dismissed EB-1A Case: Rheology / Civil Engineering

h@hg data deleted to 
went clearly un wmanted 
invaSi~ Qh?~~s~nel pdv@gt 
mitc COW 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
I sRc 09 02 1 5 1328 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: ~CT 0 8 200% 
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. 9 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). 
fkL%:LL 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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. 8 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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we 
uphold the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the 
exclusive classification sought. Moreover, for the reasons explained in the body of this decision, we 
further find that the petitioner has not demonstrated that she intends to continue working in her area of 
expertise, rheologyl and civil engineering. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. $ 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority 
has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d 
Cir. 1989). 
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 
I 
 Rheology is the study of the deformation and flow of matter. See http://www.merriam- 
webster.com/dictionan//rheology (access September 10, 2009 and incorporated into the record of 
proceedings). The petitioner has an extensive career of research involving dynamic soil and piles. In 2005, 
she began working for a film restoration company where she claims to have applied her rheological 
algorithms to permit the automated restoration of films. 
(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. 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 she has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
According to Parts 5 and 6, this petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a "Quality Assurance Manager" for a video and film restoration software firm. According to 
her Curriculum Vitae, the petitioner has been working as a Chief Research Engineer for AlgoSofi Tech 
in Israel and the United States since 2005 developing an automated system for the removal of 
imperfections in digital images and films and semi-automated system for colorization. Section 
203(b)(l)(A)(ii), quoted above, requires evidence that the petitioner seeks to enter the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability. 
As evidence to satisfl the regulatory requirements, the petitioner relies on government recognition, 
memberships, patents, articles resulting from her work investigating reinforced structures and 
foundations and her analyses of soil dynamics and piles. In her personal statement, the petitioner states 
that at AlgoSoft, she "looked into" using her rheological model for film restoration. Specifically, she 
states that "if one were to formalize the link between the intensity variations and motion, it would be 
drawn on to predict the behavior of objects in video sequence, detecting flow discontinuities and 
extracting self-consistent motion." Subsequently, the petitioner states: 
As it has been describe[d] above, my Rheological model gives a possibility to study 
common properties of elasto-visco-plastic materials, and it may be used for the different 
processes with the same properties. As such, I now apply my Rheological model in 
Digital Film Restoration at AlgoSoft Technology, the company that specializes in high- 
end restoration of old archives and damaged films. 
Considering that subject and a scene in films are connected by elasto-visco-plastic ties, 
my modified Rheological model was successfully used to formalize the link between the 
intensity variations and motion, which is one of the most important element in Optical 
Flow estimation. The accurate motion estimation is a key point in automatic 
elimination of different image defects and automatic colorization of black-white 
Page 4 
movies. The results of our work were presented on numerous international conferences 
and have been met with excitement from film-related industries. 
It is not self-evident that the petitioner continues to work in her initial area of expertise. While we have 
considered the petitioner's explanation for why film restoration software is within her area of expertise, 
we are not persuaded that her use of her rheological model establishes that the development of film 
restoration software is the same area of expertise as civil engineering or soil and pile dynamics 
research. The record contains no evidence to support the petitioner's assertions regarding the 
relationship between the two seemingly very different fields, such as evidence that journals in rheology 
contain articles addressing film restoration or evidence of academic programs covering both specialties. 
In light of the above, the petitioner must demonstrate that she enjoys national or international acclaim 
as a film restoration expert, the occupation in which she seeks to continue in the United States. Even if 
we accepted that the petitioner's current occupation is within her area of expertise in rheology, and we 
do not, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not demonstrated sustained national or 
international acclaim in rheology. 
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, 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 qualifj 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the 
following criteria under 8 C.F.R. 5 204. 5(h)(3).2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The record contains no awards or prizes in film restoration. We will also, however, consider whether 
the petitioner meets this criterion in rheology. Initially, the petitioner submitted a 1986 certificate 
affirming that the Presidium of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) awarded the petitioner 
the "Veteran of Job" medal in recognition of "a long honest work." In addition, the petitioner 
submitted a 1980 Certificate from the Main Committee of the Exhibition Achievements of the National 
Economy of the USSR approving the petitioner as a participant in an exhibition. Counsel asserted that 
the Veteran of Labor medal "was the highest national award for professional achievements that was 
issued by the USSR Executive branch" and that the "National Economy Achievement" award is "one 
of the rare and most significant national achievement award[s] in the form USSR." The unsupported 
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obuigbenu, 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 petitioner did not submit any evidence regarding the significance of 
2 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
this award, such as the official rules for issuing this award or media coverage of the selection of 
awardees. Even the petitioner's initial references fail to address this award. 
The director concluded that the certificates could not serve to meet this criterion. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits letters that address the exhibition certificate. We concur with the director that the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that the certificate recognizing length of service constitutes a nationally 
or internationally recognized award or prize for excellence. We will now consider the letters submitted 
on appeal addressing the exhibition certificate. 
Investment Professionals in Russia, asserts that "only the most outstanding researchers, who rendered 
the greatest influence on development of the basic branches of national economy of the USSR fiom 
Civil Engineering up to atomic engineering, were presented" at the Exhibition of Achievements of the 
asserts that the petitioner won a national competition to attend 
this exhibition. 
 who lists a "Golden Medal of the Exhibition of Economic 
Achievements of USSR" as one of his own ~ersonal achievements. ~rovides similar information to that 
The record still contains insufficient information about the 1980 exhibition, such as its format, the 
number of participants, the selection process for participants, whether it was covered in the media and 
how many participants received actual awards, such as the mentions so 
as to establish the national or international recognition of an award presented at the exhibition. The 
petitioner's certificate only references her participation and does not suggest she won a medal. Thus, 
we are not satisfied that simply participating in this exhibition constitutes a nationally or internationally 
recognized award or prize for excellence. 
Moreover, both certificates predate the petition by well over 20 years and, as such, cannot demonstrate 
sustained acclaim in 2008 when the petition was filed. Thus, the petitioner has not demonstrated that 
she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The record contains no evidence of the petitioner's membership in any film restoration associations. 
Nevertheless, we will consider the petitioner's memberships in the area of soil mechanics. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in the Union of Engineers of Israel and a 
1989 directory of members of the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 
(ISSMFE) that includes the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted a letter from-:, 
Chair of the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering's Technical 
Committee (TC) 38 asserting that the petitioner was active in the Russian Branch of ISSMGE's TC-19 
in the capacity of Research Secretary. Counsel explains that ISSMFE changed its name to ISSMGE in 
1997. 
 Counsel further asserts that membership had grown to 16,500 in 1998. Counsel lists the 
presidents of the society over the years and their countries of origin. As stated above, 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). We will not presume that every society that engages in prestigious events 
and boasts past presidents from around the world necessarily also has exclusive membership criteria. 
At issue for the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii) are the requirements for membership. 
The director concluded that the record lacked evidence of the membership criteria for ISSMGE. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that ISSMGE "is a known public organization which can be easily found online 
should any question regarding it arrive beyond the submitted 
 petitioner submits 
materials from ISSMGE's website and the aforementioned letters from 
 also a member of 
the board of director's for Russia's branch of ISSMGE (RSSMGFE), and 
It is the petitioner's burden to submit any evidence that would establish her eligibility. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The director was not obligated to research the petitioner's memberships on 
the Internet. As the petitioner has now submitted additional materials about ISSMGE, we will consider 
those materials below. 
ISSMGE touts itself as "the pre-eminent professional body representing the interests and activities of 
Engineers, Academics and Contractors all over the world that actively participate in geotechnical 
engineering." It has 80 member societies and 18,000 individual members. These generalizations about 
the society do not address the society's membership criteria. The petitioner also submitted policy 
documents recommending a procedure for geotechnical ground investigations and professional ethics. 
These documents also do not address the society's membership criteria. The petitioner also submitted 
guidelines for technical committees. Committee members must be members of ISSMGE and 
nominated by the member society to serve on a TC, but that does not answer the question of what is 
required for ISSMGE members. 
The petitioner also submitted information about RSSMGFE from ISSMGE's website. These materials 
state: 
The most prominent soviet (Russian) scientists and geotechnical specialists were the 
members of ISSMGE (ISSMFE). These scientists and specialists were known by their 
works and valuable contributions to science of soil mechanics and foundation 
engineering: [List of nine names omitted.] 
As this paragraph is followed by only nine names, none of whom are the petitioner, it appears that the 
paragraph refers to a subset of ISSMGE members who were the most prominent Soviet or Russian 
scientists. The fact that the membership includes prominent members does not suggest that such 
prominence is required for membership. significantly, asserts that there are 320 members 
ISSMGE from Russia, far more than the nine singled out as prominent on ISSMGE's website. 
More specific to the question of membership requirements, the petitioner submitted certified 
translations of what purports to be information downloaded from RSSMGFE's website. The first page 
indicates that the society provides two types of membership, full members and members of regional 
branches. A full member "must be an expert known for the scientific or industrial achievements." The 
"registration" of full members is "carried out by the Presidium and is affirmed by the National Russian 
Congress." Full members automatically receive membership in ISSMGE. This first page concludes: 
"The Membership in the Society is recognition among experts and the certificate of a top professional 
level." The second page indicates that prospective members must submit an application, two letters of 
recommendation, a brief creative biography and a certified list of publications to the president of 
RSSMGFE. 
As stated above, asserts that there are 320 members of RSSMGFE, which he asserts is "a 
small percentage" of the hundreds of thousands of scientists working in the country in the area of soil 
mechanics. While a large membership may be considered inconsistent with a claim that the 
membership is exclusive, it does not necessarily follow that a small membership is presumptive 
evidence that the membership is exclusive. 
 does not provide the actual criteria for 
membership. 
The petitioner has still not demonstrated that RSSMGFE requires outstanding achievements. Whlle a 
full member is broadly characterized as an "expert known for the scientific or industrial achievements," 
it is not clear how the society evaluates this expertise and recognition. For example, if the society 
merely requires two nominators and a publication record as suggested by page two of the materials 
submitted, we are not persuaded that such requirements are outstanding achievements. Regardless, the 
directory evidencing the petitioner's membership is from 1989, 19 years before the petition was filed. 
The record contains no evidence that the petitioner maintained this membership through the recent past 
and was even a member at the time of filing. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45'49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Evidence of 
his past membership does not establish eligibility at time of filing. Thus, this membership is not 
evidence of sustained national or international acclaim in 2008 when the petition was filed. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she 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 classfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner initially submitted her self-sewing curriculum vitae with a list of citations for seven of 
her articles. The director concluded that the record lacked evidence of published material primarily 
about the petitioner. On appeal, the petitioner submits copies of several articles citing her work and the 
results of an Internet search reflecting additional citations of her work. 
We do not contest that citations are useful evidence. 
 For example, citations can suggest the 
significance of an author's published articles pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The director found 
that the petitioner meets that criterion and, for the reasons discussed below, we affirm that finding in 
the area of soil and pile mechanics. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), however, requires evidence of published material "about" 
the petitioner relating to her work. We concur with the director that the record lacks such evidence. 
Articles that cite the petitioner are about the authors' own work or recent trends in the field (in the case 
of review articles). They are not primarily about the petitioner relating to her work and, thus, cannot 
serve to meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor signijicance in the$eld 
As stated by the director, 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. 3 204.5(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. 
The petitioner submitted ten patents and several articles, all relating to soil and pile mechanics. The 
regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly articles 
criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold otherwise would 
render meaningless the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that 
a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
Regarding the patents, as stated above, this office has previously stated that a patent is not necessarily 
evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence over the field as a whole. See 
Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 21 5,221 n. 7, (Cornrn'r. 1998). Rather, the 
significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. ld. 
The petitioner also submitted several letters, most of which provide only general praise of the 
petitioner. 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. USCTS 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). 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 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 Soffici, 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 &d 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 
her reputation and who have applied her work are the most persuasive. 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. 
According to her curriculum vitae, the petitioner received her Ph.D. from the Moscow Research 
Institute of Bases and Underground Structures in 1970. She then worked as a Chief Engineer and 
Chief Constructor of projects for the State Research and Design Institute of Soil and Foundation 
Engineering in ~ne~ri~etrovsk in the Ukraine. In 1991, the 
 took a position as a researcher 
with Technion, the Israel Institute of Technology. While working there, the petitioner began a 
collaboration with, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. 
In 2005, the petitioner switched from soil and pile dynamics to film restoration and began working 
for AlgoSofi Technology first in Israel and then in the United States. 
Foundation Engineering, asserts that he collaborated with the petitioner on many scientific problems. 
asserts tGt the petitioner was one of the first scientists involved in researchin open 
caissons sinking in thixotropic clay suspensions, the basis of her doctoral thesis. 
 does 
not, however, explain how this work has impacted the field. further asserts that the 
petitioner worked to improve the technology of pile tests by static loading, creating the first Soviet 
card index of bearing capacity piles of different construction tested in various kinds of soils. 
explains that this work "has provided a way to design the pile foundations in any condition 
with greatest accuracy, even before carrying out of test piles." additionally asserts that 
the petitioner developed a new pile test method used in a Russian State Standard and applied for test 
piles on many building sites of the Ukraine and Russia. Finally, - asserts that, while in 
Israel, the petitioner solved the problem of slope stability under seismic conditions. - 
asserts that he utilized the petitioner's results in his own work. Such reliance is not indicative of any 
recognition outside of the petitioner's own circle of collaborators. 
, in his initial letter, asserts: 
[The petitioner] elaborated a new method of accelerated cycle tests to determine the 
supporting power of piles. She has introduced a new technique for termination of 
underpile base deformation module. She is the author of a new construction method 
for filtration-proof curtains using the method "wall in ground." 
elaborates that the petitioner worked at this institute for 20 years during which time the 
institute realized projects under complex geological conditions as a great number of underground 
structures, filtration-proof curtains and foundations on natural basements, all constructed of piles of 
different structures. 
 another former empl-oyee of the State Research 
and Design Institute of Soil and Foundation Engineering, provides similar information, asserting that 
the institute conducted 700 tests of piles using the petitioner's technique and developed 100 projects 
per year, most of which "passed [the petitioner's] technical expert appraisal." 
of the Standardization and Quality Department of the Moscow State Design 
and Development Institute of Bases and Foundation Engineering, asserts that he collaborated with 
the petitioner on clearing of soils from harmful chemical drains and protecting underground 
constructions from floodkg usin flexible film curtains and fabric anchors used on the building of a 
major gas pipeline. While g further asserts that he has used the petitioner's work 
subsequently, such reliance does not demonstrate the influence of the petitioner beyond her 
collaborators. 
asserts that he was previously involved with building large mining and 
concentration combines (MCC), the most challenging aspect of which was building underground 
facilities using open caissons for crushing large pieces of ore and pumping stations. 
explains: - 
The research work, carried out by [the petitioner] allowed [engineers] to radically 
change [the] method of construction of such underground facilities, and to use open 
caissons from thin-walled modular elements, singing in thyrotrophic clay lining. The 
method developed by [the petitioner] allowed [engineers] to improve waterproofing 
of concrete walls of caissons in consequence of coagulation of clay suspension in 
concrete under the influence of the calcium ions and to avoid expensive steel 
waterproofing of the walls. This technology also drastically reduced the cost of 
building of the underground facilities. 
further asserts that the petitioner's research of dynamic loads for prefabricated 
foundations allowed the building of such foundations for the sevemyi MCC, the In uietskii MCC 
the Legedinskii MCC and other concentration combines in the Ukraine and Russia. - 
concludes that the petitioner's patented innovations "were used during the building of many mining 
and concentration combines." 
In his second letter, 
 states that the petitioner's new unique method of pile tests allowed 
engineers to reduce the duration of tests of piles over 100 times, but also allowed engineers in both 
the USSR and the United States to define the bearing capacity of a pile as "a load appropriating 
occurrence of plastic deformations in a soil." 
the petitioner's collaborator at Technion, praises the petitioner's abilities and 
a leading role on her projects there but does not explain how this work has 
impacted the field. Another collaborator, 
 provides similar information, asserting 
that the petitioner was "a valuable member of the team." - another 
collaborator at Technion, asserts that the petitioner's method of determining pile bearing capacity 
- - 
"served as a basis for Standard specifications for Highways and ~rid~is (Massachusetts)." 
, a former senior geophysicist at the Geophysical Institute of Israel, 
discusses the petitioner's investigation of the stability of slopes reinforced by roots of plants. The 
- 
petitioner demonstrated that it was possible to model, with reasonable accuracy, the stress- 
displacement behavior of root-reinforced soil in direct shear, using the FLAC computer code, which 
is useful for analyzing the stabilizing effect of roots and solving the influence of complex root-soil 
interaction problems. 
explains his collaboration with the petitioner. Specifically, the petitioner led the 
development of a new model for load testing "which has proved to be extremely promising." 
According to, this work led to new methods for loading large capacity piles, such as 
Statnamic, in which piles are tested through the detonation of an explosive against a reaction. 
explains that the Statnamic method provides limited accuracy, but that the petitioner's 
rheological approach "proved to perform extremely well and found adequate for various loading 
- - - 
rates (including fast d$amic loading)." 
 further asserts that the petitioner's mod; 
was enthusiastically received in Japan, where Statnamic technology is used. 
 notes 
that this work has led to reports, but asserts that the long term nature of the work has meant that 
publications of this work are only forthcoming. 
, an associate professor at the University of New Hampshire, asserts that he has 
"read and used in [his] research several of [the petitioner's] papers on determining the stress-strain 
- - 
state of soil around piles during their tests by quasi-statistically increasing loads." He further notes 
that he "discussed the petitioner's rheological model at a conference he attended at Technion. 
explains that, unlike regular rheological models, the petitioner's model "incorporates new 
one-av frictional slider elements which are active onlv for com~ressive loads and have zero 
resistance for tension forces. 
 concludes thatthis mode; "can be used in other areas of 
Mechanical alysis of time-dependent behavior of elastic-plastic 
materials." a former professor in both the Ukraine and Israel now 
living in Canada, provides a similar assessment. Finally, 
 asserts that the petitioner's 
work with the sinking behavior of caisson in thixotropic clay suspension "was used to design and 
construct unique underground buildings" of a specific size. 
Regarding the petitioner's work in film restoration, she provides a letter from - -1 of AlgoSoft Tech USA, LLC. explains that 
AlgoSoft is a "start-up company whose image and video processing algorithms deliver breakthrough 
Digital Film Restoration results." fwther asserts that the company uses the petitioner's 
ideas "to formalize one of the important points in Optical Flow, namely, the link between the 
intensity variations and the motion" and that her rheological models "turned out very important in 
- 
sequence analysis." concludes that the implementation of the petitioner's methods "in 
combination with image processing gave revolutionary advances in fully automatic elimination of 
artifacts and ima e im erfections in digital images, videos and films and semi-automatic 
colorization." g a consultant to AlgoSoft Tech, asserts that he believes that the 
petitioner's rheological models "can significantly improve motion compensation and can predict the 
behavior of objects in video sequence." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an unsigned letter purportedly from of 
DeMottiKreines Films addressing the usefulness of Restorelt, software invented b- 
and the petitioner. As this letter is unsigned, however, it has no evidentiary value. The 
material about the Kinetta Archival Scanner makes no mention of Restorelt, the petitioner or 
AlgoSoft Tech. 
According to the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, available on the Internet 
at http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#nature (accessed September 10, 2009 and incorporated into 
the record of proceeding), engineers in general develop economic solutions to technical problems. 
They use computers to simulate and test how structures operate. Civil engineers in particular design 
and supervise the construction of roads, buildings, airports, tunnels, dams, bridges, and water supply 
and sewage systems. They must consider many factors in the design process, from the construction 
costs and expected lifetime of a project to government regulations and potential environmental 
hazards such as earthquakes and hurricanes. Not every civil engineer who performs the normal job 
duties of a civil engineer can be said to have made a contribution of major significance if this 
criterion is to have any meaning. 
The above letters confirm that the petitioner had a lengthy career as an engineer in the former Soviet 
Union through which she was involved in multiple construction projects and engineering tests. She 
continued to produce useful results in soil dynamics in Israel, resulting in a collaboration with a 
Massachusetts researcher which produced reports apparently adopted by the Massachusetts 
Department of Highways. Experience alone, however, is not evidence of national or international 
acclaim. Significantly, 10 years of experience is only evidence relating to the lesser classification 
Aliens of Exceptional Ability pursuant to section 203(b)(2). 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
We do not contest that the petitioner has produced original models and reviewed original projects, 
earning the respect of her immediate circle of collaborators. The fact that her models have 
application in the field and have been used by her colleagues is not necessarily evidence that her 
original work is a contribution of major significance. The record lacks evidence that the petitioner's 
work is widely recognized as having impacted the field as a whole, such as media coverage of her 
models or projects or evidence of frequent and widespread citation of her articles. Rather, her work 
is only moderately cited, with only one article from 2000 having been cited more than nine times as 
of the date of the appeal. 
While the petitioner has a respectable record of productivity commensurate with her length of 
experience in the field, the record does not demonstrate that she has made contributions of major 
significance to the field of soil dynamics. Even if we were to conclude that the petitioner has made 
contributions of major significance in the field of soil and pile dynamics, which we do not, the record 
contains even less evidence that the petitioner has made a contribution of major significance to film 
restoration. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets this criterion. Regardless, a 
finding that the petitioner meets this criterion would not establish eligibility for the classification 
sought as the record falls far short of establishing that the petitioner meets a third criterion in either 
soil and pile dynamics or film restoration. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the $el4 in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has an extensive publication record in soil and pile mechanics and some of these articles 
have been moderately cited. Thus, we concur with the director that the petitioner meets this criterion in 
rheology. The petitioner has not authored any articles relating to film restoration. 
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 challenge the director's conclusion that the petitioner's job with a "start- 
up" company cannot serve to meet this criterion. We concur with the director that the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she has performed a leading or critical role for an establishment with a distinguished 
reputation in the film restoration industry. 
The record confirms that the petitioner served as a Chief Constructor for the State Research and Design 
Institute of Soil and Foundation Engineering. The record, however, does not provide an organizational 
chart or other information that would allow us to determine where this position fits within the hierarchy 
of the institute. Thus, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion in the field of 
Rheology. 
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 herself as a 
quality assurance manager in the film restoration industry to such an extent that she may be said to have 
achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top 
of her field. The evidence indicates that the petitioner shows talent in soil and pile dynamics and 
rheology, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all 
others in her field and that she seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to sections 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) 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. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.