dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Identi fling data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwmntea 
invasion of personal privacy 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Datqu6 0 4 2010 
LIN 08 164 51166 
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 1 1 53(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. 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. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 8 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
' Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Nebraska Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as 
an alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the beneficiary's requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
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 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, 
specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). 
The petitioner must submit qualifLing evidence for the alien under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the beneficiary meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), and thus qualifies for the classification sought. For the reasons 
discussed below, we uphold the director's decision. 
I. 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): 
(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. 
Page 3 
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 H.R. 723 10ISt Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (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. 
Id. and 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) 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; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which classification 
is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Page 4 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification, See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 11 15 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.' 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 "final merits determination." Id. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation 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)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to 
this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3). Only. aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. 1 153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 11 19-1 120. 
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 reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enter rises, Inc. v. United States, 229 R F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), afd, 345 F.3d 683 (9' Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo 
basis). 
11. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
This petition, filed on May 13, 2008, seeks to classify the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in the computer science field of web mining and link analysis. The petitioner has submitted 
evidence pertaining to the following categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).~ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner initially provided an email, dated January 28, 2005, indicating that the beneficiary's 
submission, "Incremental Page Rank Computation on Evolving Graphs," was "not accepted for 
presentation at the conference as a full paper. However, [his] paper has been accepted for poster 
presentation." The petitioner also submitted internet pages from www.2005.org indicating that 1 17 
submissions for the poster track were received and that 67 were accepted. This website also 
confirmed that the beneficiary was awarded the poster track for his submission, which was the joint 
effort of four computer scientists. Additionally, web pages regarding conferences in China and 
Japan were submitted, where the beneficiary's submission was allegedly presented. However, this 
evidence does not specifically reference the beneficiary's submission. Nonetheless, the petitioner 
also provided various reference letters that support the claim that the beneficiary presented his 
submission at these conferences. For example, Professor of Information 
indicated that the beneficiary had an "invitation(s) - - 
to present at two of the field's major conferences" including the World Wide Web Conference in 
2005. Another reference letter from Chair of Engineering at the University of 
Texas, indicated that the beneficiary's "Incremental Page Rank paper was "presented in the highly 
regarded World Wide Web Conference (2005)." Additionally, the petitioner submitted reference 
letters which referred to the beneficiary's involvement in presenting at the IEEEIACM Conference 
on Web Intelligence in 2005. 
The director's Request For Evidence ("RFE) requested additional evidence for this criterion. In 
response to the RFE, the petitioner provided additional information regarding its Department of 
Defense grant. The petitioner supplemented the record with a reference letter from from 
Infobionics, dated April 17,2009, who stated that the petitioner would not have "received this award 
without innovative and extraordinary scientific skills." The petitioner also provided 
the solicitation announcement from the Department of Defense for this "Small Business Innovation 
Research Program" grant, which includes instructions, background and evaluation information. The 
initial report (Part I), with name on it, that was provided to the Department of Defense 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this decision. 
5 The Association of American Universities' Committee on Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and 
Recommendations, March 3 1, 1998, set forth its recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. Among the 
factors included in this definition was the acknowledgement that "the appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to 
publish the results of his or her research or scholarship during the period of the appointment." Thus, this national 
organization considers publication of one's work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun "a 
full-time academic and/or research career." This report reinforces USCIS's conclusion that publication of scholarly 
articles is not presumptive evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Page 6 
was also submitted. The second report, Part 11, was also submitted and clearly named Carl Bonta as 
the "principal investigator." The actual grant contract was also provided. 
In his decision, the director found that the beneficiary's participation in presentations at conferences 
is "more applicable to the authorship criterion since it involves the dissemination of the petitioner's 
scholarly work." In addition, the director's decision indicates that the evidence provided regarding 
the petitioner's federal grant was not sufficient to support that it was a "lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized award" for excellence in the computer science field. Moreover, the 
director notes that the "award was not specifically given to the beneficiary, but instead it was given 
to the petitioner. 
On appeal, no additional evidence was provided. However, the petitioner argued that, 
"on account of research, Infobionics was selected as a semi-finalist out of 
nearly 900 entrants at the - competition and recognized by the 
Heartbeat of America for its defense related research and development." 
Additionally, the petitioner disagreed with the director that presentations should not be considered 
under this criterion. Further, the petitioner argued that it established the Department of Defense 
grant as an award for excellence, stating that only "one in three companies (were) awarded the Dod 
grant," referring to a letter from 
As it relates to the petitioner's claim that it was selected as a semi-finalist out of nearly 900 entrants 
at the competition and recognized by the Heartbeat of America, the only 
evidence submitted to support this claim included a letter from in response to the 
RFE, which was provided to show that the beneficiary had played a leading or critical role for an 
organization. ~eiardless, as the competition appears ti have been limited to that state of Minnesota, 
any prize awarded cannot be considered a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
The petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the presentations or the grant 
given to the petitioner constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Without 
other documentation about the awards such as evidence regarding their prestige, selection process or 
candidates that the petitioner was competing against, the petitioner failed to establish the national or 
international recognition of these awards. In addition, all the evidence provided regarding the 
federal grant indicates that was responsible for the proposals. The beneficiary's name is 
not written on either report made to the government. While credits the beneficiary for his 
work and the grant proposal may have been a collaborative effort, this criterion cannot be satisfied 
without providing evidence showing the exact role and involvement of the beneficiary and an 
explanation as to why his name was not even included in either of the two reports given that the 
plain language requires the alien's "receipt" of the prize or award. 
We agree with the director that presentation evidence is not the appropriate evidence for this 
criterion. Nonetheless, even if the beneficiary's presentations could be considered awards, which we 
do not, they cannot be considered nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
Page 7 
excellence. With regard to the beneficiary's submission of the "Incremental Page Rank 
Computation on Evolving Graphs," the beneficiary's paper was not accepted as a full paper for 
presentation, but rather as a poster presentation. Over half of the contestants who entered the poster 
presentation were accepted. As the beneficiary was one of 67 applicants out of 11 7 "awarded" with 
a poster presentation, it is not clear how such acceptance may be considered national or international 
recognition for such an award. With regard to the other presentations, no information was provided 
regarding the other computer scientists who submitted papers. Moreover, no independent evidence 
was submitted, aside from reference letters, to confirm the beneficiary's involvement in these 
presentations. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
beneficiary and, as stated in the regulation, be printed in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a particular 
locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local 
community papers. 
The petitioner initially provided internet pages from Google Scholar to indicate citations were made to 
the beneficiary's articles. In his RFE, the director requested evidence of articles that were written about 
the beneficiary's work. In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a letter from Professor 
from the University of Minnesota indicating that the citations to the beneficiary's work 
demonstrate his substantial contribution in his field. On appeal, no new evidence was submitted. The 
petitioner, in his appeal brief, argued that the evidence on the record was sufficient to meet this 
criterion. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires that the published material be "about the alien." 
This list of citations provided fails to support that published material exists "about the alien." Instead, 
the articles which the petitioner provided citing the beneficiary's work are about the authors' work, not 
the beneficiary's work. While citations are not irrelevant and will be discussed later in this decision, 
they cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an alliedJield of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
Page 8 
The petitioner submitted various emails to the beneficiary requesting his review of papers. 
 The 
petitioner did not submit any reviews conducted by the beneficiary in response to these emails. In fact, 
one of the emails provided is a forward of a past email requesting the beneficiary's review, which 
indicated that such a request was made two weeks ago without any reply. However, lists of '- 
2003 Reviewers" and "Non-Program Committee Reviewers" for 2003 and 2004 were provided, naming 
the beneficiary as a reviewer. Information regarding the 1" European Web Mining Forum in 2003, 
which listed the beneficiary as a secondary reviewer, was provided. The petitioner also provided a list 
from Google Scholar with citations to the beneficiary's articles. However, only one of the three 
citations mentioned the beneficiary, stating that he "help (helped) in preparing these slides." The 
petitioner additionally referenced a recommendation letter which he claims is evidence for this criterion. 
The director, in his WE, requested additional evidence, such as the criteria for selection as a panelist. 
In response to the WE, the petitioner provided the following as evidence: 
1. An acknowledgement letter from the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal on Artificial 
which confirms the beneficiary is a reviewer for the journal because 
- 
of "his expertise in the area of data mining, especially in web mining and knowledge 
extraction," 
2. Internet pages from - which indicate that '=publishes high-quality, original 
research papers as well as state-of-the-art surveys," 
3. A letter from 
 hich explains the criteria 
for selecting the beneficiary as a lecturer, 
4. A letter fromom the - which explains the criterion 
that the 
 used to select the beneficiary as a "peer 
reviewer," that included a demonstrated breadth of knowledge in the specialty area, a reputation 
for significant contributions to the science field, a number of relevant publications as well as 
years of recognized expertise, previous publications andlor presentations as well as years of 
recognized expertise and a general recognition of extraordinary ability within the specialty field 
of science, 
5. An internet Dane from Web Mining and Usane Analvsis indicating that the beneficiarv co- 
. - w u " 
authored a paper that was accepted for the -- 
6. A research profile indicating the beneficiary's thesis, articles, book chapters, reports, 
presentations and journals and conferences in which he acted as a reviewer, and 
7. A list, from an unknown source, of publications by the beneficiary. 
It is worth noting that much of the evidence provided in response to the WE failed to support this 
criterion and was clearly extraneous. For example, the letter from fi 
of item 3), explaining how the beneficiary was chosen as a lecturer, has nothing to do 
with being a judge. Additionally, the internet page from Web Mining and Usage Analysis indicating 
that the beneficiary co-authored a paper that was accepted (item 5) and the list of the beneficiary's 
publications (item 7) do not provide any insight into how the beneficiary may have acted as a judge of 
others. 
Page 9 
No new evidence was submitted on appeal. However, the petitioner argued that the beneficiary had 
fulfilled this criterion stating that outlines the criteria (item 4) necessary for a peer 
reviewer to satisfy before he or she can judge others written work. 
Although not all the evidence provided for this criterion is applicable, the petitioner has provided 
sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary meets the plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientwc, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signiJicance in the field. 
The petitioner provided various recommendation letters mainly from colleagues and other 
professors. No new evidence for this criterion was provided on appeal. However, the petitioner 
argued in its brief that "USCIS failed to consider other evidence in the record." We have considered 
all the evidence in the record, and agree with the director that the petitioner has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
The burden is on the petitioner to establish the significance of the beneficiary's work. To satisfy the 
criterion relating to original contributions of major significance, the petitioner must demonstrate not 
only that the beneficiary's work is novel and useful, but also that it had a demonstrable impact on his 
field. The petitioner has not shown, for instance, how the field has changed as a result of the 
beneficiary's work, beyond the incremental improvements in knowledge and understanding that are 
expected from valid original research. 
The reference letters provided by the petitioner are not a substitute for objective evidence of the alien's 
achievements and recognition as required by the statute and regulations. Primary evidence of 
achievements and recognition is of far greater probative value than the opinions of one's professional 
acquaintances. Further, the petitioner mainly cited to its own reference letter with respect to this 
criterion. However, the beneficiary's own employer and those with whom he has previously studied, 
with or worked for cannot objectively demonstrate that the field as a whole is aware of the petitioner or 
his work. 
As it relates to the remaining letters, while the writers attest to the beneficiary's publications and 
research and generally affirm the petitioner's outstanding contributions, none of the letters provides 
specific details to establish how the beneficiary's work has contributed significantly to his field. For 
instance, while Bing Liu asserts that the beneficiary "has continued to contribute novel and pivotal 
research work," he fails to explain how the beneficiary's work is currently being utilized and therefore 
how it can be considered a significant contribution. describes how the beneficiary 
provided a "novel approach" to a computational technique and "improved on the already effective 
pagerank algorithm," claiming these methodologies were "a pivotal contribution," but provided no 
examples of how they are currently being used in the field. Similarly, while 1- 
attests to the beneficiary's "seminal work on mining information from the evolving nature of the Web," 
- 
and his follow-up work with "breakthrough algorithms," does not describe how the 
algorithms are currently being used in the field. 
Page 10 
As discussed above, although the beneficiary is credited with "novel," "groundbreaking," and 
"pioneering" work, his references fail to establish how the beneficiary's work has influenced his 
field and how he is considered to have made a contribution of major significance to his field. 
With regard to the beneficiary's published and presented work, the regulations contain a separate 
criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly 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. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are 
separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly 
articles and original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as 
being interchangeable. 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. It 
is noted, however, that while the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner from Google Scholar 
demonstrates that the beneficiary's work has been moderately cited, this level of citation is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that his work equates to original contributions of major significance in the 
field. We will fully address the beneficiary's published and presented work under the next criterion. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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. While the evidence indicates that the beneficiary 
performed admirably on the projects to which he was assigned, the submitted documentation does 
not establish that he has made original scientific contributions of "major significance" in his field. 
For example, the record does not indicate the extent to which his work has impacted others in his 
field nor does it show that the field has significantly changed as a result of his work. 
In this case, the letters of recommendation submitted by the petitioner are not sufficient to meet this 
regulatory criterion. We note that the submitted letters are all from individuals with whom the 
beneficiary has interacted. While such letters are important in providing details about the 
beneficiary's role in various projects, they cannot by themselves establish his contribution beyond 
his immediate circle of professional contacts. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 
(Commr. 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 795-796. Thus, the content 
of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the beneficiary's reputation are important 
considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of 
an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would 
expect of a computer scientist who has made original contributions of major significance. Without 
supporting evidence showing that the beneficiary's work equates to original contributions of major 
significance in his field, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Page 11 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted the following evidence: 
1. A paper co-authored by the beneficiary entitled, on 
Evolving Graphs." without a date or publisher referenced. 
w 1 
2. A paper co-authored by the beneficiary entitled, 
-i without a date or publisher referenced, 
3. A paper co-authored by the beneficiary entitled, - 
- without a date or publisher referenced, 
4. A paper co-authored by the beneficiary entitled, fi 
" without a date or publisher 
referenced, 
5. A paper co-authored by the beneficiary entitled, fi 
fi without a date or publisher referenced, 
- 
6. A paper co-authored by thk beneficiary entitled, 
 -- 
without-a date or publisher referenced, 
7. A paper co-authored by the beneficiary entitled, fi 
1' without a date or publisher referenced, 
8. A paper co-authored by the beneficiary entitled, 
, without a date or publisher referenced, 
9. A paper co-authored by the beneficiary entitled, fi 
-without a date or publisher referenced, 
10. A . paper . co-authored - -. by - the beneficiary - entitled, '8 
without a date or ~ublisher referenced. 
...----- ~~ ..-- 
r ~ - ~--~ 
11. A paper co-authored by the beneficiary entitled, '8 
without a date or publisher referenced, and 
12. A chapter co-authored by the beneficiary, which appears to be the same paper from item 8, 
without a date or publisher referenced. 
The record also contained citations to some of the beneficiarv's articles. In resDonse to the RFE. the 
petitioner submitted a reference letter from - from the, a 
supervising professor of doctoral candidates, who stated that beneficiary has puMished more than 
most doctoral students and such prolific publishing demonstrates "a level of excellence and expertise 
unique in the field." The petitioner also submitted a paper that the beneficiary co-authored, entitled 
"Mining Temporally Evolving Graphs," as well as internet pages indicating that it was accepted and 
then incorporated into the final program for a conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 
in 2004. 
On appeal, no new evidence was submitted. However, the petitioner's brief reiterates the evidence 
already submitted and points to many of the reference letters provided to support its claim. For 
example, it cites to Professor Kumar's letter which stated that the beneficiary's publications 
"exceeded the average scientist." 
Page 12 
The petitioner failed to meet the plain language of the regulation and to sufficiently demonstrate that the 
beneficiary's articles were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
None of the articles provided indicate the publisher. The only reference made to publishing appeared to 
be found in the Google scholar citations provided in a printout and in the one article that was 
"published" at a conference. We note that the list provided from Google scholar does not correspond to 
the articles submitted. Without specific information regarding where the beneficiary's articles were 
published the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary has authored scholarly articles in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner, in its initial brief, claimed that the beneficiary performed a critical role at Infobionics. 
The petitioner cited to three reference letters. One letter was from an inventor at 
Infobionics, who discussed how the beneficiary's skills would be utilized by the company. - 
described the various ways that the beneficiary's skills "will" be very useful to the company. The other 
two letters were both written by the CEO. One of them was a reference letter and the 
other an offer letter which included the terms of the beneficiary's employment. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner provided a letter from explaining how the 
beneficiary's participation resulted in the Department of Defense grant to the petitioner. The petitioner 
additionally provided information regarding the grant that was previously submitted to establish that the 
beneficiary had received a lesser nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. This 
re-submitted evidence included the solicitation for the grant, grant information, two reports drafted 
by and the confirmation of the grant award from the government. In addition, the RFE 
pointed to the reference letter written by who credits the beneficiary for the 
petitioner's placement in the semi-finals of the in 2008 and the feature in Heartbeat 
of America. 
On appeal, no new evidence was provided. Nonetheless, the petitioner continued to argue that the 
beneficiary fulfilled this criterion pointing to the previously submitted evidence. In addition, the 
petitioner cited the reference letter from who stated that the beneficiary "plays a 
leading, critical and absolutely essential role for our company." 
The director found that the petitioner failed to satisfl this criterion, and we agree. In order to establish 
that the beneficiary performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of the beneficiary's role within the 
entire organization or establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. While 
the petitioner provided various reference letters and materials regarding the federal grant, the 
evidence was not sufficient to meet this criterion. It is unclear how the beneficiary played a leading 
role for the federal grant because his name was not even included in the proposals. We note that it is 
Page 13 
ho is the principal investigator and oversees the grant project. Without evidence which 
differentiates the beneficiary, from others within Infobionics, including executives and - 
who appears to be the beneficiary's supervisor, it is unclear how the beneficiary's role is leading or 
critical to the petitioner. In addition, as previously indicated, the evidence also fails to outline the 
beneficiary's actual role in any of the awards credited to the beneficiary. Moreover, the reference 
letter fromfailed to show how the beneficiary performed a leading or critical role. Rather, 
his letter discussed how the beneficiary's skills would be utilized. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted insufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has a distinguished 
reputation. Although Infobionics provided evidence of its patents, its relationship with other entities 
including its funders and some of its achievements, such evidence failed to prove that it enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. Such evidence merely demonstrates that the business has developed original 
ideas and has been successful. 
As such, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the$eld 
The petitioner submitted a letter from Chairman and CEO of Infobionics, dated April 25, 
2008, stating that the beneficiary's salary will continue to be "at or above $90,000." In response to the 
director's RFE, the petitioner provided a W-2 Wage and Tax Statement for 2008 indicating that his 
wages were approximately $75,000 per year. In addition, both a reference letter and the petitioner's 
brief, claims that the beneficiary earned a bonus of $30,000. However, the year this bonus was given is 
unclear, as such bonus in not reflected in the beneficiary's W-2. The petitioner also provided an 
internet printout from uww.flcdatc?ccnter.com, an Online Wage Library, which indicated that the wages 
for computer and information scientists range from $65,978 to $135,242 per year. More specifically, 
the Level 4 (fully competent) median wage for computer and information scientists was $135,242 per 
year. 
Even if we consider the bonus that was not documented by independent evidence, such as a W-2, the 
beneficiary's salary would still fall well below the median salary of $135,242 per year earned by fully 
competent computer and information scientists. Therefore, there is no indication that the beneficiary 
has commanded a high salary in relation to others in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petititioner has failed to 
demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum 
eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 
8 204.5(h)(3). 
Page 14 
B. Comparable Evidence 
Counsel argues that the beneficiary's participation andlor presentations at conferences are 
comparable evidence of the petitioner's extraordinary ability in computer science. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of "comparable evidence" only if the ten criteria 
"do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." The regulatory language precludes the 
consideration of comparable evidence in this case, as there is no evidence that eligibility for visa 
preference in the beneficiary's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). Where an alien is simply unable to meet three of the regulatory 
criteria, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the 
submission of comparable evidence. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct 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 of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
11 19-1 120. 
In this case, the specific deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already 
been addressed in our preceding discussion of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The 
petitioner submitted documentation relating to the petitioner's achievements in computer science. The 
submitted evidence, however, is not indicative of the petitioner's national or international acclaim and 
there is no indication that his individual achievements have been recognized in the field. 
Although we have found that the beneficiary satisfies the plain language of the criterion related to 
the beneficiary's participation as a judge of the work of others pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
we find that as peer review is routine in the field, evidence of the beneficiary's participation as a 
judge must be evaluated with regard to whether such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A 
lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary 
ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). For example, judging a 
national competition for top researchers and/or scientists is of far greater probative value than judging a 
local competition for youth or novices. In this instance, the petitioner has not shown that the 
beneficiary has reviewed an unusually large number of articles or has served in an editorial position 
for a distinguished journal in order to establish he is one at the very top of his field and has the 
requisite sustained national or international acclaim. 
Page 15 
The petitioner provided evidence regarding the beneficiary's review of various submissions for 
journals and conferences. However, the record lacks evidence establishing the level of prestige 
associated with reviewing these journal entries, the requirements necessary to become a reviewer for 
submissions, and the levels of expertise of the candidates who submitted manuscripts. In response to 
the RFE, the petitioner provided a letter from item 4 above), who listed several 
criteria required for being selected as a reviewer. However, such criteria were very broad and could 
relate to many scientists. Additionally, one of the criteria, a general recognition of extraordinary 
ability within the specialty field of science, appears to use the same language as the statute. 
Nonetheless, the evidence still fails to provide any specificity regarding the journals in which the 
petitioner judged, aside fiom item 2 (above) which is extremely broad and general as well. 
Moreover, the record lacks evidence showing, for example, that the beneficiary's activities involved 
judging top scientists at the national level or that his position as a reviewer was otherwise consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Further, as authoring scholarly articles is inherent to the research field,5 such as the instant case 
where the beneficiary was a doctoral candidate and now works in the research field, we evaluate a 
citation history or other evidence of the impact of the beneficiary's articles when determining their 
significance to the field and whether the beneficiary is one at the very top of his field and enjoys 
sustained national or international acclaim. The petitioner failed to provide any of the articles in 
which the beneficiary's articles were cited to, and instead provided a list from Google Scholar. This 
list from Google Scholar was considered, although the petitioner did not specifically provide it for 
this criterion. As the articles that cite to the beneficiary's work were not provided, the petitioner 
failed to demonstrate that that the beneficiary's articles were frequently cited in a manner consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim. The fact that the petitioner's publications allegedly 
exceed that of an "average scientist" is not enough to satisfy this criterion. Therefore, although the 
beneficiary has purportedly authored many articles, this is expected of anyone working in this field. 
There is also no evidence that his articles have resulted in sustained national or international acclaim 
in his field. Further, with regard to the evidence submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(vi), the petitioner 
has not established that that the beneficiary's authorship of scholarly articles demonstrates a level of 
expertise indicating that he is among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to science and 
engineering research, we will evaluate a citation history or other evidence of the impact of the 
beneficiary's articles to determine the impact and recognition the beneficiary's work has had on the 
field and whether such influence has been ~ustained.~ For example, numerous independent citations 
6 For instance, with regard to research in a university setting, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 
2010-1 1 Edition (accessed at l~ttp:ii~~~.bl~.go~i~~~i), provides information about the nature of employment as a 
postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See htt~:~/data.bls.nov/crzi- 
b~~l~rint.p1i~~~~~l~~&~~.~htn~, accessed on August 3, 2010, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 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 reinforces USCIS' position that 
publication of scholarly articles is not automatically evidence of sustained national or international acclaim; we must consider 
the field's reaction to those articles. 
Page 16 
for an article authored by the beneficiary would provide solid evidence that the beneficiary's work 
has been recognized and that other researchers have been influenced by his work. On the other 
hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the beneficiary may indicate that his work has 
gone largely unnoticed by his field. As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted evidence 
showing that the beneficiary's articles have been only moderately cited. While these citations 
demonstrate some interest in his published and presented work, they are not sufficient to demonstrate 
that his articles have attracted a level of interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Finally, with regard to the evidence submitted for 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(ix), the beneficiary's salary is 
not commensurate with one who is at the very top of his field. Even if the petitioner were to submit 
evidence showing that his salary exceeded the fully competent (Level 4) median wage, which he has 
not, we note that "median" regional wage statistics submitted from www.flcdtatacenter.com are not an 
appropriate basis for comparison in determining whether an individual's salary places him among that 
small percentage at the very top of the field. The median regional wage statistics submitted by the 
petitioner show what salary levels fall within the top half of his field on a regional basis rather than 
demonstrating the salary level commanded by those in that small percentage at the very top of the 
field. 
Moreover, there is no evidence showing that the documentation the petitioner requests evaluation of 
as comparable evidence constitutes achievements and recognition consistent with sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of his field. The petitioner failed to provide evidence for any 
of these engagements regarding the type of audience who attended these presentations, the number 
of attendees, or the selection criteria for the presenters. At best, these presentations are comparable 
to the publication of an article in a scholarly journal or original contribution of major significance, as 
it amounts to the dissemination of technical information to a specialized audience. As such, the 
evidence does not demonstrate that the beneficiary's participation in these conferences conveyed 
national or international acclaim or that his participation in such events made a contribution of major 
significance to his field. While the presentations may attest to his originality, the record lacks 
evidence of the impact his work has had on the field as a whole. The nonexistence of required 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(2)(i). Further, the classification 
sought requires "extensive documentation" of sustained national or international acclaim. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3). The 
commentary for the proposed regulations implementing the statute provide that the "intent of Congress 
that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by 
requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser 
classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703,30704 (July 5, 1991). 
When compared to the accomplishments of individuals who submitted recommendation letters on 
the beneficiary's behalf, it appears that the highest level of the beneficiary's field is far above the 
level he has attained. For example, Bing Liu has served on the editorial board of 4 journals, and has 
served and currently serves as program chair and vice chair of leading data mining and Web mining 
Page 17 
conferences. has more than 70 journals, refereed conference papers, and book chapters. 
has published more than 200 refereed papers, co-edited 12 books, and is an associate 
editor of three publications. -claims to have been at the forefi-ont of research as 
"one of the researchers who initiated and introduced Web mining" and is "among the top 5 authorities 
in the [wlorld in Web mining." 
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 
beneficiary as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 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. 
111. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
beneficiary's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established the beneficiary's eligibility pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision, See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, afd, 345 
F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate 
review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.