dismissed EB-1A Case: Research Scientist

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 07 152 50810 
JUL 10 2009 
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. 
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 103S(a)(l)(i). 
Ac )9h41 mg F. Chief, Grissom Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center. The petition 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. 5 1 153(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. 
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. 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, filed on April 30, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a research scientist. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates 
Page 3 
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. 
tj 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. 
5 204.5(h)(2). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) .l 
Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on his receipt of the Science and Technology 
Advancement Award in 1990, the Outstanding Young Faculty Award in 1992, and the National 
Science Award in 1994. We note that the translations accompanying the supporting documents, 
although certified and notarized as complete and accurate in accordance with 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(3), are translated by the petitioner. In response to the director's re uest for evidence 
(RFE) dated March 7, 2008, the etitioner submitted a letter from 
 "verifying" the 
petitioner's translations. However, 
 does not certify his interpretation of the petitioner's 
work. Accordingly, the evidentiary value of these translations are lessened. 
1. The Science and Technology Advancement Award. The petitioner submitted a copy of a 
certificate indicating that in February 1989, he received a 3rd place Science and 
Technology Advancement Award granted by the Forestry Ministry of China. The 
certificate of award was issued by the Beijing Forestry University (BFU) on June 13, 
1990. The petitioner also stated that the award was a group award won by members of the 
project team, and that BFU issued certificates to "principal individual researchers." The 
petitioner alleges that the award "is one of the most prestigious national awards in the 
fields related to forestry in China." The petitioner submitted no documentation verifying 
his statements, particularly the prestigious nature of the award. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
2. The Outstanding Young Faculty Award. The petitioner submitted a September 17, 1999 
unsigned letter from the Office of Academic Research Administration at BFU. The letter 
verified that the petitioner was a 1992 recipient of the Outstanding Young Faculty Award 
in the "research category with funding" from the Fok Ying Tung Education Foundation. 
According to the letter: 
[The foundation] was established . . . to reward young (age under 40) 
professors in Chinese higher education institutes whose research 
achievements has [sic] gained national and international recognition or 
who has excellent performance in teaching. This award is the most 
prestigious award to the very top young professors in Chinese higher 
education system. The award is also open to overseas young Chinese 
scientists who have made extraordinary contributions to science and 
achieved international recognition in his or her field. 
The letter also indicates that the award received by the petitioner "includes [a] monetary 
reward to the recipient and funding to a research project proposed by the recipient and 
approved by the foundation." The letter indicates that the foundation announced the name 
of the recipients, which consisted of 81 individuals in the category that included the 
petitioner, in a press release and major Chinese media reported the results. 
The petitioner submitted copies of newspaper articles that he stated were about the award 
and therefore established its prominence. The translations accompanying the information 
from the March 29, 1992 editions of the People S Daily and GuangMing Daily are only 
partial translations, showing only the individuals listed at number one and the petitioner's 
name listed at number 55. Additionally, the petitioner provided no translations for a 
document he stated was a recipient list printed from the Foy Ying Tung Foundation 
website and articles he stated were printed in other publications, including the June 1, 
1992 editions of People's Daily, GuangMing Daily, Beijing Daily and Worker S Daily, 
among others. The documents therefore do 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. 
The petitioner submitted a translation of the article that appeared in the June 1, 1992 
edition of the People's Daily Overseas. The article indicated that the awards ceremony 
was attended by the Chinese President Yang Shangkun and Congress Vice Chairman Lei 
Jiequn. The article also indicated that 81 individuals received the Research Funding 
Award. In response to the director's request for evidence (WE), the petitioner provided 
Page 5 
copies of previously submitted documentation and a partial translation of the winners 
listed on the Foy Ying Tung Foundation website. 
3. The National Science Award. The petitioner submitted another unsigned letter dated 
September 17, 1999 from the Office of Academic Research Administration of BFU. 
According to the writer, the petitioner was "one of the chief investigators and the project 
director for software design and development in a project entitled "Computer-based 
Decision Support System (DSS) for the Management of Pine Caterpillars in Forest 
Ecosystem." The letter indicated that this project received the National Science Award 
from the National Science and Technology Commission of China (NSTCC) and that the 
award ceremony was held in December 1994. 
The petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that the Science and Technology 
Advancement Award or the National Science Award is a nationally or internationally recognized 
award for excellence in his field of endeavor. Further, the petitioner admits that these are group 
awards and that the BFU issued certificates to the individual participants. The evidence does not 
establish that the petitioner received or was recognized for either of these awards from the 
agencies making the awards. The plain language of this criterion requires the alien to document 
his or her own receipt of the award. Awards presented to a third-party or organization are not 
sufficient to establish eligibility under this criterion. 
Regarding the Outstanding Young Faculty Award, the documentation indicates that the award is 
nationally recognized. However, the evidence also indicates that the award is limited to 
professors in Chinese higher education institutions who are under 40 years of age or other 
"young Chinese scientists who have made extraordinary contributions to science and achieved 
international recognition in his or her field." 
Honors limited by their terms to a particular subset 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 do not work in Chinese higher education 
institutions or who are not Chinese. 
Furthermore, section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) requires the petitioner to establish that he has achieved 
sustained acclaim. All of the awards that the petitioner claims he won were in the early 1990s, 
thirteen years prior to his filing of this visa petition, and are not consistent with sustained 
acclaim. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that "this time issue should [not] be a concern" in this 
case because at the time, he did not hold a Ph.D. degree and today he holds two, that he has 
contributed more than 60% of the academic papers published by the Computer Science 
Department at the University of Idaho, that his research "has been well recognized by academia 
and [the] engineering community," the quality of his research, that "sustained scholarship does 
not imply that there cannot be any interruption in one's career, as long as the beginning and 
ending are sustained," that his background spans three academic fields, and because of his 
publishing record. 
The petitioner, however, does not explain how any of these factors apply to this criterion. We 
note that many of the examples he advances to explain the fact that he has not won any awards 
since 1994 are properly the subjects of other criteria and will be discussed further below. We 
note further that the Act does not require the petitioner to demonstrate "sustained scholarship" 
but rather "sustained acclaim. " 
The petitioner has failed to 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 or fields. 
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 provided a copy of an April 10, 1995 certificate of membership in Gamma Sigma 
Delta, an honor society in agriculture. The petitioner claimed to be a life member of this 
organization but provided no documentation to corroborate his life membership or that the 
organization requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
The petitioner stated that from 1993 to 1997, he was a member of the Entomological Society of 
America and provided a partial copy of what he indicated was the 1996 membership directory 
for the organization, which included his name. The petitioner also claimed to be a member of the 
Ecological Society of China from 1987 to 1992, the Entomological Society of China from 1987 
to 1992, and the Forestry Society of China from 1987 to 1992. Other than the Ecological Society, 
the petitioner submitted no documentation of his membership in these organizations. Without 
supporting documentation, the petitioner has not met his burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The petitioner submitted a partial copy of a 1990 
resolution passed by the Governing Board of Research Association of Young Ecologists of the 
Ecological Society of China. The resolution was accompanied by a partial translation showing 
the petitioner as a member of the board. The translation therefore does not comply with the 
provisions of 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), which requires documents in a foreign language to be 
accompanied by full English translations. Most importantly, the petitioner submitted no 
documentation of the membership requirements of these organizations. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of his professional certifications. The petitioner submitted 
no documentation to establish that a professional certification is membership in an organization. 
In his WE, the director advised the petitioner that none of the documentation submitted relevant 
to this criterion established his eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). In response, the 
petitioner stated that he agreed with the director's assessment and that he did not satisfy this 
criterion. Accordingly, 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 classification 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 material 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. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on the media coverage of his "academic 
awards," peer citations to his published work, and "library subscription of Chinese journals with 
international circulation." 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted partial copies of translations listing the names 
of individuals who won the Outstanding Young Faculty Awards and one newspaper article 
reporting on the ceremony. However, none of these documents discuss the petitioner or his work. 
Further, the petitioner submitted no documentation to indicate that any of the publications are 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner resubmitted the documentation accompanied by a 
"verification" of his translations by , who provides no information regarding his 
competency to translate from Chinese to English. The petitioner submits no new argument on 
appeal. The evidence does not establish that the articles meet the criterion in that they are not 
about the petitioner or his work. 
The petitioner also asserts that he meets this criterion based on the many citations by his peers to 
his published work. Articles that cite the petitioner's work are primarily about the author's own 
work and not that of the petitioner. As such, they cannot be considered published material about the 
petitioner. However, they will be considered under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(v) and(vi) below. 
The petitioner asserts that libraries in the United States, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand 
subscribe to several of the Chinese journals in which his work was published. The petitioner's 
published articles, discussed further below, are not articles about the petitioner or his work, and 
the fact that international libraries subscribe to certain journals that publish his work is not 
evidence of the international nature of published work about the petitioner. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Page 8 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedfield of specijication for which classzfication is 
sought. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on his election to the governing board of the 
Research Association of Young Ecologists of the Ecological Society of China, a position that he 
held from 1990 to 1992. However, the petitioner submitted no documentation to indicate that the 
duties of the governing board included serving as a judge of the work of others. 
The petitioner submitted a document that he translated as the Editorial Board of the Transactions 
of the Ecological Society of Chinese Youth. The petitioner's partial translation also indicates that 
he was among 22 members of the editorial board. The translation does not comply with the 
provisions of 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), which requires full translations of documents submitted in a 
foreign language. He also submitted what he stated was a 1991 "Certificate of Appointment" to 
the editorial board that he personally translated. The petitioner submitted no documentation to 
indicate that he actually performed editorial reviews in his capacity as a member of the board, 
and no documentation to indicate that membership on this editorial board is commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim in the field of science. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of what he described as the cover page of a project technical 
report and stated that he was requested to provide advice and "invited to serve as the panel to 
appraise the group's project report." The petitioner indicated that the invitation was in a 
handwritten note dated December 30, 1990 but provided no documentation that he actually 
reviewed the report, or that an invitation to do so was based upon his sustained national or 
international acclaim in the field of science. 
The petitioner also stated that he was invited to write reviews for "important textbooks published 
in the world" and that he published reviews of 17 books in "various peer-referred journals." The 
petitioner provided copies of documents that he stated were copies of these reviews. However, he 
failed to provide certified translations of the documents. 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 what he stated was a 1991 invitation to review a book and 
stated that he was invited to contribute "review papers" for "several prestigious journals." The 
petitioner submitted a copy of what he identified as a review paper, which appears to summarize 
the accompanying document but does not appear to provide an opinion of the work summarized. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted copies of several e-mails regarding his review of 
manuscripts for the journals Computers & Security and ScientiJic Journals International. 
However, all of these e-mails are dated subsequent to the April 30, 2007 filing date of the 
petition. 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. 103.2(b)(1),(13); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 197 1). Accordingly, 
reviews performed by the petitioner subsequent to the date this petition was filed cannot be 
considered in assessing his eligibility for the classification sought with this petition. 
In denying the petition, the director noted that the evidence provided by the petitioner was dated 
in the 1990s or subsequent to the filing date of the petition. On appeal, the petitioner again 
argues that there is nothing in the regulation "that automatically excludes the evidence older than 
10 years," that the evidence indicated that he became a member of the editorial board at a very 
young age, and that for the same reasons enumerated previously for evidence of his eligibility 
under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence he submitted should be sufficient to establish his 
eligibility under this criterion. 
However, as previously discussed, the petitioner must establish that he has achieved sustained 
acclaim. The petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that he performed or was invited 
to perform any review from 1992 through April 30,2007, the filing date of his petition. 
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 signiJicance in the jeld. 
The petitioner claims that his original contributions include: 
1. Development of a computer-based decision support system for managing forest insect 
pests. The petitioner stated that his system was the second one of these programs to be 
developed in the world. He did not state how his system differs from that of the first one 
developed or submit any evidence to show that it was a major contribution to his field. 
2. Proposal of a new theory of Population Aggregation Critical Density (PACD) for the 
spatial distributions of insect populations and development of a mathematical model for 
PACD based on Power Law. He stated that his "theory of PACD and corresponding 
mathematical model have become a standard methodology in the field of insect spatial 
distribution research." However, the petitioner submitted no documentation to 
corroborate his statement. See Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
3. Development of a new modeling and simulation paradigm for insect population dynamics 
and demography. The petitioner stated that "[tlhis work is well recognized as pioneering 
in the fields of entomology and ecology." The petitioner did not provide evidence to 
show that his "pioneering" effort was a contribution of major significance to his field. 
4. Advancement of three new procedures for analyzing network intrusion detection data. 
The petitioner stated that his work in this area "solved some of the fundamental flaws in 
[the] existing statistic approaches widely used in intrusion detection." The petitioner 
- Page 10 
submitted no documentation to confirm his statement or to establish that this work was a 
major contribution to his field of endeavor. Id. 
5. Introduction of a biologically inspired approach to Survivable Network Systems (SNS) 
and "mapping" of insect populations systems to wireless sensor and ad hoc networks and 
proposal of a theory of Phase Transitions in reliability, survivability and perforrnability. 
The petitioner stated that this "set[s] the foundation for the introduction of Interactive 
Particle Systems (IPS), Percolation, Random Graphs, Survival Analysis and Swarm 
Intelligence theories into research of computer networks." 
6. Pioneered research of chaos and catastrophe theories in the fields of reliability and insect 
population dynamics. 
7. Invented the methodology of "fluctuation or dynamic populations" in evolutionary 
computation. The petitioner stated that his "research opens a new paradigm which 
improves computation efficiency by reducing computation time and memory allocation 
requirements." He also stated: "This advancement not only generates a new theoretic 
research direction, but also is of extreme significant impact to large-scale computation 
such as DNA sequencing and supercomputing." 
8. Pioneered the application of survival analysis to network reliability and survivability. The 
petitioner stated: "Although I am the first researcher introducing SA into the field of 
network survivability, my most important innovation lies in my integration of SA with 
Scheduling theory and Game theory for optimizing network lifetime and survivability." 
The petitioner submitted no documentation to corroborate the impact of his work in his field or 
to establish that any of his work was a contribution of major significance to his field. The 
petitioner also stated that he is in the process of developing a comprehensive set of 
methodologies for modeling the Phase Transition and Criticallsuper critical phenomenon in 
mobile sensor and ad hoc networks. 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)(1),(13); 
Mutter of Kutigbak, 14 I&N at 49. Work that has not been completed is not evidence that the 
petitioner had made contributions of major significance to his field as of the filing date of this 
petition. 
The petitioner provided several letters of reference and recommendation including a July 20, 
2006 letter fro& Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of 
Idaho (UI). stated that the petitioner "has been exploring novel theoretic approaches 
for modeling and simulating survivability . . . with the very recent advances in Swarm 
Intelligence and Random Graph Dynamics theory." 
 did not indicate that the 
petitioner's work constituted a contribution of major significance to his field, but stated that 
"according to his academic advisor and other experts, [the petitioner's] current progress in his 
research foresees potentially very significant advancement to the modeling of network 
survivability." A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Id. 
- Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Virginia 
Polytechnic Institute and State University, stated in a December 13, 2004 letter that he was 
~ivision Chair of Entomology at UI when the petitioner was an Entomology Ph.D. student. He 
stated that in his entomology Ph.D. dissertation "in the late 9OYs," the petitioner's "pioneering 
work greatly enriched the methodology of modeling and analysis of insect populations, and had 
solved some long standing analytical problems associated with traditional methods used in the 
area." He also stated that the petitioner's "new theoretical ecology from perspectives of "Survival 
- - 
Analyses" has resulted in a-set of new general methods and-models to anal ze model and 
simulate insect populations based on laboratory demographic studies." did not 
state that these new methods and models constituted a contribution of major significance to the 
petitioner's field. 
a professor of entomology at the University of Idaho, stated in a July 
17,2006 letter that the petitioner was his former student. He further stated: 
[The petitioner] derived a modeling approach called the "same-shape distribution 
reproduction model." This model is a new procedure that allows researchers to 
account for variability in reproduction among individuals as a function of 
differing environmental conditions. His method is important because it provides a 
comprehensive, unified modeling framework that is compatible with existing 
stage-development models . . . . 
Another original and significant contribution was his examination of insect 
population dynamics within the context of Cusp Catastrophe Theory, still yet 
another mathematical approach far beyond most entomologists. . . . As a 
consequence, his work not only advances the science of theoretical population 
analysis and modeling, but also has significant pragmatic applications for insect 
control by allowing us to accurately forecast pest intensity. 
petitioner's work as "significant." He writes in a January 3,2005 letter: 
In my opinion, [the petitioner] has done exceptional research and made significant 
original discoveries and contributions in the areas of modeling and analysis of 
network Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), Survival Analysis of 
Biological/Ecologic Systems, Mathematical Ecology, as well as his ongoing 
dissertation research . . . . 
[The petitioner] is the first computer scientist in the world who has proposed to 
approach the design of the Survivable Network Systems (SNS) from the 
viewpoints of ecology and biology. His approach is certainly one of the most 
Page 12 
important new initiatives in the study of SNS because it opens a complete new 
arena and is very likely to generate a paradigmatic change in the field . . . . 
Another example of exceptional originality and creativity is the concept of "fault 
aggregation degree[,]" which [the petitioner] proposed for describing the 
distribution pattern of faults in a network system . . . . [He] is trying to develop a 
new set of models that can measure the aggregation of faults in a networked 
system, and establish the relationship between "fault aggregation" and 
survivability of the network system. From the fault aggregation model, he will try 
to find the critical point similar to his PACD in biology . . . which will be the 
breaking point of the network system. 
, a professor in the Departments of Computer Science and Forest Resources at 
the University of Idaho, in a January 18, 2000 letter, also stated that the petitioner's "work is of 
great significance to both theoretical population ecology and practical value to forecasting pest 
population," and that the "scientific community has recognized this important work" which "has 
been presented at several academic meetings." 
Researchers. to be successful, are expected to provide advances in their areas of research. While 
and describe the petitioner's work as "significant," this is not 
the same as stating that the petitioner's work was a "major contribution" to his field. Further, 
according to , the petitioner's work on "fault aggregation" has yet to yield results. A 
visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the petitioner 
or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Id. 
Further, the above letters are all from the petitioner's collaborators and immediate 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 national or international acclaim. 
The opinions of experts in the field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a 
successful claim of sustained national or international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use 
as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1,795 (Cornrnr. 1 988). 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. USCIS may give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of 
Soffici, 22 I&N at 165. 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically 
identify contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced 
the field. Evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight 
than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An individual with 
sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials 
reflecting that acclaim. 
The petitioner also claims to meet this criterion based on his "[mlore than 50 [published] peer- 
referred journal and conference papers," his authorship of "about 40 technical reports, book 
reviews etc.," and based on more than 700 citations to his published work. 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 field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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. To be considered a contribution of major significance in the 
field of science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and 
confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the 
impact of the petitioner's work. Additionally, the petitioner's published articles will be 
considered under the criterion discussed immediately below. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
In his letter accompanying the petition, the petitioner stated that he had published a text book, 30 
peer refereed journal papers, 24 peer refereed conference papers, 17 book reviews, and 15 
technical reports. The petitioner also indicated that he had submitted 10 articles for publication. 
The director determined that the petitioner meets this criterion. However, we withdraw the 
director's determination. 
The petitioner submitted copies of articles that he stated that he authored. Many of these are in 
Chinese and while some are preceded by English abstracts, they are not accompanied by English 
translations. He also submitted what he stated were citation lists indexed by Google Scholar. 
However, the documents are in Chinese and either have no translation or are only partial 
translations provided by Google. As previously discussed, 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(3) requires that 
documents submitted in a foreign language "shall be accompanied by a full English translation 
which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification 
that he or she is competent to translate fiom 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. 
Further, duties or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
fj 204.5(h)(3) do not demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine 
in the occupation itself. As frequent publication of research findings is inherent to success as an 
established research scientist, publications alone do not necessarily indicate the sustained 
acclaim required for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. Evidence of 
publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent 
research teams or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in his 
field. 
In his RFE, the director acknowledged the citation list provided by the petitioner but noted that it 
was in Chinese. He instructed the petitioner to submit "either a certified translation or one that is 
already in English." In response, the petitioner submitted an April 15, 2008 letter from = 
who stated that he had reviewed the lists from Google, and that he has "very high confidence that 
the . . . lists contain the citations of [the petitioner's] publications only." In an April 16, 2008 
letter, a professor in the Computer Science Department at UI stated that he had 
reviewed the petitioner's "summary of the 'General List' and 'Case-Analysis list,' which clearly 
indicates the very significant impact of his work on his field." Nonetheless, the petitioner did not 
submit certified translations of the documents as required by the regulation. As the petitioner has 
failed to provide certified translations indicating that his publications have been consistently 
cited by others, we cannot determine the influence his publications have had on the research 
community. 
The petitioner's evidence does not 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. 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must show that he performed a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment and that the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on his work at the UI. The petitioner submitted 
documentation indicating that in 1999, the National Security Agency (NSA) designated UI as 
one of seven Centers of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education. A page from 
the website of the university's Center for Secure and Dependable Systems indicates that the 
designation was "revalidated" in 2004. The petitioner also submitted documentation indicating 
that UI had cloned the first mule. The evidence sufficiently establishes that UI, and specifically 
the Department of Computer Science and the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, have a 
distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner's role at UI was as a student, including Ph.D. studies in entomology and computer 
science. The petitioner submitted documentation regarding his research during his studies at UI, 
which was described by his references as "significant." At issue for this criterion are the position 
the petitioner was selected to fill and the reputation of the entity that selected him. In other words, 
the position must be of such significance that the alien's selection to fill the position is indicative of, 
or consistent with, national or international acclaim. The petitioner stated that over 60% of the 
articles published by the Computer Science Department in 2008 at UI were his. However, he 
submitted no documentation to establish that his position as a student or researcher at UI was in a 
critical or leading role. Further, as the petition was filed on April 30, 2007, the petitioner's 
publication record in 2008 is not evidence of his eligibility for this immigration classification. 
The petitioner must establish eligibility for the visa petition at the time the petition was filed. See 
8 C.F.R.5 103.2(b)(1),(13); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The petitioner also claimed that his position at BFU also qualifies him for this criterion. The 
petitioner submitted pages from the website of netbig.com, accessed on February 5, 2005, that 
provided a 2001 ranking of Chinese universities. The pages indicate that BFU was ranked as the 
number one forestry university based on faculty resources and was listed at number 58 based on 
academic reputation. These rankings alone are insufficient to establish that BFU enjoyed a 
distinguished reputation. An academic ranking, while important, is not conclusive evidence of 
the overall reputation of the institution, especially when BFU placed 58, along with six other 
universities, out of the 1 10 institutions ranked based on academic reputation. 
The petitioner provided a letter that he translated indicating that he was selected from the 
recipients of the 1990 and 1991 Fok Ying Tung Foundation Awards to "receive special funding 
and support in research, teaching and living conditions." The petitioner stated that he was the 
only faculty member to receive this "special treatment." However, the petitioner did not state 
how this "special treatment" constituted a leading or critical role with BFU. 
The petitioner submitted documentation regarding Tumbleweed Communications Corporation, a 
sec&ity software company. According to the petitioner, the company "barely survived [the] 
dotcom bust" and was eventually acquired by Microsoft. In a January 3, 2005 letter,, a 
senior director of information technology applications at UTStarcom, Inc., stated that 
Tumbleweed Communications Corporation "is a global leading security software company." He 
further stated that the petitioner's "exceptional talents and expertise played a vital role in the 
design, development, and implementation of Tumbleweed's industry-leading security software" 
and that he "designed, deployed, and managed Tumbleweed's flagship product 'IME' for 
important clients . . . as well as for Tumbleweed's own global production server." However, as 
noted, the petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that Tumbleweed was a company 
with a distinguished reputation. He also provided no documentation to corroborate Mr. Wu's 
statements regarding his role at Tumbleweed. 
The petitioner also submitted a March 17, 2005 letter from president of Silver 
Creek Software, Inc., in which he stated that his company "made a strategic and conscious 
decision to research, port and test its major application software to the Linux platform," and that 
the petitioner "initiated and successfully accomplished the project largely [by] himself." The 
petitioner submitted no documentation to confirm statements, to establish that 
Silver Creek Software, Inc. is an organization with a distinguished reputation or that his role at 
the company was in a leading or critical role. 
The petitioner has failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzJicantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner initially claimed this criterion but withdrew his claim with his response to the 
RFE. 
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 have 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 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.