NASA. Regardless of their limited significance, both citations were made after the 
petition was filed and consequently cannot be considered. The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Finally, the petitioner submitted 
copies of five conference papers or abstracts, but no evidence that these manuscripts had been consistently cited 
or otherwise recognized as significant by independent experts in the petitioner's field. The evidence submitted 
establishes that the petitioner has a minimal publication record that does not reflect the requisite sustained 
acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The petitioner initially claimed 
eligibility under this criterion by virtue of his role as a graduate student at UAH and his postdoctoral position at 
NHMFL. The director did not address the petitioner's role as a doctoral student at UAH, but the petitioner was 
not prejudiced by this oversight because the record does not demonstrate that he meets this criterion through that 
role. The only evidence discussing his role at UAH was the letter of Professor Joiner previously mentioned 
under the fifth criterion. Professor Joiner simply describes the petitioner as "a bright student and a very hard 
worker'' whose dissertation "research work [was] of high quality." 
On appeal, the petitioner only contests the director's determination that his role at NHMFL does not meet this 
criterion and quotes portions of the letters written by his supervisor Dr. Brey; NHMFL Director, Dr. Boebinger 
and NHMFL Program Director, Dr. Cross. The record indicates that at the time of filing, the petitioner had been 
employed as a postdoctoral research associate in Dr. Brey's laboratory at NHMFL for only afew months. In his 
first letter, Dr. Brey explained the value of the petitioner's experience and ability "to work effectively at the 
interface of science and engineering" and why that ability was important to his laboratory. Given the short 
period of the petitioner's employment at NHMFL at the time of filing, Dr. Brey understandably did not list any 
specific accomplishments that the petitioner had made to his laboratory (as previously discussed under the fifth 
criterion). He described his laboratory's work on "developing novel radio frequency (RF) circuits for the 
world's largest NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance magnet)" and stated that the petitioner was "playing the 
leading role in designing and developing the crucial multiply-tuned sample probe circuits upon which 
experiments in the magnet will critically depend." While the petitioner may have been leading this particular 
project, Dr. Brey's first letter does not indicate that the petitioner held a leading or critical role in his laboratory 
as a whole, or within NHMFL, at the time of filing. 
As previously explained under the fifth criterion, the second letter of Dr. Brey and the letters of Dr. Boebinger 
and Dr. Cross largely discuss the petitioner's work that was completed and presented after the petition was filed. 
Their subsequent assessment of his role at NHMFL thus cannot be considered because it is based on evidence 
that arose after the petition was filed. Again, the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 
C.F.R. ij 103.2(b)(12), Matter ofklatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. In addition, the record contains no independent 
evidence that Dr. Brey's laboratory or NHMFL have distinguished reputations. The petitioner included a one- 
paragraph description of NHMFL based on information from the institution's website in his "List of Comments 
and Detailization of the Initial Evidence Material" submitted with his petition, but the record contains no 
evidence to document the asserted reputation of NHMFL. Simply going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 
I&N Dec. at 165. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the petitioner is a postdoctoral research associate who has made valuable contributions to 
his field. However, the record does not establish that the petitioner had achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim placing him at the very top of his field at the time of filing. He is thus ineligible for 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 29 1 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.