dismissed EB-1A Case: Research

US. Department of Homeland Security 
identifying data c!c!e!ed t3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdmlnlstrative Appeals, MS 2090 
prevent cie81.1~ ir.v~anzrit~d 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
h\ias;og of p:r wnal privacy 
 U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
COPY 
~UBLIL 
" L 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 07 216 50304 
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: 
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)(l)(i). 
cting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, whlch is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Specifically, the director 
concluded that the petitioner meets only two of the regulatory criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3), of which an alien must meet at least three. 
On appeal, counsel's sole argument is that the petitioner also submitted evidence of published material 
about him sufficient to meet the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii). For the reasons 
discussed below, the evidence submitted to meet that criterion does not comply with the plain language 
requirements of that criterion because it is not "about" the petitioner relating to his work. Thus, we 
uphold the director's decision. We conclude that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the 
classification sought based on a review of the evidence under the individual criteria as well as in the 
aggregate. 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and migration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(JNS) 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 have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 8 C.F .R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a research 
associate. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. The regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5@)(3) follow. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
Counsel's response to the director's request for additional evidence states that the petitioner does not 
claim to meet this criterion and the record contains no evidence pertinent to this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classlJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines orjields. 
Counsel's response to the director's request for additional evidence states that the petitioner does not 
claim to meet this criterion and counsel does not challenge the director's failure to address this criterion 
on appeal. We note that the petitioner initially submitted evidence of his membership in Sigma Xi, 
which requires a "noteworthy" achievement. According to the material submitted initially, however, a 
"noteworthy" achievement is defined as a publication, patent, written report, thesis or dissertation. As a 
thesis or dissertation is required for an advanced degree and publication of one's results is inherent to 
the field of research, we are not persuaded that Sigma Xi requires outstanding achievements as judged 
by recognized national or international experts. Thus, the petitioner has not established 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 classijication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Throughout the proceeding, the petitioner has relied on the citations of his published articles to meet 
this criterion. The director concluded that the record did not contain evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media "about the petitioner." On appeal, 
counsel notes that the petitioner did submit evidence of "substantial peer citations" of the petitioner's 
Page 4 
published work as well as sample citing articles, including the title, date and author of the material. 
Counsel further states that the director "did not indicate either any deficiency of the submitted evidence 
or indicate that the published materials meant something else in immigration law other than peer 
citations for a researcher-applicant like the petitioner." The petitioner submits additional evidence of 
citations. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) clearly and unambiguously requires 
the submission of published material "about the alien" relating to his work. We consider the full article 
to constitute the "published material" referenced in the regulation rather than each individual sentence 
or footnote. To hold otherwise would render this criterion meaningless. Thus, the full article must be 
about the petitioner relating to his work in order to meet this criterion. The articles that cite the 
petitioner's work are "about" the authors' own work or, in the case of review articles, recent trends in 
the field. It cannot be credibly asserted that these articles are "about" the petitioner relating to his work 
or even that they are "about" his work.' Significantly, if we applied counsel's reasoning to the 
petitioner's own articles they could not be considered evidence of his own achievements because we 
would conclude that they are about every researcher he cites in his own footnotes rather than reporting 
his personal results. As the citing articles submitted do not meet the plain language requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), we uphold the director's conclusion that the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield ofspecijkation for which classiJication is sought. 
On appeal, counsel does not challenge the director's conclusion that the petitioner's participation in the 
widespread peer-review process does not meet this criterion. The evidence submitted to meet this 
criterion, or any criterion, must be indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. Accord Yasar v. DHS, 2006 WL 778623 "9 (S.D. Tex. March 24,2006); All Pro Cleaning 
Services v. DOL et al., 2005 WL 4045866 "11 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2005). 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 and, by itself, is not indicative of or consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as 
evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits a small, elite group of referees, 
received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position 
for a distinguished journal, we concur with the director that the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
While not raised on appeal, the petitioner also submitted an electronic mail (e-mail) message from Dr. 
. v 
- 
Director of the ~iburn University Detection and Food Safe' Center and one of the 
petitioners references, responding to a request for the reference letter. &response asks if the 
' 
 Even if we were to look at the individual sentences and citations, and we reiterate that they cannot by 
themselves constitute the entirety of a published material, they may reference the petitioner's work but they are 
not "about" the petitioner. Compare 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C), relating to outstanding professors or 
researchers pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, requiring published material "about" the alien's work. 
Page 5 
petitioner would be able to review grant proposals from professors at Auburn University. 
 The 
petitioner also submitted his ranking of the 15 proposals. Without additional information, we cannot 
conclude that this single e-mail request, issued in response to the petitioner's own request for a 
reference letter, is indicative of national or international acclaim such that the petitioner can be said to 
meet this criterion. It is not even clear whether was aware of the petitioner or his work prior 
to receiving the petitioner's request for a reference letter. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient@c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signiJicance in theJield. 
The petitioner submitted detailed reference letters, including letters from independent researchers who 
have been following the petitioner's work, supported by a record of consistent and widespread citation 
of the petitioner's published articles. The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion and 
we will not withdraw that finding. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director concluded that the petitioner's publication record serves to meet this criterion and we 
concur with the director. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
On appeal, counsel does not contest the director's conclusion that this criterion does not pertain to the 
petitioner's field and we concur with the director that this criterion is primarily designed for visual 
artists. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, counsel does not contest the director's conclusion that the petitioner did not establish that he 
meets this criterion. While counsel previously asserted that the petitioner's leading role on various 
projects served to meet this criterion, we concur with the director. At issue for this criterion, set forth at 
8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(3)(viii), are the nature of the role the petitioner was selected to fill and the 
reputation of the organization or establishment that selected him for that role. In other words, the 
nature of the role must be such that the petitioner's selection for the role is indicative of or consistent 
with national or international acclaim. The petitioner has worked as a professor and is currently a 
research associate. We are not persuaded that every professor and research associate performs a leading 
or critical role for the university where he works beyond the obvious need of a university to employ 
competent professors and research associates. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signficantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the$eld 
Counsel's response to the director's request for additional evidence states that the petitioner does not 
claim to meet this criterion and the record contains no evidence pertinent to this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
On appeal, counsel does not contest the director's conclusion that this criterion does not pertain to the 
petitioner's field and we concur with the director. 
Finally, 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 petitioner, a research associate, relies on his volunteer services as a manuscript 
reviewer, his publication record, and the praise of his peers. While this may distinguish him from other 
research associates, we will not narrow his field to others with his level of training and experience. 
For example, the petitioner's references demonstrate far higher accomplishments. Specifically, Dr. 
- is a fellow of the Optical Society of America and the American Physical 
is Chair of the Physics Department at the University of Arkansas. Dr. 
a research group leader at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is a fellow of the 
American Ceramic Society and the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Applied Ceramic 
~echnology.~ Thus, it appears that the highest level of the petitioner's field is far above the level he has 
attained. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
research associate to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a research associate, but is not persuasive that the 
While the petitioner relies exclusively on his citation record on appeal, the record contains evidence of authors 
with far more citations. Specifically, indicates that he has over 2,000 citations, far more 
than the petitioner has documented. The list of articles citing the petitioner's work includes articles that have 
been cited individually more than the most cited article by the petitioner, including articles published more 
recently that have had less time to accumulate citations. We acknowledge that citations are not the sole measure 
of where a researcher stands in his field, but raise the issue due to the petitioner's heavy reliance on this factor 
on appeal. 
Page 7 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
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.