dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

,.
identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearly W1w~ted
iuvasionofpersoaalprivacy
': ,
U.S. Departnient of Homeland 'Security
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.,Rm. 3000
Washington, DC 20529
u.S. Citizenship
and IJWI1igration
Services .
MAY 04 2.1Date:Offic~: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTERLIN 04 052 51719
INRE:
FILE:
PETITION:
Petitioner: .
Beneficiary:
Iinmigrant Petition for Alien Worker '~s an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 US.C· § 1153(b)(1)(A) .
'ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:, ' .
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to
the office thatoriginally decided your case. Any furtller inquiry must be made to that office. '
. Amu#-J);udM'cIc
f;,,/ Robert P.-Wiemann, Chief' .
\Y" Administrative Appeals Office'
. I'
www.1iscis.gov
LIN 0405251719
.Page 2
DISCUSSION: The Director, NebraSka Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The
director determined the· petitioner had not est~blished the sustaIned national or international acclaim
necessary to qualifYfor classification as an alien of extraordinary ability.
On appeal, counsel challenges the director's analysis but fails to submit any evidence to address the
director's concerns. We concur with the director that the petitioner has not sufficiently established his
eligibility.
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 describ~ in any of the following subparag;raphs(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!,educ~tion,
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 to. the United States will substantially benefit
pr9spectively the ,UnitedStates.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) .
. have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking
immigrant visas,as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, ..
199i). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating
that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of
endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to ~stablish that
.an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recogni~ion in his Of her field of expertise
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will.be addressed below.
.. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show tllat he has sustained nat~onal or
international acclaim at the very top level. .
.'
. '.
LIN 0405251119
Page 3
. !
......
This petition seeks to.dassifYthe petitioner as ali alien with extraordinary ability as a professor. The
'. regulation at8 t.F.R· § 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained ;national or
· internatiOIial acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major; international
recognized award). Barring the alien's receiptof such an award, the regulation outlfues ten criteria, at
least three ofwhich must be ~at~sfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim neceSsaryto qualifY
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the
· follqwing criteria.I . . .
Documentation o/the alien'; receipt of lesser nationally or internatiQnally recognized prizes or
awards for excellencein thefield ofendeavor:. .... .
.The director conciuded that"the·petitioner had not submitted any evidence relating to this criterion. On .
appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's inclusion in Marquis' Who's' Who serves to meet this
criterion. While the evidence of this inclusion was submitted initially and in response to the director's
request for additional evidence,'Counseldid not suggest until appeal that the evidence was submitted to
m.e~t this criterion.. .' . . . '.
· Thepetiti~ner submitted a letter advising him' that as a "biographee" in Who's Who in the .World, his
cost for the publication would be only $315 plus shipping and handling. In addition, the petitioner was
offered.a <;;hanceto purchase a mahogany wall plaque to "commemorate" ~is inclusion in the volume,
whichincludes'mbre than 50,000 other briefbiographies. The petitioner was also invited to purchase
Who 's'Who inthe2d h Century, containing only 3,800 names, but the petitioner waS advi~ed that he
would not .be included in this edition..
Appearing as one of tens of thousands of other successful individuals ina frequently published
directory is not evidence indicative .of or consistent with national or international acclaim .. ·· The
petitionerras not established· that nationally or internationally recognized awards typically require
the 'awardeetopurchase the plaque acknowledging the award. Given the information as a whole; it
.. appears that the Who's Who series is a type of "vanity press" designed principally for profit.
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion.
DoeumentatiOli of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classificatzon is
.sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members,.asfudged by recognized national
oninternationpi~perts in their disciplines orfields. '.
The petitioner'submitted a "Diploma of the Active Member" for the Intemational.Informatization .
;Academy (IIA) indicating that he was "elected"the active member" of the IIA in 1994. The Internet
materials:for the IIA provide: .. .
. " '. ....
1 The petitioner does not· claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this
decision.
, .
" .
LIN 04052 51719
Page 4
IIA is registered as publlic [sic] -scientific organization in Byelorussia, Bulgaria,
Germany, Georgia, Israel, Italy, Kazakstan [sic], CaIlada, Latvia, Netherlands, Pussia
" [sic], USA, Ukraine, France, Swizerland [sic] and many other countries. With support
oftheheader [sic] of the states and govenunents, governors and majors of the cities in
of [sic] their peculiarities national and,-regional Academies of Informationology and
functional departInents are created (with the rights of departments).
[The] Academy has not a vertical, but horizontal administration structure and orginize
[sic] its work on principle of equality and independent of the members, arid also on the
basis of allocation [of] local informational - cellural [sic] self-man: agement [sic] with
allocation and complet~ indenpendence [sic] and legal inqependence to national and
regional Academies, of mformationology functional departments and structural
divisions. ,
* * *
Ii1l995 [the] International Informatization Academy got the General Consulting Status .'.
, of [the] Economic and Social Council of [the] UN. There's no precedent for the history
of academies'of the world. This means that leadership of [the] Academy can attend and
present IIA, its structures, scientific programms [sic] and IIA members at the most
irriportant events of [the] UN, attend meetings of any commissions, committees, and '
departments and also meetings of [the] General Assambly [sic] and others.
The petitioner also submitted the "Statute" for the IIA, indicating that it is an. independent self­
governing public association "of like-minded scientists, professional, state and public figures in the
field of' information theory, analytical activity and production work in all fields of science and
informati~ation of the soci~ty." . '
The petitioner has not establislled the significance of the IIA's affiliation with the United Nations. For
example~ the record contains no evidence regarding how many Non-governmental Organizations
. '(NGOs) have similar status. Regardless, at issue' are the membership-requirements for IIA. Nothing in
. these official materials suggests that IIA requires outstanding achievements of its members or discusses'
, the membership 'proce~s. . ' ,
The petiti'oner also subInitted a letter from Dr
Section of the IIA. Dr. 22L&£23i asserts:
.President of the Open Systems
Membership in the IIA is strictly limittxl to individuals of the highest merit. Candidates·
must to ,have [sic] a Doctoratedegree or equivalent, and must be outstanding in his field'
of expertise. '
'. ".
LIN 04 052 51719
Page 5
All candidates to' the honored title Academician or Associate Academician (Full or
Fellow Membet) 'must first be presented by a member of the LI.A.; then they have to ,
pass a strict election process and be elected on the basis of individual accomplishments.
, Each application is individually inspected by experts in the saine field as the nominee to
verify that the applicant is in fact a leader ,in his field.. ~ . ,,.' ,
A ,doctoral degree and nomination by a current nA member are not outstanding achiev~ents. While,
Dr. T 1 asserts generally that a prospective member' must demonstrate individual
accomplishments, he does not provide any infonnation on what thelIA considers an accomplishment.
.For example,demonstrating a certain number of years of experience or published articles is not an
outstanding achievement. Without the official bylaws of the lIA explaining the precise requirements
,for membership andthe selection process as well as the credentials ofthe judges, we cannot detennine
whether, the lIA requires truly outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized
national or international experts in the field.' " -
Published materia'ls about the alien' in professional or ~ajor traq,e public~tio~' 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 ofthe material, and any necessary'translation. '
Initially, the petitioner aSserted that he 'meets this criterion because his work' is included' in
"Mathematics in USSR: 1958-1967." Counsel asserts that this publication lists six of his articles as the
most important articles in Soviet Mathematics for that ten-year period.' The' petitioner submitted a
translation of the' text from: Volume 2, page~ 1155 - 1156, but not the original. Russian text. The
, translation lists six of'the petitioner's works but Contains no other discussion of the petitioner and his
work. The petitioner also submitted a review of the petitioner's 1995 book. We note that three other
book reviews appear on the same page, which appears to be page 5,265. The petitioner also submits
, what are' purported to be the results of a search of math reviews on the Internet through MathSciNet ..
,These appear to be compiled results as opposed to prints of the actual infonnation downloaded from the
"'Internet.,In response to the director's request for additional evidence, t4e petitioner submitted copies of
the text froni the actuai bound review compilations. Each compilation of reviews is thousands of pages
" 'long with a handful of reviews per page. '
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the compilatioU:sofreviews wer~
"equivalent (in exclusivity, content or circulation) to the criterion's requirements." On,appeal, counsel
asserts that-"Mathematics in USSR: 1958-1967" includedonIy the most important publications in math '
during those years and that the articles were selected by two world-renowned mathema~icians based on
a review of all of the papers reviewed in tpe Mathematical Referative Journal. The unsupported
assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 'Matter of Obaigbena; 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA ,
1988); Matter ofLaureario, 19I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez,'17 I&N Dec. 503,
506 (BIA 1980). Regardless, the petitioner (lid not submit a copy of the original foreign-language text;
just a translation. Even. if we accepted the translation without a copy of the original document, the
LIN 04 052 51719
Page 6
translation only indicates that the petitioner's articles were cited without any discussion. Inclusion in a
list ofcitaticmsis not published material primarily"about" the petitioner and his work.
The remaining reviews are in. large thousand-page compilations of reviews. The petitioner has not
demonstrated that these reviews are remarkable in the field. Rather, they would 'appear to cover a
significant nUmber of books and, articles in the field. While the evidence submitted to meet a given
criterion need not establish eligibility in and of itself, evidence that does not set the alien apart from
others in his field cannot serve to meet a given criterion. To hold otherwise wouldrender the statutory
requirement of national or international acclaim meaningless.
. '
Finally, on appeal, counsel notes that some of the petitioner's references, all of whom were, at' one
point, within the petitionyr's immediate circle of colleagues, attest to relying on, and presumably citing,
the petitioner's work in their own written work., The actual citations, however, are not part of the
record. Regardless, articles which cite the petitioner's work are primarily about the author's oWn work, ,
not the petitioner. As such, they cannot be considered published material about the petitioner.
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. ,
Ellidence of the alien"s pa~ticipation, either individually or on a panel, as a fudge of the work oj
o,thersin the same or an alliedfield ofspecifica~ion for which classification is sought. ' '
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion and we cOncur.
EVidence, of the alien's original scientific; scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-:related
contrIbutions ofmajor significance in thefield.
The director acknowledged that the petitioner had contributed to his field but' determined that' the '
.' petitioner had not submitted independent evidence establishing the major' significance of those '
contributions. On appeal, counsel asserts that the reference letters submitted establish the major
significance of the petitioner's work and implies that it is appropriate to rely on the admittedly
subjective opinions of the references to meet this criterion as more objective evidenCewas submitted to
'. meet other criteria.
We agree that expert letters can be an important part of a successful petition. filed under this
classification and we will review the letters 'below. That said, the opinions of experts in the field,
while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained national or
international acClaim: CIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted,as '
expert.testimony., 'See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, ·795 (Comm. 1988).'
'However, cis is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The subtiiission of letters from 'experts supporting the petition
is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content ofthose letters as to whether
they support 'the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an opinion
LIN 04 052 51719
Page 7
that is not corroborated, in accord with other infonnation or is in any way 'questionable. Id. at 795;
See also Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)).
. . .'
In evaluating the referen~e letters, we note that 'letters 'containing mere assertions of widespread
'acclaim and vagUe claims' of contnbutionsare less persuasive than letters that specifically identify
contributions and provide specific examples of how, those contributions have influenced the field.
Moreover, simply listing the petitioner's publications and conferences adds nothing to the record, as
copies of those works are already in the record. Finally, letters from independent references who
were previously aware 'of the petitioner through his reputation and who have applied his work are the
most persuasive. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries
gi-eater weight than new ,materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. ' An. - . ,-
individual with sustained national or ,international acclaim should be able to produce ,unsolicited
, materials reflecting that acclaim.' .
During the 1960's,the petitioner was employed at the Central Scientific Research Institute of Complex
Automation (CSRICA). Dr. -,fonnerlya senior scientific research and Head of
Reliability at CSRICA, discusses the petitioner's work there. Dr._ asserts that the
petitioner "is a true pioneer in the field of queuing theory," making ~nsultant for Dr.
own work on reliability problems. Dr. asserts generally:
[The petitioner] has Continued to make signif!cantcontributions in to the field by
development 'of innovative and uniquely' effective methods allowing the' great
improvement of cutrent technologies. Most importantly, the ideas developed by [the
petition'er]have quickly become accepted'throughout the field, making [him] essentially
one of the most influential trendsetter[s] in -reliability and queuing methods, which
"allows me to use'his recent publications in teaching future professionals. '
While we do riot question Dr. credibility, his statements would carry more weight if
supported by letters from independent mathematicians acknowledging the petitioner's influence and
evidence of wide and frequent citation. Significantly, the review of the petitioner's 1995 book,
"Controlled Queuing Systems," does not acknoWledgethe petitioner as one of the pioneers of this area~
Rather, the review concludes that the petitioner's book is ''useful,'' but not the first book for results on
queuing theory. Even 'the "Publisher's Note" on AddAll.eOm,designed to-promote the petitioner's
book, asserts that his book is the first completely,devoted to controlled queuing systems but does neit '
identify,the petitioner as a pieine~r in this field. None orthe reviews of the' petitioner's other works
provide any accolades for hiin.
Dr a professor at the GeorgiaInstitute of Techriologyin Atl<illta,asserts thathe w~
previously familiar with the petitioner's work and recently met him at a conference in Russia and again '
when the petitioner lectured at Georgia Tech. Dr. asserts that the peJitioiler's book on
controlled queuing systems "is a culmination of many of his research findings, and gives a nice survey
LIN 04 052 51719
Page 8
of basic issues in queuing cOntrolwith an emphasis on new results for systems with multiple classes of
customers." Dr. 2 asserts that the area of research is very challenging and that the petitioner's
book and related papers "characterize certain classes of monotone optimal control policies." Dr.
_concludes that this work has implications in computer and communication networks as,well as
, manufacturing arid other systems.' '
The petitioner also submitted a letter from his collaborator at CSRICA, Dr. Dr.
FtIIIIIiIIasserts that they developed the optimal priority rule, later, known as the c~-rule, which
establishes an optimal processor-sharing rule andis now included in C~mputer Science textbooks. The
record does not contain 'copies of pages from widely used textbooks crediting the petitioner with this
rule. Dr. a colleague of the petitioner's since 1968, opines that thIs rule "saved
billions of dollars to the powadays infonnation systems and telephone communications." pr._,
, discusses why this rule is significant but does not explain,how the c~-rule has been incOrporatedinto
,current infonnation and telecommunicatiorissystems: For example, he does not identify an infonnation
or telecommunications systems provider that licensed the petitioner's innovations or otherwise utilized,
his rule. ' -
Dr. , a fonner colleague at CSRICA, asserts that the petitioner proposed anew approach
for simulatiori of complex industrial processes, "event simulation method," used at CSRICA and which
, "later became a very popular [sic]." Dr. ~ does not provide any examples of the petitioner's
approach being usedoutsideCSRICA. '
Professor asserts that in the 1960's, he had "personal contacts, valuable,
discussions and advices of development [sic]" with the petitioner and that the petitioner helped ~hape
the ideology of Professor, own book Professor. 7 J J J further asserts that she
,~ '
continued to follow the petitioner's work after emigrating to Israel, noting that his reviews continued to
include work by emigrated or out of favor mathematicians. While this fact may reflect well on the
petiti~ner's character, it does not appear to relate to the significance of his own work to the field.
From 1963 through 1973 the petitioner headed a laboratory at the Research Institute of Control and
Economics of The Mipistry of Defense Industry (N'nSUE) and in 1973 l}e headed a laboratory at the. "
,Moscow Research Institute of Network Scheduling. Df. 7t 3 J • J a colleague at both locations,
asserts that the petitioner oversaw the design and development of the simulation system, Considered"as
the most successive arid extremely important achievement of the scientific departments of NIISUE."
At the Moscow Institute of Network Scheduling, the petitioner oversaw the development of statistical
problem solving in the scope of the software pack~ge TRANSPORT. The Ministry of Equipment
Design and Management Systems recommended the package, which incorporated the petitioner's ideas,'
as an advanced tool for use in the management of transportation problems. '
Since 1973 the petitioner has held a professor position at the Gubkln State'Oil and Gas University in
Moscow in additiori to holding temporary visiting positions at universities in Russia and the Uriited
States. Dr Chair of the Applied Mathematics and Computer Modeling Department
: .
• • 1,
<"LIN0405251719
Pa~e9
at Gubkin Russian State Oil' and Gas University; asserts that the petitioner is. investigating the
development of methods and computer tools for stability analysis and performance evaluation and
<;ontrol of elements characteristic of computer communication networks. Dr.' 'ists the
petitioner's publications' and presentations but' fails to explain how these projects h~ve influenced the
field., Similarly" Dr. < Chair of the Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics
Department at the Peoples'Friendship University of Russia, lists the courses the petitioner taught and
research projects with wqich he has been involved, but fails to explain how this work has influenced
the field. ' '
Dr. asserts that" the petitioner is currently researching numencal solutions of stochastic
processing networks, which presents difficult problems that few researches can address. Dr. 9 ?
does not, however, expt'ain how the petitioner.'s research in this area has already influenced the field in
a major way.
.....
Dr. now a professor at Kettering Uriiversity in Michigan, i~dicates that he collaborated with
the petitioner while the petitioner was a visiting professor there. Dr. lists their projects and
explains their applications but fails to explain how this work has already influenced the field.
Professor I discusses the petitioner's work with risk evaluation over the last ·ten years. <
, Specificaliy, Professor? 1 1 h discusses the importance of this area of research and asserts that in
, 1999, the petitioner gave an· Important talk in which the petitioner "gaye [a] strong mathematical notion '
of risk, 'introducer d] different characteristics or it[s] measurement and show[ed] how it is possible to
use it in different applications." Professor does not explain, however, how this'work has
, ' already influenced the field.'
Finally, from 1998 'through 2001, the petitioner claims to have serVedas the Country Team Leader for a ,
project for. the International Association for the Promotion of Co-operation of Scientists fromthe New
Independent States2 (INTAS).' The project, ArchitectUreDesign and Resource Allocation iIi Computer
.'Communications Networks,was 'coordinated by Dr. t 2 I I in Israel. The petitioner and Dr.
In Moscow, are both listed as "partners." Dr. asserts that the petitioner ,
was ,','thehead one of the R;ussianteam [sic]." Dr. / asserts that his laboratory at the Institute
of Control Sciences "dealt with the creation of the System for,reservation and selling'airline tickets
,'(SIRENA).":He further indicates that he was the General Constructor of the first Soviet real Air:..ticket
network. ' Dr. does, however, acknowledge that the petitioner played leading' roles at
conferences contributing to this system, through organizing and presenting his work at these
conferences. Dr. Jconcludes that the petitioner's "pioneering results concerning optimal
, priority rules for·, queuing .sy~tems were used in the System of Air-Tickets Reservation and Selling
(SIRENA)."" '
The' petitioner's field,' like most science, cis research-:driven, and there would be .little poin~ in,
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. According to the
•2 The fullriame of "INT AS" was discovered at wwwjntas. bel [accessed on May 2,2007].
LIN 04 052 51719
Page 10
regulation at 8 C~F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only original but of
major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and,
thus; that it has some meaning~ To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of
science, it can be expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed· by
other experts and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to .gauge the impact of the
petitioner's work. The above letters are all from individuals who have interacted with the petitioner
to at least·some degree; with most of the letters coming from direct collaborators. While Dr.•••
and Professor appear to have initially learned of the petitioner from his work, they do not
provide expficit examples of how the petitioner has influenced their own work. While' the record
contains a list of alleged citations, the director advised the petitioner that a self-serving unsupported
list of citations was insufficient. The citation indices submitted reflect no more than three citations
for anyone article ,and do not cover any of his work after 1976. While the petitioner provided '
reviews·contained in a compilation of thousands of similar reviews, he has not demonstrated thaf his
work is widely and frequently cited as'would be expected if the petitioner is the founder of queuing,
theory as claimed. , '
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. '
Evidence 'Ofthe alien's authorship ofscholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade
publications or other major media.
The, petitioner's curriculum vitae lists (1) eight book chapters, (2) seven text books and teaching
materials, (3) 50 of the petitioner's 140 journal articles and conference presentations and (4) four
translations into Russian. The petitioner listed several alleged citations to his'work, including 19 of his
1975 article, that appeared in Volume 12, page 43 of ItogiNauki I Techniki,Teorij(l Verojatn on
controllable queuing systems. The petitioner sub~itted .copiesof several of his own articles and books,
and the reviews discussed above. The director requested evidence that the petitioner's work had been
cited. In response, the petitioner submitted citation indices for the petitioner's work in the 1960s and
,1970s reflecting no more than 3 citations for anyone article. Notably~ the citation index lists only three
citations of the petitioner's' 1975 article that appeared in Volume 12, page 43 of ItogiNauki I
Techniki,Teorija Verojatn, which is inconsistent with the petitioner's claim that this article has been·
cited 19 times. ' .
, ,
The director acknowledged. that the petitioner had an extensive publication record, but cited the
Occupational Outlook Handbook, published by the Department of Labor, for the prinCiple that
university faculty typically perform research and publish their conclusions. The director noted that the
petitioner had. not ,corroborated his claim to be cited and concluded that the petitioner had not
,'., established that he meets this criterion.
On appeal, the petitioner submits no new evidence of citations.' Instead, colinsel asserts that the
quantity of the petitioner's; publications is sufficient and that the director erred in "asking that each
piece of evidence independently satisfy the requirement for sustained international acclaim.'"
• I,.
LIN 04 052 51719
Page 11
While the evidence submitted to· meet a given criterion need not unequivocally establish national or
international acclaim, the evidence must at least be indicative of. or uniquely consistent with such
acclaim if that statutory standard is to have any meaning. Where publication is inherent to the alien's
field, we must look for additional evidence that sets the alien's publication record apart from that of his
peers. The petitioner began his career in the .1960's and has been publishing consistently since that
time. . The petitioner' has. not demonstrated that this number of publications· is. unusual for a
.mathematics researcher with such a long career.
The petitioner claims to have been cited. As stated by the director, going on record without supporting
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these
proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft
of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. COlnm. 1972)). Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R..
§ 1O~.2(b)(2) requires the submission of primary evidence unless such evidence is demonstrably
unavailable or does not exist. The director specifically requested evidence of citation and noted the
lack of this evidence in the final denial. The petitioner had not addressed this valid concern.
In light of the above, th~ petitioner has not established that he 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 initially claimed to meet this criteri()nthrough his service (1) on an editorial board, (i) ,as
co-chair and member of organizing committees for conferences, (3) as head of a laboratory for both the
Research Institute of Control and Economics (NIISUE) and the Moscow Research Institute of Network
Scheduling and (4) as Cquntry Team Leader for: a single INTAS project.
The dire~torconcluded that the petitioner's role as senior faculty at Gubkin Stat~ Oil and Gas
University did not set him apart from other senior faculty and that the petitioner had not established the .
university's'rep~tation nationally. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director failed to consider all of
the organizations and assoc~ations for which the petitio~er has played a role: We will addiess each role.
We have already considered the petitioner's role as an editor and conference.chair above in concluding
that the petitioner meets the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). To consider this role under
this criterion as well would render meaningless the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria
thfough the submission ofextensive evidence. Moreover, the petitioner has not established that these
roles constituted a leading or critical rol€? for the associations that published the journal or sponsored
the conferences as a whole beyond their obvious need for volunteers to fill these roles.
We have already considered the petitioner's alleged contributions· while working for the entities·
described above. At issue for this criterion are the roles the petitioner was selected to fill and the
national reputation of the entities where he filled these roles. The record does not establish the number
LIN 04 05251719
" Pagl? 12
. . . .
, of laboratories at either NIISUE or the Mosco~ Research Institute of Netw~rk Scheduling; thus, the
number oflaborat~ry heads is Unknown. While Dr.~ asserts that the resu1~ of the petitioner's
work at both institutions were highly valued by the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Equipment
Design and Management Systems, the petitioner has not established every laboratory head at either
institution plays a leading or critical role fOf the institution as a whole or that the individual laboratories '
the petitioner headed enjoyed distinguished reputations nationally.
Finally, the' record lacks any evidence suggesting that INTAS enjoys a, distinguished reputation
nationally or internationally. The fact that it includes representatives,from more than one country ~oes
not create a presumption that the organization enjoys a distinguished reputation. Regardless, we are not
persuaded that serving as a partner on one INTAS project constitutes a leading or critical role for
,INTAS as a whole. ' '
'"
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion.
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 nsen to the very topof th~ field of endeavor. ' "
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as ,a
mathematic~ professor to such an extent that he may be saiq 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 mathematics professor over a lengthy career, but is not
persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost ali others in his field.
Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section.203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
,the petition may not be approved. '
. '.'
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal
will be dismissed. '
ORDER: ',The appeal)s dismissed.
, .,