dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifyino rlqta deleted to 
prevent Cit;",; . "\JalTanted 
invasion of person"" :'" , '\C', 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE JAN 05 201Z Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. De,partment of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Scr\'i(c~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusells Ave .. N.W., MS l090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)( I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C § 1153(b)( I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF· REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of thc 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 rcopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 CFK § 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 CFR § J03.5(a)( I )(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
_\Or 3 
(/0- ~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.goy 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment -based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Oftice (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. § 1153(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. 
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)(I)(A)(i) of the Act; H.R. 
723 101" Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1990); and 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 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 lei) through (x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the 
ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and a copy of the adverse decision. For the reasons 
discussed below, the AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not 
established his eligibility for the classification sought. 
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 arc 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph ir --
(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 or 
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. 723 101
51 
Cong .. 2d Scss. 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.: 
8 C.F.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, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under 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 
Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales, 
In 2010, the u'S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the COUlt took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
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 USClS may have raised legitimate concel11S 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concel11S should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
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, uscrs 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 thelirl field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 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. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have gal11ered "sustained 
national or intel11ational acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
S U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
!d. at 1119-20. 
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 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(iv); Soltane v. DO}, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
1 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.S(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
According to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must 
establish that the alien is the recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the plural). The clear regulatory 
language requires that the prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The 
plain language of the regulation also requires evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet 
the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
A significant aspect is that although the petitioner provides letters from individuals asserting he 
received the International Road Federation (IRF) Leadership Award. he fails to provide evidence 
that he actually received the award. Additionally, ••••••••••••••••••• 
__ claims that by winning the IRF Leadership Award, the petitioner becomes an Executive 
Fellow of the IRF. Consequently, receiving this award is, in effect, indistinguishable from becoming 
an IRF Fellow. This observation is relevant due to the fact that the petitioner claims his IRF 
Fellowship under the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The AAO will not presume 
that evidence directly relating to the membership criterion is presumptive evidence that an alien 
meets a second criterion. Such a conjecture would negate the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence and the regulatory requirement that an alien submit qualifying evidence under at least three 
separate and distinct criteria. Where evidence directly relates to one of the regulatory criteria, 
USCIS is not obligated to consider that same evidence as comparable evidence to meet a second 
criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
Accompanying the initial filing, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
Within this letter, _ attests that the npt;t;"npc """elV'''! 
IRF Executive Leadership Award, in addition to confirming the petitioner as a 
_ and that the petitioner was part of the IRF Executive Leadership Program. It is important to 
note the letter contains three IRF elements: the award, the fellowship, and the program. The director 
concluded that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion after she determined 
that the above award and the IRF Executive Fellow nomination were insufficient. The AAO 
acknowledges that the petitioner did not present the fellowship as qualifying evidence under this 
criterion; he presented it under the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which the 
AAO will discuss later in this decision. Significantly, the petitioner failed to submit a separate 
award certificate and the selection criteria for the award, distinct from the fellowship. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
-Page 6 
~"'"lUlll"l relies on the eligibility criteria for the IRF Executive Leadership Program 
letter. Admission into a fellowship program, even a competitive one, is 
not an award or prize. The record contains no separate criteria for an award or even the award itself. 
As stated by the director, the petitioner failed to provide the eligibility criteria for the award, 
assuming the petitioner actually received an "award." The petitioner argues that the lRF selects 
recipients of this award based on, "not only outstanding academic 
extraordinary leadership in the transportation field." However, according to letter, 
these standards are the criteria the IRF uses for candidate acceptance into the IRF Executive 
Leadership Program. As a result, the petitioner provides no evidence of an award or establ ishing the 
eligibility criteria related to an award which might establish the award is issued for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. 
Additionally, as stated above, in reference to the IRF Executive Leadership Award, the only 
evidence the petitioner submits to establish he received this award in _ is the above referenced 
letter from ]I 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b )(2) provides: 
Submitting secondary evidence and affidavits. (il General. The non-existence or other 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. If a required 
document, such as a birth or marriage certificate, does not exist or cannot be obtained. 
an applicant or petitioner must demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as 
church or school records, pertinent to the facts at issue. If secondary evidence also does 
not exist or cannot be obtained, the applicant or petitioner must demonstrate the 
unavailability of both the required document and relevant secondary evidence, and 
submit two or more affidavits, sworn to or affirmed by persons who are not parties to the 
petition who have direct personal knowledge of the event and circumstances. Secondary 
evidence must overcome the unavailability of primary evidence, and affidavits must 
overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i) provides that the non-existence or unavailability of required 
evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. According to the same regulation, only where the 
petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner 
rely on secondary evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may 
the petitioner rely on affidavits. There is no primary evidence demonstrating the petitioner received the 
IRF Executive Leadership Award. In this case, while the petitioner submitted a "confirmation." the 
petitioner failed to demonstrate that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained. In the event 
the "confirmation" is submitted as an affidavit, this confimlation is insufficient as an affidavit as it was 
not sworn to or affirmed by the declarant before an officer authorized to administer oaths or 
affirmations who has, having confirmed the declarant's identity, administered the requisite oath or 
affirmation. See Black's Law Dictionary 58 (7th Ed., West 1999). Nor, in lieu of having been signed 
before an officer authorized to administer oaths or affirmations, does the letter contain the requisite 
statement, permitted by Federal law, that the signers, in signing the statements, certify the truth of the 
Page 7 
statements, under penalty of perjury. 28 U.S.c. § 1746. See also INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183. 
188-89 n.6 (1984); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 1980) (finding that unsworn 
statements made in support of a motion are not affidavits and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary 
weight). Therefore, the petitioner is presumed ineligible in that USeIS will not consider the above 
evidence to bear any evidentiary weight under this criterion or in the final merits determination pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). The petitioner provides a IRF Executive Leadership Program certificate. 
However, this serves as evidence that the petitioner completed the aforenamed program and does not 
purport to be a prize or an award. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires evidence of "prizes" and 
"awards" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. 
Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are 
worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require 
service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include 
the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that 
evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the 
remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld USCIS' 
ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is llsed in a regulation J Even if the 
IRF Executive Leadership Award were both documented and a qualifying award, which it is not, the 
petitioner only claims this one award and he cannot meet the plain language requirements of 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. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must establish. The first is that 
there are associations (in the plural) in the petitioner's field that consist of formal membership. The 
second requirement is documentary evidence that the petitioner is or was a member of these 
associations. The third element is that the associations require outstanding achievements (in the 
plural) as a condition of admittance. The final requirement is that admittance is judged. or 
adjudicated, by nationally or internationally recognized experts in their field who determine if the 
aforementioned outstanding achievements are sufficient for admission. 
The petitioner submits his as evidence under this criterion. The 
petitioner provides the same letter from discussed above. The membership the petitioner 
claims is as an IRF Executive Fellow. This colloquial use of the word "membership" is inconsistent 
with the term "member" as contemplated by the regulation. The petitioner has failed to establish 
.1 See Maramjaya v. USClS. Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.c. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnaml's.coll1 
Inc. v. Chertoff. 2006 WL 3491005 at * 10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
-Page 8 
that an IRF fellowship is a membership rather than admission to a program. IRF Fellowships are 
granted to help "launch" the careers of participants. The petitioner has not provided any evidence of 
bylaws or other official guidance regulating or identifying "membership" requirements of this 
fellowship. Consequently, this fellowship does not qualify as an association consistent with the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Additionally, the petitioner failed to submit evidence that 
admittance to this entity is judged, or adjudicated, by nationally or internationally recognized experts in 
their field. 
Unlike a previous petition in the record of proceeding, the petitioner is not claiming Sigma Xi as a 
qualifying association and he submits no evidence of Sigma Xi's definition of what constitutes 
"noteworthy contributions in research." It is unclear why the petitioner has submitted evidence of his 
membership in Sigma Xi with the present petition, but did not include any reference to the association 
in any of his statements accompanying the petition. In the event that the petitioner inadvertently 
omitted references to Sigma Xi and he wished to have this association considered under this criterion, 
he failed to submit evidence establishing that Sigma Xi requires outstanding achievements of its 
members. As a result, this membership fails to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires evidence of "membership in 
associations" in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. 
Section 203(b)( 1 )(A)(i) of the Act. As noted above, uscrs has the ability to interpret significance li'OIn 
whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation, which federal courts have upheld4 Even if the 
IRF Executive Fellow were a qualifying association, which it is not, the petitioner only claims this one 
membership. Based on these numerous deficiencies, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that 
meets the plain language requirements of 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 allied field of specificationfor which classification is sou/iht. 
The petitioner submits a letter from 
_ and a letter from 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The AAO departs from 
the director's eligibility detennination related to this criterion, as explained below. 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, affd, 345 F.3d at 683: see also 
Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The letter from _ indicates the petitioner served on a Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) 
covering the period from September 6, 2007, through May 27, 2008, the date of the letter. The 
duties of this panel include: attending TAP meetings: reviewing the long-range research plan, 
providing suggestions and comments on the direction of research: assisting the research committee 
4 1d. 
Page 9 
as requested in developing detail for plans, goals, and objectives; and assisting the committee in 
developing detailed project statements, This evidence is sufficient to establish the petitioner has met 
the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The letter from indicates that on April 6, 2009, the petitioner was invited to serve as a 
project panel member. As a member of this panel, the petitioner reportedly performed duties that 
could be construed to entail judging the work of others in his field. Specifically, an attachment to 
letter titled, Functions of NCHRP [National Cooperative Highway Research 
Program] Panels, includes the following duties: "Reviewing and evaluating project reports so as to 
ascertain the accomplishment of objectives and suitability for publication." Additionally, the 
petitioner provides a website printout from the NCHRP indicating that he accepted and served as a 
project panel member for this organization. 
The petitioner also submits an email from dated February 9, 2010, which reflects the 
petitioner's efforts on the abstract review for the ICCPT201O. From the evidence on record it is not 
apparent what the ICCPT20 10 is, however this evidence postdates the filing of the petition. A 
petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). Therefore, a petitioner may not qualify for or rely upon evidence that postdates 
the petition's filing date and this evidence will not be considered in the final merits determination. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted evidence that establishes that he meets the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence (~r the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of mqjor significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted two expert letters in his initial filing. He asserts that his selection to the 
NCHRP, and his service for TxDOT serves as additional evidence under this criterion. The director 
determined the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. According to the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original, but of major 
significance. The AAO must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, 
that it has some meaning. Silvennan v. Eastrich Multiple investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3,,1 Cir. 
1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15,2003). To be considered a 
contribution of major significance in the field of science, it can be expected that the results of the 
petitioner's work 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 first expert letter is from ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 
__ identifies multiple contributions the petitioner has made to the transp0l1ation 
industry. The first is the petitioner's Ph.D. dissertation which, "presents a v~e mcthodology 
for the decision-making process for Intelligent Transportation Systems." _ states that the 
direct benefits of the petitioner's dissertation are "that the federal, state, and local transp0l1ation 
agencies can save millions of dollars by using his methodology to make smart investments in Intelligent 
-Page 10 
Transportation Systems." (Emphasis added.) Here. _ identifies a possible future benefit that 
has not yet come to fruition. A petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition 
at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12). A petition may not be approved if the petitioner 
was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to becom~ future date. See Marra or 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). _ also lists the petitioner's 
research on the impact traveler information systems, such as road signage, on a commuter's travel 
behavior and toll road choice. concludes, "[The petitioner's 1 original research laid a 
solid foundation to help other researchers understand how commuter's toll road usage would change 
when traveler information is fed." The professor states that the petitioner's research findings have 
been adopted and implemented in Texas and Massachusetts, but the record contains no confirmation 
of this claim from officials in these states. Moreover, as the petitioner obtained his Ph.D. in Texas. 
any implementation in Texas would be local. also mentions a research paper produced 
by the Transportation Research Board, during the timeframe when the petitioner was a hoard 
member. However, the professor does not inidicate that this paper can be attributed primarily to the 
petitioner, other than the fact that the petitioner was a board member when the board produced the 
paper. While identifies contributions the petitioner has made on his field, none of these 
contributions can be considered to be of major significance to the point that they have made a 
significant impact on the transportation field. 
The second letter is from • 
_ identifies the same research on tran systems as. 
_ also notes the petitioner's designs have ~ed, but falls short 
of indicating a measurable impact on the transportation field. _ denotes multiple 
methodologies the petitioner developed and states, "[The petitioner's I papers based on this study 
have been published and attracted attentions worldwide." However, fails to identify 
any of the papers the petitioner has authored or their impact on his field. It is also important to note 
that the petitioner failed to provide any citations of his work even though he has had ample 
opportunity not only through filing the present petition and this appeal, but also through a previous 
extraordinary ability petition which USCIS denied. In reference to the petitioner serving on the 
NCHRP panel, states, "[The petitioneri is guiding and shaping the future 
transportation system development in the United States. I firmly believe his extraordinary ability 
and insights will ensure the success of this important research." (Emphasis added.) That the 
petitioner will provide a prospective benefit to the United States as a permanent resident is a s(",or"' 
requirement under the Act. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(iii) of the Act. However, does 
not identify how the petitioner has already made a significant impact on his field, which is required 
by this regulatory criterion. A petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition 
at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ I03.2(b)(l), (12). A petition may not be approved if the petitioner 
was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. This evidence does not establish that, as of the priority 
date, the petitioner had contributed to his field in a significant manner as required by the regulation. 
concludes by stating that the petitioner is a "person with extraordinary scienftific 
skills and [is] a rising star in the field of transportation research." This statement clearly identifies 
the petitioner as one who has future potential to be a star, but like letter, fails to 
Page II 
explain how the petitioner's contributions can already be considered to be of major significance to 
the point that they have made a significant impact on the transportation field. 
The petitioner, and submit that the petitioner's selection to the 
NCHRP, and his service for TxDOT as additional evidence to be considered under this criterion: 
however, the only evidence the petitioner provides is his statement contained within the appeal brief 
which consist of his selection on the NCHRP "to oversee the research in addressing the long-range 
strategic issues facing the transportation industry in the United States. It is a prestigious 
honor ... r and] the outcome of this research will eventualy be implemented to improve the future 
transportation system in the United States, which indicates how significant my contributins will be." 
Clearly, even the petitioner does not explain how he has contributed to his field in a significant 
manner, but asserts that he is moving in a direction which will enable him to do so in the future. As 
previous noted, A petitioner must establish the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of 
filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). A petition may not be approved if the petitioner was not 
qualified at the priority date, but expects to become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter of' 
Katigbak. 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The petitioner also identifies his service on the TxDOT panel. but 
provides no explanation of contributions made to his field based on his work on this panel. The 
letters from characterize the petitioner's appointments as honors, 
however, they provide no specifically identified contributions arising from this service. 
The AAO acknowledges the claims of a shortage of qualified workers in the petitioner's field. This 
issue falls under the juridiction of the Department of Labor. New York State Dep't of Trall.lp .. 22 
I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). 
The regulation requires original contributions of major significance in the field. While the petitioner 
has established he has made contributions to his field of endeavor, his achievements and 
accomplishments, as of the priority date, fail to rise to the level of being considered original or of 
"major" significance. As a result, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the 
plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence (!f'the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
This criterion contains two evidentiary requirements the petitioner must address. The first is that the 
evidence establishes that the petitioner provides evidence that he has authored articles (in the plural) 
of a scholarly nature in his field. The second relates to the publication or the medium in which the 
article must appear. The petitioner must provide evidence that the scholarly article appeared in what 
is considered a professional publication or major trade publication in the petitioner', field. 
Alternatively, the petitioner may provide evidence that the scholarly article appeared in what is 
considered major media. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying both of these elements to 
meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Page 12 
The petitioner submits several works he authored in his field. The director determined that the 
petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner does submit evidence of 
his authored manuscripts, however, the manuscripts bear no indicia of publication. According to the 
manuscripts, the petitioner presented his finding before: the Transportation Research Board; at the 
2007 Conference of Freeway and Tolling Operations in the Americas; at the ITS (Intelligent 
Transportation Systems) World Congress 2004; and at the 12th World Congress on [TS. The 
petitioner also prepared reports for the Southwest Region University Transportation Center and the 
Texas Transportation Institute. The petitioner provides no documentary evidence to establish that 
any of the above manuscripts appeared in a professional publication, a major trade publication, or 
major media. He also fails to explain in either his initial filing or in the appeal how any of the 
manuscripts have appeared in one of the required publication types or media. Not every manuscript 
or research report will constitute a qualifying scholarly article. The petitioner also claims: 
[M Juch of my publications' impact has come through means other than citations. For 
example, I have been selected by the experts in my field to serve in I sic J 
advisory panels at both [the 1 national level and state level. The 
ications is also an factor in winning the 
However, none of the evidence the petitioner submits bears out this assertion. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici. 22 [&N Dec. [58, 165 (Comrn'r 1998) 
(citing Matterr!f Treasure Craft of California. 14 [&N Dec. 190 (Reg' 1 Comrn'r 1972)). 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, the AAO will 
review the evidence in the aggregate as part of our final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
[n accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is 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[irJ field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 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 expeI1ise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The receipt of an award, evidenced by only a letter, and without evidence of the award's selection 
criteria is not consistent with achieving sustained national or international acclaim or being one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very lop of their field of endeavor. Likewise, merely 
Page 13 
attaining "membership" as a Fellow in a program designed to "launch" careers is also not in keeping 
with achieving sustained national or international acclaim or being one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
As stated under the judging criterion, the petitioner reviewed plans and provided feedback while on a 
panel. The nature of the petitioner's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
evidence is indicative of the petitioner's national or international acclaim. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122. Reviewing plans and providing feedback for a state agency are consistent with achieving local 
or regional acclaim. However, this is not equivalent to national or international acclaim as judge. 
The petitioner also served as a panel member, the duties of which constitute judging. Selection as a 
panel member on a national-level panel, which encompasses judging duties is an accomplishment. 
Still, by itself, it is not extensive evidence representative of sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
Letters from experts in the field, elicited in support of an immigrant petition, which fail to provide 
specific contributions of major significance cannot form the cornerstone of the petitioner's eligibility 
for this classification. In his letter, states that the petitioner is a "person with 
extraordinary scientific skills and lis] a rising star in the field of transportation research." This 
statement clearly identifies the petitioner as one who has future potential to be a star, but has not yet 
risen to be viewed in the top percentage of his field. 
As stated above, the petitioner has authored scholarly manuscripts and reports. Pursuant to the 
reasoning in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122, however, the field's response to these articles may be and 
will be considered in our final merits determination. The petitioner has failed to produce evidence 
related to the field's response to his authored articles. Additionally, the petitioner's assertion that 
appointment to two panels is indicative of a response to his articles without corroborating evidence 
lacks support. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N at 165 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N at 190). A lack of evidence related to the 
quality of the medium in which the petitioner's articles appear, combined with the above noted flaws 
is not indicative of one who has achieved sustained national or international acclaim or who is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner, a research scientist, 
relies on: an undocumented award without indicating its criteria; receipt of a fellowship grant; serving 
on a state-level and a national-level panel without proof of the impact; letters from experts in the field 
who cannot identify the impact of the petitioner's contributions; and articles, of which none have 
appeared in the appropriate publications or major media, and of which the petitioner provides no 
citations or field response. While the petitioner's service on the national-level panel is notable, this 
alone is insufficient to establish the petitioner's eligibility, as "1 t ]he regulations regarding this preference 
classification are extremely restrictive." See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122 (quoting Lee v. Ziglar, 237 
F.Supp.2d 914, 918 (N.D.IlI.2002)). Although some of these elements may distinguish him from other 
-Page 14 
research scientists in the transportation field, the AAO will not narrow his field to others with his level 
of training and experience. Significantly, the petitioner's reference, lists his own 
accomplishments in his biography. is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, has received multiple distinguished service and contribution awards, has an award bearing 
his name from Intelligent Transportation System Massachusetts, is the author of a graduate level text 
and of several prize-winning papers, has served on review panels for transportation programs at three 
universities and served as the chair on one additional panel, and is a member of six transportation 
related associations, serving as executive committee chair or on the board of three of these associations. 
Although the petitioner shows potential to be a future leader of his field, it appears that the highest level 
of his field is well above the level he has attained. 
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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
research scientist to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a research scientist, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 USc. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will 
be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.