dismissed EB-1A Case: Science And Engineering

DATE: NOV 2 3 2012 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
lkneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
u .~. lkparlm~~nt of Homeland SCI'urit) 
U.s. ('ilizcn~hip and Immigralion Scrvice~ 
.\d1llini~lrative Appeals Of rice (A;\O) 
'::0 Mas~;\chusell~ Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
\Va~hington. DC 2U:'I29-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Pctition for Alicn Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuant to Section 
2l13(b)(1 )(A) ()f the Immigrati()n and Nationality Act, H U.S.c. § 1153(11)( I)(A) 
ON llEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF· REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision ()r the Administrative Appeals Office in y()ur case. All of the dueuments 
related to this maller have heen relUfI1ed to the office that originally decided your Case. Plcase he advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the 1\;\0 inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that ~iOU \-vish In have cOllsidered, you may file a motion to reconsider or (I motion to rcopell in 
accordance with the instruuinns nn Form 1·2YOll, Notice of Appeal or Motilln, with a Ice of $630. The 
specific requirements li1f filing such a moti()n can he found at 8 C.F.R. § 1m.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO, Plcase be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to he filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~+ 
ROil Rosenherg 
Acting Chief. Administr;llive Appeals Office 
WW\\'.usds.~ov 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on January 11,2012. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to 
the Administrative Appeals Ofl"ice (AAO) on February 8, 2012. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to part 5 of the petition, 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. ~ 1153(b)(I)(A). Thc petitioner lists his occupation as "Scientist and Engineering" 
and the proposed job title as "College/University Teacher." The director determined that the 
petitioner has not established tbe sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "cxtensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section § 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) states that an 
alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 eF.R. ~ 204.S(h)(3)(i)-(x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
cvidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner files a supporting letter and a number of supporting documents: 
(I) documents relating to the petitioner's membership in the American Society of Civil Engineers 
brua 16,2012 invitation from Aalto University in Finland, (3) online printouts 
online ntouts from Google 
as a rev 
copy of the petitioner's employment authorization card. The petitioner asserts that he meets the 
membership in associations criterion under the regulation at 8 c:.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the 
participation as a judge criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the original 
contributions of major significance criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and 
the authorship of scholarly articks criterion under the regulation at is C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is onc of the small percentage who are at the 
very top of the field anel he has not sustained national or international acclaim. See I> CF.R. 
~~ 204.5(h) (2). (3). In addition, the petitioner has not shown his intent to continue working as a 
"Scientist and Engineerlr in the United States. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
Accordingly. the A;\O mllst dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
l. LAW 
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): 
(;\)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 secks 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. 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) anel 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 H.R. 723 
lOist Cong .. 2d Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60S97, 60S91>-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term 
"extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. R CF.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement, that is a major, internationally 
recognized award. or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed under the regulations at I> CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 20[(), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarial1 v. USClS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cif. 2(10). Although the court upheld 
the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of the 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.
l 
With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate 
concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns 
should have been raised in a subsequent '·tinal merits determination"· Kazarian, 59h F.3d at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAO· s eval uation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry. the court stated that ·'the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence. ··the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this case. the AAO affirms the 
director"s finding that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting three types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and has not 
demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor 
or has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Translations of Foreign Language Documents 
The record contains a number of foreign language documents, including online printouts from 
_purportedly relating to the petitioner·s scholarly articles and citations of these articks. The 
foreign language documents have not been translated pursuant to the requirements under the 
regulation at 8 (,.f.R. I03.2(b)(3). which provides: ··[aJny 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 [rom the foreign language into English"· Specifically. the ··Translator·s 
Declaration[s]"" tail to certify that the translator is ··competent'· to translate from the foreign language 
into English, or that the English language translations are ··complete and accurate .. · Accordingly. the 
AAO will not consider the foreign language documents in the record, as they have not been shown to 
be properly translated. See S C.F.R. 103.2(h)(3). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the 1\;\0 had unilaterally imposed nove! substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond [hOSt: set i'nrlh in the regulations at S c.r:.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
Pagl.: 5 
B. Evidentiary Criteria' 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor by 
presenting evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In 
this case, the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his evidence that he is the recipient of a 
major, internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, the 
petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation oflhe alien"s mClIlhaship ill associatiolls in the field jiJr wizich classificatio/l is 
sOIlRht, which reqllire olllstalldillR achievemellts of their m!!mhers, liS judged hv recoRllizcd 
Ilatiollal or il1tcmatiollal experts ill tiz!'ir disciplilles or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based on his membership in the ASCE. 
As supporting evidence, he has provided: . certificate dated December 
20 11, (2) a December 20. 20 II letter from ASCE, (3) an 
October 17, 2011 invoice, showing that the petllIoner me dues, (4) email 
correspondence between the petitioner and ASCE relating to the petitioner'S membership, (5) the 
petitioner's ASCE Member Advancement Reference Sheet. and (6) an online printout I,'om ASCE's 
website, entitled "Ad'anee Membership Guidelines." 
The petitioner has not shown that he meets this criterion. The evidence shows that the petitioner's 
involvement with the ASCE occurred after he filed the petition on March \,2011. Specifically, the 
petitioner became an ASCE affiliate member in October 20 II and an ASCE full member on 
December 6, 2011. It is well established that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibili.ty for the visa 
petition at the time of filing. See t-: C.F.R. ~§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter of Katighak, 141&N Dec. 45, 
4tJ (Reg'] Comm'r 1971). As such, the petitioner may not show that he meets this criterion based on 
his involvement with the ASCE. As the petitioner has not challenged the director's finding as to the 
date of membership on appeal, the petitioner has abandoned this issue for failing to timely raise it on 
appeal. :',cpu/veda v United States AII:v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 20(5); lIristuv v. 
Roark, No. OtJ-CY-273 1201 I, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, <) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2(11) (the United 
States District Court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal 
to the AAO). 
Alternatively, the petitioner has not provided sufficient supporting evidence to show that the ASCE 
either requires "outstanding achievements of [its) members" or that the "outstanding achievements 
[are) judged by recognizcd national or international experts in their disciplines or fields," as required 
under the plain language of the criterion. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that hc advanced to full 
membcrship in two months based on strong letters from his references affirming his outstanding 
:: Thl.: petitioner docs not claim that hI.: meets thl.: regulatory categories of evidence nOl di.;,;cusscd in this decision. 
achievements. At issue under the plain language requirements of this criterion, however, are the 
association's requirements for membership. 
According to a November I. 20 II email 
"l i]n most cases. an applicant j()f admission or advancement to the full Membership grade must 
supply the names and address of three (3) ASCE Members who have personal knowledge of the 
applicant's work." Tile ASCF's Advance Membership Guidelines require a tull memhership 
applicant to document a degree and license or five years of qualifying experience and provide "a 
copy of a detailed resume and three references." The petitioner's ASCE Member Advancement 
Reference Sheet indicates that the petitioner's three references were three university prot<.:ssors who 
were also ASCE members. Neither the Member Advancement Reference Sheet nor any other 
evidence in the record indicates that the ASCE requires the petitioner to demonstrate "outstanding 
achievements" to become a member of ASCE. Education, licensure, experience and securing 
references are not outstanding achievements in the petitioner's profession. 
The evidence also fails to sllow that the petitioner's three references were or had to be "recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." The evidence similarly fails to show 
the members of the Membership Application Review Committee (MARC) that approved the 
petitioner's request to become a full member were "recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines or tields." 
Moreover, the plain language or the criterion requires the petitioner to present evidence of 
membership in qualifying associations, in the plural. This is consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive documentation. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. As !iuch, even if 
the AAO were to conclude that the petitioner's membership in the ASCE constitutes membership in 
one qualifying association, the AAO would nonetheless conclude that the petitioner has not met this 
criterion. because the record lacks evidence of the petitioner's membership in a second qualifying 
association. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of his 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 petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 1) C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
E"idence of the alien's l'arlieil'llli(lll, either illdividua/lv or ()II {1 panel, as (1 judge of the 11'ork of 
otirers ill Ihe same or WI a/lied fieLd of specijicatioll fiJr which classlfica/ioll is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In his January II, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner has met this criterion. 
contains evidence that the petitioner has served as a reviewer for 
Accordingly, the petitioner has presented evidence of his 
or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of 
specification for which classification is sought. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 1> C.F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
E"idenCf or Ihe "lien's original scientific, scholarlv, artislic, ([lil/etic, or hllsine.ls-relllted 
conlrihutions o/m([jor significance in the field. 1> C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
a document ent 
ish and Chinese scholarly articles, (7) a document enll 
listing the petitioner's English scholarly articles, (1)) online printouts about European JOllma 
Mechanics A/Solids, Fillile Elements ill Analysis and Design, Archive of'Al'plied Mechanics, Journal 
of Mechanics, .Journal Mechanics, and Engineering Optimizatiol1, (9) a November 
15.2011 letter rrom exico Institute of Mining and 
Technology, (10) an at the of Civil and 
Architectural Engineering in Guangxi University, 
professor at an unspecified school, (12) an October 
Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Indiana University-Purdue UniverSilY Ian' (13) a 
December 20 II .email reminder relating to a Novcn~vitation to contribute to a 
forthcoming book. (14) a December 1>,2011 email from _ an emeritus profess0r of an 
unspecified school, encouraging the petitioner to download the FEA code Strand7, and (15) a 
February 16, 2012 invitation from Aalto University. 
First, the AAO will not consider any evidence relating to the petitioner's scholarly articles, work or 
achievements that occurred after he filed the petition on March I, 2011. As discussed, it is well 
established that the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. 
See H C.F.R. *§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Maller of Katighak, 14 I&N Dec. at 4'1. As such, the petitioner 
may not show that he meets this criterion based on activities that postdate the filing of the petition. 
Second, the petitioner has shown evidence of original contributions as a scientist and engineer 
insolitr as his work docs not simply duplicate the work of other engineers. Specifically, according to 
[The petitioner] has developed several novel structural design methods 
which can improve the performance of building structures and 
automotive structures in vibration environment. He has developed 
advanced sensitivity analysis methods for structures under the 
dynamics loading of earthquake, wind (hurricane and tornado) and 
wave. These advanced sensitivity analysis methods remarkably 
enhance the efficiency of optimization algorithm of structures in 
vibration He developed a second order 
method Method for optimization 
design structures su His method and 
computer program arc proved to be more efficient than the zero and 
first order methods. He also developed a novel second-order 
optimization method to decrease the design cost, at the same time to 
increase the safety of structures in earthquake, wind (hurricane and 
tornado) and vibration environment. 
According to Professor _the petitioner "is the first scientist to develop two highly eilicient 
methods to calculate the first ~;(lllill of structural dynamic response. He is the 
first scientist to propose a 
optimization problem of structures 
stated that the petitioner "has developed many structural opl1mlzation 
solve , the 
structures. His famous contributions in [the) international community are the second order 
optimization method for the engineering structures subjected to dynamic loads and several 
sensitivity analysis methods." As slIch, the petitioner's evidence, including his reference letters and 
the publication of his scholarly articles, establishes that he has mack original contributions in his 
field. 
Third, while the petitioner's research is novel, he has not shown 
of major significance in the field as a whole. As quoted above, 
petitioner's "analysis methods remarkably enhanced the ct1ieiency 
structures in vibration environment" and his "method and nrnOT. 
efficient than the zero and first order methods." A 
contrihutions 
tated that the 
algorithm of 
are prover n) to be more 
rted in his letter that 
the petitioner's work has had sOllle impact in the ficld, neither his letter nor any other evidence in the 
record shows that the illl ificant that it constitutes contributions of major significance 
in the field. Notably. not identify independent researchers relying on the 
petitioner's work. 
Similarly, although states that "ldlue to lthe petitioner'S) expertise in 
computational skills, had] invited [the petitioner] to serve as a consultant in 
lhis] research project s to demonstrate that the petitioner's work constitutes 
contributions of major significance in the field, such that it has already significantly impacted or 
advanced the field. Notably,--'acknowledgcs that he has known the petitioner 
since they were undcrgraduate~ 
According to letter. "rthe petitioner's] outstanding contributions in structural 
optimization fie 'mprove structural design engineering structures safer, 
more reliable and economic." (Emphasis added,) r speculates as to the future 
impact and signilieance of the petitioner's work, but it is of the petitioner's work 
already constituting "contributions of major significance in the tield," as required under the plain 
language of the criterion. 
Moreover, the Board 01' Immigration Appeals (the Board) has hcld that testimony should not be 
disregarded simply because it is "sell~serving." See, e.g, Marler ofS-A-, 22 [&N Dec, 1328, 1332 
(BIA 2(00) (citing cases). The Board has also held, however, "[wle not only encourage, but require 
the introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available:' Id. If 
testimonial evidencc lacks specificity, detaiL or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner 
to submit corroborative evidence. Maller ofT-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1'i'i8), Vague, solicited 
letters from local collcagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v, USCIS, 580 
F.3d 1030, 1036 ('ith Cir. 200'i), a/I'd in parI, 596 F.3d 1115 ('.lth Cir. 2(10)-' The opinions of 
experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. Sec Matter o{CarolJ 
1111 'j, 19 I&N Dec. 7CJI, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the bene lit sought. Iri. The submission of 
Iellers from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility: USCIS may, as 
this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 7'15; sec also Malter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. son, n.2 (BIA 20(8) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 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 7'iS; see also Maller oj'Sojfici, 22 I&N Dec, at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craji o/,Calijimlia, 14 [&N Dec. at j'.lO). 
The reference letters in the record primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of 
contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how 
those contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin 
Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E,D.N.Y, 1'i89), a/I'd, 'i05 F. 2e1 41 (2d Cif. 1'i90); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. 1'. Meissner, No, '.l5 Civ. 10729, 19lJ7 WL 188942 at *5 (S,D,N.Y. Apr. 18, 
1'.l97). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily concIusory assertions, See 1756, Illc. v. United 
Sta/es All)' Cw, 745 F. Supp, 'i (D.C. Dis!. 19'i0), The petitioner has also failed to submit 
\ III 2010, tht.: Ka::urian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from ph)/sics professors attesting to [the 
alien"sJ cllntriblltinn~ ill the field" were in:-;uftlcicnt \\'as "consistent \\'ith t11l.: relevant regulator: .. i'lI)guagc·" .'96 f.Jd at 
1122. 
sufficient corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could 
have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
Fourth, the petitioner's publication record is not indicative of contributions of major significance in 
the ficld. The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 
H C.F.R. ~ 204.S(h)(3)(vi). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed 
that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles." 
Although the petitioner has provided documents purportedly showing that his scholarly articles have 
been cited by other scientists, as discussed, the AAO will not consider these documents, as they have 
not been properly translated pursuant to the regulation at H C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3). Similarly, the impact 
factor (IF) or information relating to the publications that published the petitioner's scholarly 
articles, as noted in the petitioner'S response to the director's Request for Evidence (RFE), is 
insuflicicnt to show that the petitioner's work constitutes contributions or major signilicance in the 
field. Specifically, the IF and information relates to the publications, not the petitioner's individual 
articles. The petitioner has not shown that the impact and significance of a publication is the same 
as the impact and significance of each and every article published in the publication. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field of endeavor. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See H C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
El'idence of the alien's authorsizip of scholarly articles in the field, ill proji'ssiollal or major 
trade puh/ications or other /Ilajor media. ~ C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
In his January II, 20 II decision, the director concluded that the petitioner has met this criterion 
based on the petitioner" s scholarly articles published before his filing of the petition on March I, 
ree-mel contains evidence that . articles in the 
prese 
scholarly articks field, in professional or major trade publications or other Illajor media. 
petitioner has met this criterion. See t\ C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
C. Intent to Continue Work in the Area of Expertise 
While the exclusive classification the petitioner seeks does not require a job ofFer, it is an 
employment-based classification that requires that the alien seek to enter the United States to 
continue working in his area of expertise. See Section 203(b)(1 )(A)(ii) orthe Act. It is "by virtue of 
, Publication and presentations arc not sufficient evidence under R C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence 
that they were of "lIlajor significance:' Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d H)]O, 1036 (9
th 
Cir. 20(9) a/td in part 
596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2(10). In 2010, the Kazariall court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not ahuse its 
discretion in ilJlliing that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
such work" that aliens under this classification will suhstantially benefit prospectively the United 
States as envisioned under section 203(b)(I)(A)(iii) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 101-723.59 (Sept, 
19, 1990). Congress did not intend for aliens of extraordinary ability to immigrate to the United 
States and remain idle. SA Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5,1991). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer or cmpLO\"llW1l1 required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States 
nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be 
accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue 
work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statemcnt 
from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work 
in the United States. 
In support of his petition. the petitioner has provided a September 22, 20W letter from the University 
n, indicati that the petitioner was a Postdoctoral Research Associate from 
In his letter tiled in response to the director's RFE, the 
petitioner oyment with the University or Nebraska Lincoln had ended in 
August 2011, and that as or December 2011. he was "'searching I for] more suitable positions that 
require [his] extraordinary ability in the United States." On appeal. the petitioner states that he 
"missed the opportunity to work in I u Jniversities in August and September 20 II:' because he did not 
have an employment authorization card. He further asserts that "'this petition lJ is not based on 
employment. ., 
Based on the evidence in the record, the petitioner has not shown his intent to continue working as a 
"'College/University Teacher" in the United States. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(ii) of the Act. As 
noted, while thc petitioner need not present a job offer, the exclusive classification he seeks is an 
employment-based classification that requires the petitioner to seek to enter the United States to 
continue working in his field. Sce Section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. The record lacks any 
evidence showing that the pctitioner has worked in his ficld after August 20 II. The record also 
lacks sufficient evidence showing that the petitioner has been seeking employment in his field or has 
any potential employment prospects in his field after August 20 II. His statements do not 
sufficiently detail plans on how he intends to work in the United States as required under 8 c'F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(5). On appeal, the petitioner has provided a document frum Aalto University, inviting 
him to becollle a Postdoctoral Research Associate. This position, however, is in Finland, not the 
United States. 
Accordingly. the AAO artirl11s the director's finding that the petitioner has not shown his intent to 
continue working as a "'College/University Teacher" in the United States. See subsections (ii) and 
(iii) of section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. 
Page 12 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner suhmittcd the requisite evidence under at least three evidcnti:lry categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one or that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the lield of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204,5(h)(2) and (3); see a/so Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20, While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top 
of the field or ,ustainecl national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion 
in a final merits determination.' Rather. the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 
5% F,3d at 1122. 
In addition, the petitioner has not shown his intent to continue working as a "College/University 
Teacher" in the United States, as required under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the 
pelition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa pelition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
Ihe Act, 8 U,S,C ~ 13(>1. lIere, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, Ihe 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
The AAO maintains de II()I'O rcvinv ur all questions of fact and law. See SolI am: v. United States DI!(J 'f of,JlIslice, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2(04). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
ddcrminalion as the ofTicc lhal made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § J03.S(a)(1)(ii); _';C(' (/ls() INA 
~* 103(a)(I), 204(h): DHS Delegation Numher 0150.1 (effective March I, 20m): H C.F.R. ~ 2.1 (200:;): H CF.R. 
* Im.I(l)(3)(iii) (20m); Matler ojAllrelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (I3IA (987) (holding thai legacy INS, now LJSCIS, is 
the sole authority with the jurisdiction 10 decide visa petitions).