dismissed EB-1A Case: Researcher

U.S. Department of fiomeland Security 
U.S. Citizenshiv and Immigration Services 
identlfyiw data deleted to 
- 
Office of Admlnlstratzve Appeals, MS 2090 
prevent c\e&rl y unf'la~anted 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
invasig2 Pcwr2\ ~~~VSCY U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
IN RE: 
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. 8 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. 4 103.5 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. 4 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
U&dpck_ 
Q 3ohn F. Grissom 
1 \- Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which 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. $ 11 53(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 ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet 
at least three. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief asserting that the director applied too high a standard and required 
evidence not required under the plain language of the pertinent regulation. For the reasons discussed 
below, we do not find counsel's assertions persuasive or based on the plain language of the criteria, 
which she often ignores. Moreover, the AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de 
novo basis. 5 U.S.C. tj 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). Thus, the AAO need not give any more deference to 
favorable findings by the director than adverse ones. While we do not lightly withdraw favorable 
findings, for the reasons discussed below the record does not support the director's finding that the 
petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Finally, we reach our 
conclusion that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification sought by both 
considering the evidence to meet each criterion individually and 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 Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 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. fj 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. fj 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 researcher. At the 
time of filing, the petitioner had recently begun his Ph.D. studies, although we acknowledge that he was 
also working part-time. While the petitioner's student status does not preclude eligibility, we will not 
limit the petitioner's field to those still pursuing their education. Rather, the petitioner must compare 
with the most renowned members of the field, including those who have completed their education. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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, international 
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. 
On appeal, counsel cites a July 30, 1992 correspondence memorandum from 
 cting 
Assistant Commissioner, to the then Director of the Nebraska Service Center, 
 Mr. 
issued his correspondence memorandum in response to an inquiry from 
 and makes 
clear that he is discussing his personal inclinations. Moreover, in contrast to official policy memoranda 
issued to the field, correspondence memoranda issued to a single individual do not constitute official 
USCIS policy and will not be considered as such in the adjudication of petitions or applications. 
Although the correspondence may be useful as an aid in interpreting the law, such letters are not 
binding on any USCIS officer as they merely indicate the writer's analysis of an issue. See 
Memorandum from Acting Associate Commissioner, Office of Programs, 
Significance of Letters Drafted by the Ofice ofAdjudications (December 7,2000). 
Regardless, even accepting that meeting three criteria is sufficient to establish eligib 
further inquiry in the alien's sustained national or international acclaim, we concur with 
that in determining whether an alien meets a particular criterion, USCIS must evaluate the evidence, 
not merely count it. Such an evaluation must take into account whether the evidence is indicative of or 
consistent with national acclaim if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. 
Counsel also relies on Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1234 (E.D. Mich. 1994) for the proposition that 
the director erred in going beyond the plain language of the regulatory criteria. In contrast to the 
broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the AAO is not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising within the same 
district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). The reasoning underlying a district 
judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the AAO; however, the 
analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 71 9. Regardless, we do not find that 
Buletini precludes USCIS from examining whether the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion 
is indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim, the ultimate statutory standard 
for the visa classification sought. 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). 
Counsel asserts that the term "acclaim" is "open to any number of interpretations." We disagree; the 
evidence must demonstrate at a minimum that the petitioner is nationally recognized as 
extraordinary, which necessarily implies that he is well known beyond his immediate circle of 
colleagues and the geographic region where he works. This standard is consistent with the statutory 
language and commentary quoted above and the legislative history for this classification, whereby 
Congress explicitly indicated that individuals qualifying for this classification would demonstrate 
either a one-time achievement "such as receipt of the Nobel Prize" or a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Thus, it is clear that Congress intended this 
classification to be exclusive. 
The director concluded that the petitioner meets the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Given the evidence relating to the judging 
criterion in the aggregate (which includes evidence beyond the mere participation in the peer review 
process referenced by the director) we will not withdraw that finding. For the reasons discussed below, 
the evidence is far less persuasive that the petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion. Even if we 
were to uphold the director's finding that the petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion, he would 
still need to meet an additional criterion. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets 
the following additional criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Initially, the petitioner's laboratory supervisor at Columbia University, asserts 
that the petitioner meets this criterion based on an Excellent Achievement Award recognizing a poster 
- - 
presentation from the Metropolitan Association of College and University Biologists (MACUB) and a 
nomination for a student best paper award from the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 
(EMBS) of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). 
' The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
In the request for additional evidence, the director requested evidence regarding the significance of the 
award and the criteria for selection. In response, the petitioner submits a letter from -~ 
Corresponding Secretary of MACUB, asserting that MACUB "is a professional organization comprised 
of colle e and university biologists in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan region." 
d further asserts that every "research poster presentation of students is competitively judged for 
award by a Judging Committee comprised of professors from member colleges." (Emphasis added.) 
The director concluded that the petitioner's awards were student prizes that were not open to veterans 
in the field and, thus, could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
MACUB award is not a student award but is open to anyone affiliated with institutions within 
MACUB's region. Counsel further asserts that student awards "can be awarded to Ph.D. candidates at 
the highest echelon of research" and, as such, constitute "'lesser' prizes." Counsel concludes that since 
it can take several years to earn a Ph.D., these students should not be excluded from the director's 
definition of "veterans." 
Counsel is not persuasive. First, counsel's focus on the word "lesser" from the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3)(i) out of context is disingenuous. The word "lesser" modifies "nationally or 
internationally recognized," and is used to distinguish these awards from the major internationally 
recognized prize that would constitute a one-time achievement. Thus, the awards and prizes must still 
be nationally or internationally recognized. 
Second, while the letter fromstates that MACUB membership is open to anyone affiliated 
with colleges or universities in its region, the only discussion of awards is limited to research poster 
presentations "of students." Thus, the director's conclusion that the MACUB award is a student award 
is reasonable. Even if the MACUB certificate is not limited to students, MACUB is clearly a regional 
society covering a small geographic region. Thus, its prizes are not indicative of national or 
international acclaim. The record lacks evidence that the most renowned members of the field 
nationally aspire to win this certificate of achievement recognizing a poster presentation at a regional 
conference. 
The petitioner appears only to have been nominated for a student best paper award by EMBS. The 
plain language of the regulation clearly states that the petitioner must provide evidence of the 
petitioner's "receipt" of a qualifying award or prize. A nomination is not a prize or award. Regardless, 
we concur with the director that an award limited to students cannot serve to meet this criterion. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2) defines an alien of extraordinary ability as one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Regardless of the number of 
years it may take to complete a Ph.D., it remains that the most experienced and renowned members 
of the field do not compete for student paper awards. Thus, while IEEE may enjoy a distinguished 
reputation, student awards issued by a section of this association cannot be considered the type of 
lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards required to meet this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class$cation is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in IEEE, the American Astronautical 
Society (AAS), the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), MACUB, the Korean- 
American Scientists and Engineers Association (KSEA). The petitioner also submitted evidence of his 
student membership in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). Finally, the petitioner 
submitted evidence of his membership in a teacher's union. 
Regarding the membership requirements for the above associations, the petitioner submitted Internet 
materials reflecting that IEEE membership is open "to those who have satisfied IEEE-specified 
educational requirements andlor who have demonstrated competence in IEEE-designated fields of 
interest." The specific requirements that follow are limited to requiring the completion of a three to 
five year university-level degree or six years of experience demonstrating "competence." 
The director requested evidence that the above associations require outstanding achievements of their 
members. In response, counsel asserts that higher education and job experience are outstanding 
achievements. The petitioner submits evidence of the following membership criteria: 
Counsel mischaracterized the IEEE membership criteria as requiring education and experience. 
In fact, IEEE requires a three-to-five year university-level or higher degree from an accredited 
institution in an IEEE-designated field or a similar degree in a different field plus experience in 
an IEEE-designated field or six years of experience in an IEEE-designated field. Thus, the 
absolute minimum membership requirement is a degree in an IEEE-designated field or mere 
"competence" demonstrated through experience. 
Once again, counsel mischaracterized AAS as requiring "detailed evidence of significant 
contributions to Astronomy." In fact, AAS requires "one" of the following: a Ph.D. in 
astronomy or a closely related field, independent or senior authorship of acceptable, refereed 
papers, or detailed evidence of significant contributions to Astronomy "other than research 
publications." Counsel correctly notes that the AAS application requires the signatures of two 
members. 
AIAA membership requires a baccalaureate in science or engineering or equivalent 
qualifications through experience. While counsel asserted that a nominating signature is 
required, the application submitted does not include a line for such a signature. 
A sponsor is required on the ASME membership application. 
 Counsel relied on the 
requirements for an affiliate member, but the petitioner is a student member. Regardless, 
affiliate membership requires evidence of capability and interest in rendering service to the field 
of engineering in lieu of specific education or experience in that field, which would qualify the 
applicant as a regular member. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner's regular membership in KSEA is the highest level of 
membership offered by KSEA and notes that the KSEA application requests information on 
education and experience. Counsel Wher asserts that the petitioner "has taken an active role" 
with KSEA. 
The director concluded that the educational and experience requirements set forth in the materials 
provided did not demonstrate that any of the above associations require outstanding achievements of 
their members. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the term "outstanding" is not defined in the regulations, precedent 
decisions or by the director and that it must be less than "extraordinary" because otherwise meeting this 
criterion alone would demonstrate eligibility. Thus, counsel concludes that "outstanding 
achievements" should include the "rigorous demands upon applicants" documented above. Finally, 
counsel asserts that, in the alternative, the evidence submitted should be considered "comparable" 
evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(4). None of these assertions are persuasive or consistent with 
any statutory or regulatory authority. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires that the petitioner 
demonstrate membership in associations that require outstanding achievements as judged by nationally 
or internationally recognized experts. We must presume that the phrase "outstanding achievements" is 
not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. However counsel wishes to define 
"outstanding," clearly such achievements must be those that are not inherent to the field and 
somehow set the alien apart from others in the field. 
A degree is the necessary result of completing the academic requirements set forth by the degree- 
granting institution. Moreover, it does not take a nationally or internationally recognized expert in 
the field to judge whether or not an applicant received the necessary degree. Further and most 
significantly, a bachelor's degree in engineering is required for almost all entry-level engineering 
positions. See the training section for engineers in the Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) 
available at http://www.bls.liov/oco/ocos027.htm#trai (accessed July 2, 2009 and incorporated 
into the record of proceedings). Thus, it simply cannot be credibly asserted that a requirement for a 
baccalaureate in engineering is an outstanding achievement. 
We acknowledge that a Ph.D. is not required for employment in the field of mechanical engineering. 
Nevertheless, a Ph.D. is still the predicted outcome of fulfilling academic requirements set by the 
institutions granting the degrees and is prepatory for a career rather than an accomplishment in the 
field. The OOH further states: 
Graduate training is essential for engineering faculty positions and many research and 
development programs, but is not required for the majority of entry-level engineering 
jobs. Many experienced engineers obtain graduate degrees in engineering or business 
administration to learn new technology and broaden their education. 
Id. (Emphasis added.) Nothing in the OOH suggests that a Ph.D. is an outstanding engineering 
achievement. 
 Moreover, as stated above, it does not require a nationally or internationally 
recognized engineering expert to judge whether or not an applicant has a Ph.D. 
In addition, the first alternative to obtaining a Ph.D. for AAS membership is authorship of a refereed 
paper. We are not persuaded that such authorship is an outstanding achievement in the petitioner's 
field. The petitioner has submitted evidence that he was nominated for a student best paper award. 
Given that there are sufficient student papers out there to warrant student best paper awards in the 
field, it would appear that authorship is inherent to research in the petitioner's field and does not set 
him apart from other graduate students in the field. As the first two means of establishing eligibility 
for AAS membership are clearly not outstanding achievements, we need not examine whether the 
final alternative might be considered an outstanding achievement, although we note that the record 
lacks evidence regarding what AAS considers a "significant contribution" or who judges whether a 
specific contribution is sufficient. 
We also conclude that obtaining signatures from current members is not an outstanding achievement. 
Specifically, there is no evidence that the nominating members must be recognized national or 
international experts or that they are attesting to having judged the applicant's achievements as 
outstanding. Rather, they are simply other professionals in the field who could be the applicant's 
own advisor or collaborator. 
Finally, whether or not the petitioner played an active role for KSEA is irrelevant. 
 The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires that we focus on the membership 
requirements and not whether the petitioner, once admitted, volunteered his services to the 
association. 
In light of the above, the evidence falls far short of establishing that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
Finally, counsel's assertion that the evidence should be considered as "comparable" evidence to meet 
this criterion is not persuasive. First, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(4) permits the 
consideration of "comparable" evidence where the criteria are not "readily applicable" to the alien's 
occupation. The petitioner has submitted no evidence that there are no engineering associations that 
might meet this criterion. significantly, is a fellow of AIAA and AAS, a far more 
exclusive membership category than those demonstrated by the petitioner.2 Moreover, counsel has 
2 
 We note these memberships solely as evidence of more exclusive memberships in the petitioner's field and 
not as examples of which memberships might serve to meet this criterion. 
not explained how evidence directly related to a given criterion but insufficient to meet the plain 
language requirements of that criterion can be considered "comparable" to the evidence required to 
meet that criterion. 
Thus, the petitioner has also failed to establish that consideration of "comparable evidence" is 
warranted or to submit evidence that is comparable to the evidence required to meet 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 jield for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a general search of his name, without quotations, on Google scholar.) 
The search produced 275 results. As is clear from the first 30 results submitted by the petitioner, many 
of these results have no relation to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted Google Scholar results 
pertaining to specific papers authored by the petitioner. The results reflect the number of citations each 
article has garnered. A review of those articles authored by the petitioner reveals that no one article by 
the petitioner had been cited more than three times as of the date of filing. In response to the director's 
request for additional evidence, the petitioner submits a self-serving list of citations that counsel asserts 
was taken from an official source. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 
n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The list reflects that 
the petitioner's articles have been cited between two and eight times, all by the petitioner's coauthors. 
The director did not address this criterion. Counsel asserts on appeal that this evidence was ignored. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires published material "about" 
the petitioner related to his work. Articles which cite the petitioner's work are primarily about the 
author's own work, not the petitioner's, or a general review of the area of research. As such, they 
cannot be considered published material about the petitioner and cannot serve to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
We will consider the evidence below as it relates to the petitioner's claim to meet the contributions and 
scholarly articles criteria. As noted above, however, none of these cites are from independent research 
teams such that they reflect any recognition beyond the petitioner's immediate circle of colleagues. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientrJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijicance in the field. 
The petitioner submits several reference letters to meet this criterion. The director appears to have 
concluded that the letters did not confirm that the petitioner meets this particular criterion. On appeal, 
counsel asserts that the director did not give sufficient consideration to the letters and notes the 
3 
 Google Scholar, the advanced search page, allows users to conduct a search limited to the author's name 
and to put the entire name in quotes. 
favorable evaluation of reference letters in Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 955 (Assoc. Cornm'r. 
1994). 
We will consider the letters below as they relate to this criterion. At the outset, however, we note that 
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. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). USCIS, however, 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 even 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 SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
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. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from independent 
references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a 
solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely 
on this review. Ultimately, 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. 
Finally, as we consider the letters we must keep in mind that, according to the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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. 
Initially, the only letter submitted to even.discuss the specifics of the petitioner's work is the letter by 
. Dr. an assistant professor at the City University of New York (CUNY) where the 
petitioner is a part-time lecturer, asserts that the petitioner "has conducted important research. with 
impressive puMished results in 'several related fidld." 
 notes specif;cally the 
published work on Deterministic Boolean-Networks (DBN) and modeling and simulation of 
carbohydrate metabolism using Petri Net. concludes that the "fields [the petitioner] works in 
have important scientific implications." 
 does not provide any examples of how the 
petitioner's work has already impacted the field. We note that neither article singled out b- 
has been cited outside of the petitioner's immediate circle of colleagues. 
The remaining letters submitted initially merely reiterate the evidence already in the record, such as the 
petitioner's judging activities and the number of articles authored by the petitioner, or provide general 
praise of his work ethic. We do not contest that the petitioner meets the judging criterion set forth at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Meeting that criterion does not create a presumption that the petitioner also 
meets the contributions criterion. The publication of scholarly articles is also a separate criterion, 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and, thus, articles will not be presumed to meet this criterion. To hold 
otherwise would negate the regulatory requirement that an alien meet at least three separate criteria. A 
good work ethic, while important to the petitioner's employer, is not a contribution of major 
significance in the field of mechanical engineering. Thus, these letters add nothing to the record that is 
not already apparent from a review of the objective evidence itself. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence provided a new letter with 
more detail about the specifics of the petitioner's research than his initial letter. explains 
that the focus of the petitioner's research is "learning and repetitive control," areas that are new and 
developing rapidly. In general, asserts that they have "the ability to very substantially 
im~rove the  recision of motion control svstems simply bv better algorithms for control." More 
A. . w 
sp;cifically, asserts that the petitioner investigated the use of repetitive controllers to 
cancel the influences of multiple unrelated vibration sources, relevant to spacecraft. According to Dr. 
the petitioner developed "a precise mathematical formulation of how to cancel the influence 
of such disturbance sources, and make use the best available repetitive control algorithms on this more 
general problem." In addition, asserts that the petitioner 'produced a publication" 
explaining how the two obiectives of eliminating the influence of periodic disturbances and producing 
- 
goLd feedback interact. 
 explains;hat this work de;eloped "an understandin; of where 
the controller should be placed around the control loop to optimize the performance for each objective." 
Finally, discusses research that was only "in press" at the time of his letter, which 
postdates the filing of the petition. We cannot gauge the significance of this as of yet published 
research as of the date of filing, the date as of which the petitioner must demonstrate his eligibility. See 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). 
- a research leader at Brookhaven National Laboratory, discusses his collaboration 
with the petitioner on fie1 cells. 
 praises the petitioner's skill with Repetitive Control 
research but provides no specific examples of contributions or explanation as to how the petitioner's 
work had already impacted the field as of the date of filing. 
the petitioner's collaborator at the Institute for Research and Technology Transfer 
(IRTT), asserts that the petitioner is a key member of a research team developing fuel cells and has 
"provided solutions to a number of critical questions." does not identifi these "critical 
questions," explain when the petitioner provided these solutions (before or after the date of filing), or 
explain how this work has already impacted fuel cell research at the national level. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from New York State Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, asserting 
that the ~etitioner's work on satellite engineering "is contributing to our national securitv" and is 
U " 
applicabfe to other fields. 
 asserts that the petitioner's strengths in this area have been 
recognized by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the IEEE. The record contains no evidence 
of recognition by either entity beyond the nomination for the best student paper award by IEEE which 
the petitioner ultimately did not win. Assuming NIH hnds the petitioner's work, all research is hded 
by some source. While funding attests to the promising nature of the research, not every hded 
research project is already a contribution of major significance. 
As is clear from the above review of the content of the letters submitted, none of the references provide 
specific examples of how the petitioner has influenced his field. Most of the letters are from the 
petitioner's immediate circle of colleagues and collaborators and the independent references do not 
appear to have known of the petitioner or his work prior to being contacted for a reference letter. 
Similarly, all of the citations documented in the record are by the petitioner's own coauthors. While 
self-citation is a normal and expected process, it cannot demonstrate the petitioner's influence beyond 
his collaborators. 
While the petitioner's area of 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 graduate 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 research student 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. 
In light of the above, the evidence falls far short of demonstrating that the petitioner 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. 
The petitioner submitted several published articles and conference presentations. The OOH (accessed 
at www.bls.gov/oco on July 2, 2009 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), provides 
information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See www.bls.~ov/oco/ocos066.htm. The handbook expressly states 
that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the professor's 
research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for 
faculty positions require a dissertation, or written report on original research. Id. This information 
reveals that original published research does not set the researcher apart from faculty in that 
researcher's field. 
As discussed above, the petitioner's articles have not been cited by independent research teams. Thus, 
we are not persuaded that the petitioner's publication record is indicative of or consistent with national 
or international acclaim, the statutory standard in this matter. Even if we accepted counsel's assertion 
that publication alone meets this criterion based on her narrow interpretation of the "plain language" of 
8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the petitioner would meet only two criteria. For the reasons discussed above 
and below, the petitioner falls far short of meeting the "plain language" of a third criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
We acknowledge the submission of letters from the petitioner's collaborators attesting to the critical 
nature of his participation on their projects. We have already considered the petitioner's purported 
contributions in research laboratories above. At issue for this criterion are the nature of the position the 
petitioner was hired to fill and the reputation of the entity that hired him. Specifically, the nature of the 
position should be such that his selection for the position, in and of itself, is indicative of and consistent 
with national or international acclaim. The petitioner was a Ph.D. student at the time the petition was 
filed. He also worked as a non-salaried visiting research engineer for IRTT, an adjunct professor at the 
New York City College of Technology and a tutor at Columbia University where he was pursuing his 
Ph.D. We are not persuaded that any of these positions are leading or critical for these institutions 
beyond the obvious need to employ competent individuals in these positions. 
In light of the above, the evidence falls far short of establishing that the petitioner, a Ph.D. student and 
adjunct faculty member at the time this petition was filed, meets this criterion. 
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 Ph.D. student at the time of filing, relies on academic and regional 
recognition, invitations to judge the work of others, his professional memberships requiring minimal 
education or experience in the field, evidence that he is a prolific author and the praise of his immediate 
circle of peers. While this may distinguish him from other Ph.D. students, we will not narrow his field 
to otherswith his level of training andexperience. is a fellow of the AIM and AAS, is a 
member of the Board of Directors for AAS and is an editor for the Journal of Astronautical Sciences. 
is the Director of IRTT. Thus, the top of the petitioner's field is significantly higher than 
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 
researcher 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 researcher, but is not persuasive that the 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.