dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
tl.S. Departmcnt of Homeland Sceurit} 
U.S. Cili7cm.hip and Inllmgrari'lll Sen'lcc> 
Admini~.trativc Appeal;, Olli,',' (.\,\0' 
20 Massachuselts Ave" '\i,W \lS ,'(I()O 
Washill~lon. DC 2():;2LJ-2(l')U 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: SEP , 8 20\\ Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § IIS3(b)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
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. § 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 C.F.R. § I 03.S(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, 
7erryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-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 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)(l)(A). 
The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability 
through extensive documentation and 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)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act 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)(i) 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. 
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)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act 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)(i) 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, counsel argues that the petitioner meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v) and (vi). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will 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 
Page 3 
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. 
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 st 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. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 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 m the field, m 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
Page 4 
(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 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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (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." /d. 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, 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. § 204.S(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 garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(i). 
Id. 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 
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. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
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 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). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on June 22, 2009, seeks to classify the petItIOner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in energy research, mechanical engineering, and nuclear engineering. The 
petitioner submitted a June 20, 2009 letter with the petition stating: 
I earned my Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from 
in July 2007. I obtained my Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineenng 
In May 2004. 
My specific research areas include nuclear energy, nuclear waste disposal technology, 
and solar energy. My research also covers the interdisciplinary fields of computational 
fluid dynamics (CFD), material science, mesoscopic dynamics and nano technology. 
was working as a postdoctoral researcher at _ under the 
supervision of Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineer~. The 
petitioner has submitted documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 
') 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).~ 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationallv 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner did not submit evidence of 
the national or international recognition of the preceding Best Paper awards, such as national or 
widespread local coverage of the awards in professional or general media. The plain language of 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be 
nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
every element of this criterion. In this instance, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating 
that the petitioner's Best Paper awards were recognized beyond the presenting organizations and 
therefore commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (lIth Cir. 2005). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
In addressing the documentation submitted for this regulatory criterion, the director's decision 
stated: 
The petitioner bases his claim to this criterion upon his membership in Sigma Xi, the 
American Nuclear Society (ANS), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
(AMSE), the Informal Heavy Liquid Metal Coolant Interest Group (lHLMCIG) and the 
Chinese in America Thermal Engineering Association (CATEA). The evidence 
submitted regarding Sigma Xi's membership requirements states that "Any individual 
who has shown noteworthy achievement as an original investigator in a field of pure or 
applied science or engineering," and then defines "noteworthy achievements" as 
"publication as a first author on two articles in a refereed journal, patents, written reports, 
or a thesis or dissertation." Researchers are expected to publish their findings, and all 
postdoctoral researchers will have already completed a dissertation as part of their 
education. Therefore, these requirements do not reflect outstanding achievements in the 
petitioner's field. Similarly, ANS requires only an associate[']s degree in nuclear science 
or a related field or one year of work experience in the field, and ASME appears to 
require a degree in engineering or engineering technology. However, employment or 
education in a field do not constitute outstanding achievements. 
Page 7 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner 
failed to establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this 
issue to be abandoned. Sepulveda v. u.s. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d at 1228 n. 2. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that he 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 allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
The petitioner initially submitted documentation indicating that _ the petitioner's 
former graduate studies advisor and current supervisor at ~ manuscripts to 
review for Journal of Heat Transfer and Nuclear Engineering and Technology. The record contains 
no review requests directly from the preceding journals' editors addressed to the petitioner. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the petitioner has served as "a 
judge of the work of others." The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging 
capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The 
regulation cannot be read to include every informal instance of a supervisor requesting input and 
assistance from his subordinate. In this instance, there is no documentary evidence establishing 
that the petitioner, rather than served as part of a formal judging process for 
Journal of Heat Transfer and Nuclear Engineering and Technology. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that he peer reviewed the following: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
Page 8 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the u,-",>u'''> 
that he completed review of a for 
January 2010, two papers for 
017) in December 2009, and paper 
November 2009. The '-'V>HI-"''-'''-''U the preceding reviews for 
subsequent to the petition's filing date. A 
petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, the AAO will not 
consider papers reviewed by the petitioner after June 22,2009 in this proceeding. 
Thus, the documentation submitted the petitioner demonstrates that he peer-reviewed six papers 
for two papers for a book chapter, and four 
conference papers as of the petition's filing date. This documentation meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). However, certain deficiencies 
pertaining to this evidence will be addressed below in our final merits determination regarding 
whether the submitted evidence is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, 
or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientlfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing his work. 
states: 
For the past 7 and half years, I have been [the petitioner's] advisor for his M.S. and Ph.D. 
studies in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, and the supervisor for his post­
doctoral appointment ... at UNL V. 
* * * 
[The petitionerJ has successfully developed a senes of new stochastic models on 
corrosion/oxidation in non-isothermal nuclear coolant systems with the cellular 
automaton (CA) method at a mesoscopic level. And he successfully coupled the 
hydraulic effect of the high-temperature and high-density metal/alloy flow in his 
stochastic CA models. These reliable computer programs developed by [the petitioner] 
make it possible to track the evolution of molecule ensembles on the mesoscopic physical 
level. 
* * * 
Another evidence of the petitioner's extraordinary abilities lies in his publications and 
presentations. [The petitioner] has published 9 journal papers in several peer-reviewed 
Page 9 
papers 
are not many at this moment because [the petitioner's] journal papers were just published 
in 2008 and 2009 due to the long peer-review processes. Moreover, his research methods 
are unique and his models are novel so that not too many research institutes are aware his 
new methods and techniques yet. With the continuous developing of these new 
techniques, such as the stochastic modeling of nuclear coolant corrosion at a mesoscopic 
level, more and more scientists and corrosion research group will cite his research results 
in this field. 
With regard to the new stochastic models developed by the petitioner, _does not provide 
specific examples of how the petitioner's models are being widely implemented by others in the 
engineering field or in the nuclear power industry. Regarding _ comments on the 
petitioner'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). The AAO 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. 3 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. Thus, there is no presumption that every published article or presentation 
is a contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact of 
his article or presentation. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petItIoner submitted citation evidence 
indicating less than a dozen cites to his body of published work. Four of the citing articles 
submitted by the petitioner reflect self-citations by his supervisor and coauthor _ Self­
citation is a normal, expected practice. Self-citation cannot, however, demonstrate the response 
of independent researchers. The AAO cannot ignore _ comment acknowledging the 
limited number of cites to the petitioner's work. In this case, the petitioner has not established 
that the minimal number of independent cites to his work at the time of filing is indicative of 
original contributions of major significance in the field. Moreover, the articles citing to the 
petitioner's work after the date of filing do not constitute evidence that his work was already 
influential as of that date. As previously discussed, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. In this 
matter, that means that the petitioner must demonstrate that his work had already significantly 
3 Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they 
were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USC/So 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding 
that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Page 10 
impacted the field as of that date. All of the case law on this issue focuses on the policy of 
preventing petitioners from securing a priority date in the hope that they will subsequently be 
able to demonstrate eligibility. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1977); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; see also Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169,175-76 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the 
proposition that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing 
of a petition.") Consistent with these decisions, a petitioner cannot secure a priority date in the 
hope that his research will subsequently prove influential. Ultimately, in order to be meritorious 
in fact, a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for approval as of the date 
it was filed. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, while 
citations published after the date of filing may serve as evidence of the continued relevance of an 
alien's work that had already been well cited as of the filing date, they cannot be considered 
evidence that the alien was already influential as of that date. To hold otherwise would have the 
untenable result of an alien securing a priority date based on the speculation that his work might 
prove influential while the petition is pending. Thus, the AAO will not consider cites to the 
petitioner'S work after June 22, 2009 in this proceeding. 
rThe petitionerJ has been working in two projects of the _Transmutation Research 
Program ITRP] for which I am the director. One project is the design and simulation of 
an induction skull melting system to cast metallic fuel pins for Fast Neutron Nudear 
Reactors from recycling spent nuclear fuel components which includes americium, a 
volatile actinide with long-term hazard. His innovative design has been selected as a 
candidate by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national program and his numerical 
models and simulated results have been praised by the scientists in nuclear engineering as 
a remarkable contribution to the nuclear energy and nuclear waste management 
technology. 
The second TRF project [the petitioner] has been working on is the theoretical 
investigation and numerical modeling of the protective oxide layer growth in non­
isothermal lead-alloy coolant systems. [The petitioner] is the pioneer in the stochastic 
modeling of the corrosion and oxidation process of nuclear metal/alloy coolant at a 
mesoscopic level. His creative methods have been published in top peer-reviewed 
journals, such as, 
_ His innovative models and calculated results have also been invited for 
publishing in e their 
significance to the nuclear power 
* * * 
His inventions include the innovative designs for casting metallic fuel pins from nuclear 
waste and his ingenious mesoscopic models for estimating the corrosion process of the 
Page II 
nuclear coolant and the protection of the oxide layer by oxygen control technology. [The 
petitioner's] research is a great improvement in the application of nuclear waste disposal 
technology and nuclear coolant technology. 
does not indicate that _ has patented, licensed, or marketed the petitioner's 
designs for casting metallic fuel pins from nuclear waste or his mesoscopic models. Thus, the 
impact of the inventions is not documented in the record. Regarding the petitioner's journal 
publications, the AAO notes that his field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would 
be little point in publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the 
field. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be 
not only original but of "major significance" in the field. The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund. L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd 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 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. 
In this case there is no evidence that the . tioner' s articles in 
frequently cited, that his designs and models are widely implemented in 
the industry, or that his work otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
2008, I severed [sic] as an adjunct research faculty of the 
I was a co-advisor of [the petitioner] during the 
* * * 
Over the past five years, I have collaborated with [the petitioner] on a nuclear 
engineering project funded by the Department of Energy of U.S. 
* * * 
I would like to specifically focus on [the petitioner's] exceptional contributions to the 
stochastic modeling of corrosion/oxidation processes of stainless steels in lead/LBE at a 
mesoscopic level. These models propose an accurate estimation of the long term 
behaviors of the nuclear materials in nuclear coolants. They provide a mesoscopic and 
microscopic level understanding on the unclear mechanisms in the nuclear coolant 
technology, which will result in a substantial advancement for the field of nuclear science 
and mechanical engineering. The programs developed by [the petitioner] are able to 
lower the cost of the experiments and predict the safety problems in the nuclear industry 
Page 12 
and reduce them by a substantial percentage. Therefore, his studies will have large 
impact on the U.S. nuclear industry and thereby on energy independence of u.S. The 
mesoscopic stochastic models are also capable to provide a scheme for the investigation 
of nano materials. 
_opines that the petitioner's work "will have a large impact on the U.S. nuclear 
industry," but he does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's models are already 
being applied by others in the field or that they otherwise equate to original contributions of 
major significance in the field. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition 
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
Matter of Izurnrni, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. 
As an adjunct professor and technical advisor I have known [the petitioner] ... from his 
his application materials for a prestigious and demanding Master's pro in the 
Nevada Center for Advanced Computational Methods (NCACM) in the 
2002. 
* * * 
I should first emphasize on [sic] the challenging project on which [the petitioner I was 
working on with me during his master's program, the Design and Simulation of an 
Induction Skull tem. It was a DOE project in cooperation with 
* * * 
The critical difficulties in the melting of the americium contained nuclear waste, which 
had remained unsolved, lie in the high melting point and the serious volatility of 
americium. With his industrious investigation and intelligence, [the petitioner] proposed 
several possible designs for the melting systems of highly hazardous and highly volatile 
americium and the casting process of the metallic pins. After comparing [the petitioner's] 
different design schemes and the calculated results from [the petitioner's] computational 
fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation, the Induction Skull Melting System with water cooling 
crucibles, has been selected by ANL and DOE as the final solution for the casting process 
of metallic fuel pins. From the experiments in ANL, his method has proved to be safe, 
efficient and feasible. The experimental data agrees with [the petitioner's] CFD simulated 
results significantly. Furthermore, his CFD model, which had been benchmarked by 
ANL's experiments, has been employed by ANL and DOE for parametric study of the 
casting process under different operating conditions. His CFD model resolves the 
Page 13 
difficulties of conducting large amounts of experiments under hazardous conditions, 
which is also economically impossible. 
does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's CFD model been 
utilized by others in the field beyond his immediate projects, successfully applied in the industry, 
or that it otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
In August 2007, [the petitioner] submitted his first paper to 
_ an improved mesoscopic oxidation model of metals in lead bismuth eutectic. It 
was accepted in October 2007. His second paper, a diffusion controlling duplex-layer 
oxidation model with scale removal in oxygen containing liquid metal flow, which was 
submitted in October 2007, has been accepted in May 2008. Both these two papers have 
been published in 2008. 
In the first paper, [the petitioner] proposed an innovative scheme in the calculation of the 
oxide layer growth in liquid alloy systems, with consideration of the transport of oxygen 
into the stainless steel. He is the first scientist who uses this new probabilistic method to 
estimate the chemical reaction process considering the effective diffusion in mode of 
"random walk" of atomic oxygen along the grain boundaries in the structural materials. 
This mesoscopic level cellular automaton (CA) model has been successfully used to 
estimate the chemical process, the mass transfer process and the growth of the protective 
oxide film in liquid alloy nuclear coolants. The creative analysis has discovered the 
unclear transport mechanisms of the atomic oxygen in stainless steels. [The petitioner I 
has played a key role in the research of interdisciplinary field of computational material 
science and computational fluid dynamics, especially at a mesoscopic level. 
In the second paper that [the petitioner] published in 
he developed a macroscopic numerical model to ,",<U,",U>UL,", 
in oxygen contained environments, such as nuclear coolant under oxygen control 
technology. The scale removal effect, which is a complex process and is difficult to 
simulate numerically, of the oxide film in the high density, high temperature flow, has 
been taken into accounted successfully. 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] mesoscopic oxidation model reveals the mechanisms of the chemical 
process and the transport process of the atoms. And his macroscopic model estimates 
these processes from the point view of macroscopic phenomena. Both the mesoscopic 
and the macroscopic models have been benchmarked with experimental data, previous 
numerical results and/or analytical solutions. These remarkable models demonstrate [the 
petitioner's 1 extraordinary research abilities clearly. These models proposed different 
Page 14 
research methodologies in the research of corrosion and passivation of corrosive nuclear 
coolant, which is critical to the nuclear power industry of u.s. Moreover, these models 
can be extended to the study on corrosion/oxidation of other metal/alloy materials in 
different liquid environments, and thereafter can benefit evidently the development of the 
material industry, the power industry of U.S. 
comments on two of the petitioner's articles published in 
but there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's articles were frequentl y 
cited, that his mesoscopic and macroscopic models are widely implemented in the power 
industry, or that his work otherwise equates to original contributions of major significance in the 
field. 
After being invited to give a graduate seminar at _ in March 2009, I met [the 
petitioner]. From the first discussion and further communication with him, I could tell 
that he has an outstanding research ability, creative scientific perceptions, and productive 
achievements. 
* * * 
In one of his numerical models, [the petitioner] used the coordinate transformation 
technique to simplify the complex governing equations on oxidation growth process in 
different physical zones. The simplified equations have been in analogy with Stefan 
problem and been solved numerically with his own programmed code. 
_ does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work is being applied by 
others in the field or that it otherwise equates to original contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
[The petitioner J illustrated the mesoscopic level investigation on the oxide layer growth 
of stainless steel in liquid lead-bismuth eutectic (a nuclear coolant) using a stochastic 
cellular automaton model. This method is an innovative approach as opposed to the 
traditional macroscopic computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. The traditional 
CFD models study the fluid, both the liquid and the gas, as a continuum media and have 
not delved into the detailed mechanisms and movement of the molecules and atoms .... 
[The petitioner's] research on mesoscopic investigation bridges the gap between the 
macroscopic phenomena and microscopic principles. 
* * * 
Page 15 
IThe petitioner's] models successfully estimate the transport of the dissolved oxygen into 
the stainless steels with a much higher transport rate than the molecular diffusion rate. 
His research results discovered the unclear transport mechanism of oxygen which has 
puzzled the scientists and engineers for many years in the fields of material science. [The 
petitioner's] stochastic mesoscopic models, in the interdisciplinary fields of fluid 
mechanics and materials science, have been used in the calculation of the corrosion rate 
of nuclear coolants and the protection of the oxide layers. . .. The calculated results from 
[the petitioner's] mesoscopic models provide a guideline in the nuclear materials 
selection and the anti-corrosion techniques for the new generation nuclear reactors in 
U.S. 
_ states that the petitioner's stochastic mesoscopic models "have been used in the 
calculation of the corrosion rate of nuclear coolants and the protection of the oxide layers," but 
the documentation submitted by the petitioner does not reflect widespread industrial or 
commercial implementation of the petitioner's methods or that they otherwise equate to original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Ever since [the petitioner] joined the FMTC in 2008, I have been impressed with his 
extraordinary research capabilities, from his outstanding publications in ASME 
conferences to his accomplishments in probabilistic modeling approaches in the fields of 
fluid mechanics and material science. His analysis skills and design methodologies are 
critical to the success of projects, such as, the conceptual design, the performance 
evaluation and the design optimization of solid particle solar receivers (SPSR), and the 
casting metallic fuel pins from long-term radioactive nuclear waste, etc. 
* * * 
lThe petitioner's] solid theoretical background in mechanical engineering provides him 
the necessary insights to resolve difficult issues. He has considerable expertise in the 
commercial software FLUENT plus his solid structural design experience make him one 
of the top solar receiver designers in the solar-hydrogen area. 
* * * 
It is my understanding that [the petitioner] is the first scientist to conduct a domain­
independent study on the numerical simulation of an objective in a strong wind field, 
which is of technological significance for the SPSR mounted atop a tower 330 meters 
high to capture the focused solar energy from a field of heliostats. The domain­
independent study minimizes the computational time required for a single simulation 
without losing numerical accuracy. This pre-simulation concept has proved to be a major 
Page 16 
contribution in the SPSR simulations and will likely become a standard procedure for the 
researchers and engineers to follow. 
opines that the petitioner's pre-simulation concept "will likely become a standard 
procedure for the researchers and engineers to follow," but there is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner's findings had already significantly influenced others throughout the field as of the 
date of filing. With regard to the witnesses of record, many of them discuss what may, might, or 
could one day result from the petitioner's work, rather than how his past research achievements 
already qualify as original contributions of major significance in the field. As previously 
discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 c.F.R. §§ 103 .2(b)(1), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this 
classification based solely on the expectation of future eligibility. /d. 
also focuses on the petitioner's technical skills, educational background, software 
expertise, and research experience, but she does not provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's work has already impacted the field at large or otherwise constitutes a contribution of 
major significance. Assuming the petitioner's skills and knowledge are unique, the classification 
sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In fact, that issue 
properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien employment 
certification process. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 
(Comm'r 1998). It is not enough to be skillful and knowledgeable and to have others attest to 
those talents. An alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this 
regulatory criterion. 
I served as a Postdoctoral Research Associate during the year 2004 to 2006, and a 
Research Assistant Professor from 2006 to 2007 in the Department of Mechanical 
Engineering at the I was a co-advisor and the 
dissertation committee mem period. 
* * * 
[The petitionerl has worked and been working on two DOE sponsored projects related to 
nuclear energy. The design of Induction Skull Melting (ISM) Systems is a very complex 
endeavor requiring very high computer analysis skills and sound engineering knowledge 
both in the field of mechanical engineering and nuclear engineering. Because of I the 
petitioner's J excellent engineering background, he has successfully proposed an ideal 
design of the ISM system. His final design and his numerical models on the melting 
process of nuclear materials, americium and the casting process of metallic fuel pins is a 
milestone achievement of the reuse of nuclear waste to generate nuclear power. 
Page 17 
[The petitioner's] research on the corrosion of nuclear coolant and anti-corrosion 
technology of nuclear materials has significant importance to the safety of nuclear power 
systems. . .. He is the forerunner of mesoscopic modeling on the corrosion and oxidation 
behaviors of nuclear materials in nuclear coolant environment. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has submitted 11 journal papers to different peer-reviewed journals .... 
[The petitioner's] papers have been published officially in 2008 and 2009 and his 
research is in a particular field of nuclear engineering and renewable energy. From a 
scientist with strong background in nuclear engineering and mechanical engineering, I 
assert [the petitioner's] journal publications are of very professional and of significant 
importance, even though they do not have too many citations yet. 
comments that the petitioner's "final design and his numerical models on the 
melting process of nuclear materials, americium and the casting process of metallic fuel pins is a 
milestone achievement of the reuse of nuclear waste to generate nuclear power," but he does not 
provide specific examples of industrial or commercial implementation of the petitioner's work. 
Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's journal publications were frequently 
cited at the time of filing, that his numerical models are being widely applied by others in the 
engineering field, or that his findings otherwise equate to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. To satisfy the criterion relating to original contributions of major 
significance, the petitioner must demonstrate not only that his methodologies are novel and useful, 
but also that they have already made a demonstrable impact on his field as a whole. 
I served as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the 
from August 2005 to June 2008. 
* * * 
[The petitionerJ worked on a very difficult problem associated with the corrosion of 
liquid metal/alloy nuclear coolant and the oxide layer growth on the surface of stainless 
steel in nuclear coolants in the interdisciplinary field of computational fluid dynamics and 
computational material science. This challenging work requires an intensive 
understanding on the fluid dynamics, heat and mass transfer, material science and 
computational methodologies. [The petitioner] successfully proposed various models to 
calculate the complex processes. In the 2nd chapter of his dissertation, he developed both 
analytical and numerical models for corrosion/precipitation of stainless steels in non­
isothermal leadllead bismuth eutectic (LBE) open pipes and close loops. In the 3rd 
chapter, he proposed a macroscopic numerical model for the growth of the oxide layer on 
the metal/alloy materials in oxygen contained environment. As I know, the models and 
Page 18 
the results of three chapters are published in three refereed journals respectively. In my 
opinion, this dissertation is an excellent example of his extraordinary abilities to perform 
high quality research. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful information to the 
pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every scientist who performs original research that 
adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of "major 
significance" to the field as a whole. While _ comments that the results of the 
petitioner's graduate work at ~ave been "published in three refereed journals," there is no 
evidence indicating that his finding are frequently cited by independent researchers or otherwise 
equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, states: 
At the lih International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (lCONE-12) in Arlington, 
which I attended as the lead track 2 Organizer and track Chair, [the petitioner] presented 
two papers on numerical simulations on casting a fuel pins [sic]. I was indelibly 
impressed with his presentation. The quality of his work was of the highest standards of 
excellence. [The petitioner] describes the most recent experimental data and the model 
developed to support design of a mold for casting fuel elements and the associated 
transient heat transfer. 
There is no evidence showing that the technical papers presented by the petitioner at ICONE-12 
are frequently cited by others in his field. Further, the documentation submitted by the petitioner 
does not reflect industrial or commercial implementation of the petitioner's numerical 
simulations for casting fuel pins or that they otherwise constitute original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
I am involved in particular in the development of ... the lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR) 
development. 
[The petitioner] also contributed to the LFR project. The first time I met him was in June 
2006 in Reno ... where he attended the 1 st Meeting of GIF [Generation IV] LFR Interest 
Group held by and where I provided the technical secretariat 
for the meeting. 
[The petitioner] has been working on the lead/lead-bismuth euthectic (LBE) corrosion 
sad growth of the protective oxide layer of stainless steels projects since 2004 under the 
Page 19 
direction of _, in collaboration with 
Los Alamos~tories) and 
technical publications in different journals and also participated in internationally 
respected technical conferences on lead and LBE research. He also worked on a project 
on the casting process of metallic fuel pin and on solar energy based hydrogen 
generation. 
describes the petitioner's work, but he does not provide specific examples of how 
the petitioner's work has notably influenced the field. There is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner's published and presented research is frequently cited, that his innovations are widely 
implemented in the industry, or that his work otherwise constitutes original contributions of 
major significance in the field. 
The AAO notes that almost all of the above letters are from individuals directly associated with 
the petitioner, his research projects, or _ While such letters are important in providing 
details about the petitioner's work on various projects, they cannot by themselves establish that 
his work is recognized beyond his professional contacts. The opinions of experts in the field are 
not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission 
of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS 
may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. 
at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert 
opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the experts' 
statements and how they became aware of the petitioner'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 an engineering researcher who has made original contributions of major significance. 
Without supporting evidence showing that the petitioner's work equates to original contributions 
of major significance in his field, the AAO cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented his authorship of scholarly articles and, thus, has submitted 
qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the petitioner has 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate his 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 
Page 20 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). A 
final merits determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the AAO will 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. § 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)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. In the present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the 
categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (v). 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), this decision has already addressed why the submitted awards do not rise to the 
level of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. The evidence 
discussed above is also not indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level 
of expertise indicating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of his field. The AAO notes that competition for the petitioner's "Best Student Paper" 
award was limited to graduate students. Such awards do not establish that the petitioner "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). USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary 
ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899.4 
Likewise, it does not follow that receiving an award limited to students should necessarily qualify 
an engineering researcher for approval of an extraordinary ability employment -based immigrant 
visa petItIon. To find otherwise would contravene the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved for "that small percentage of individuals that have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor." 
4 The AAO notes that in Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of 
Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a 
professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in 
this district, Crimson v. INS, No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, the court's 
reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) is reasonable. 
Page 21 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
as previously discussed, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's associations require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the petitioner's field. The petitioner has not established that his memberships are 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that 
he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), the 
nature of the petitioner's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
evidence is indicative of his national or international acclaim. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The documentation submitted by the petitioner demonstrates that he peer-reviewed six papers for 
Solar Energy, two papers for Computational Materials Science, a book chapter, and four conference 
papers as of the petition's filing date. In response to the director's request for evidence, the 
petitioner submitted Springer "Peer Review Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers" stating that 
the "Managing Editor's judgment is final with regard to suitability for publication." The 
petitioner also submitted a peer review diagram from Elsevier's website stating: 
Reviewer Accesses Article 
Checks for: significance, presentation, scholarship, evidence, reasoning, theory, 
length, ethics, etc. 
I 
Reviewer m<lkes recommendation to accept! revise/ reject to editor/ editorial board 
I 
Editor makes final decision based on reviewers' comments 
[Emphasis added.] 
According to the preceding information, the decision of the editorial staff supersedes that of the peer 
reviewers who issue only recommendations. The director found the petitioner failed to establish 
that his level and frequency of peer review is commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim and sets him apart from others in his field. The AAO upholds this finding 
noting that peer review is a routine element of the process by which articles are selected for 
publication in scientific journals or for presentation at professional conferences. Normally a 
journal or conference's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of numerous professionals in the 
field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for the editorial staff to ask multiple 
reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. As noted in the information from 
publishers Springer and Elsevier, the editorial staff or may accept or reject any peer reviewer's 
comments in determining whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Without evidence that 
sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has received and 
completed independent requests for review from a substantial number of journals, chaired a 
significant number of reputable conferences, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished 
journal as of the petition's filing date, the AAO cannot conclude that his level and frequency of 
peer review is commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of 
Page 22 
the field of endeavor. For instance, according to _ his curriculum vitae he has served 
on the editorial boards of Open Corrosion Journal and Protocells. Further, has 
chaired numerous conferences and serve as editors of scientific 
journals. 
With regard to the petitioner's original research work submitted for the category of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), as stated above, it does not appear to rise to the level of contributions of 
"major significance" in the field. Demonstrating that the petitioner's work was "original" in that it 
did not merely duplicate prior research is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career 
of acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an 
alien must (1) demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, 
education, business or athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) ... " Research work 
that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the petitioner a master's degree, let alone 
classification as an engineering researcher of extraordinary ability. To argue that all original 
research is, by definition, "extraordinary" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, 
and to presume that most research is "unoriginal." In this case, the record does not contain 
sufficient evidence that the petitioner's research findings and models had major significance in 
the field, let alone an impact consistent with being nationally or internationally acclaimed as 
ex traordinary. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
the AAO acknowledges that the petitioner has coauthored scholarly articles with his superiors at 
UNLY (such as Dr. Chen). The Department of Labor's (OOH), 2010-11 Edition (accessed at 
www.bls.gov/oco on September 1, 2011 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), 
provides information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher (professor) and the 
requirements for such a position. See http://www.bls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos066.pdf. 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 reveals that original published research, whether arising from research at a 
university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in that researcher's 
field. 
Moreover, the petitioner's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the petitioner's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted evidence of less than a 
dozen cites to his body of work as of the petition's filing date. This minimal level of citation is 
not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's articles have attracted a level of interest in his 
field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
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 postdoctoral 
researcher, relies on Best Paper awards that are not commensurate with nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field, professional memberships 
Page 23 
which have not been shown to require outstanding achievements, his participation in the 
~eer review process, less than ten journal articles published with his superior. 
__ at the time of filing, conference presentations with _ citation evidence 
indicating that the petitioner's work has been only minimally cited, his temporary training roles 
as a graduate student and a postdoctoral researcher, and the praise of his references. 
The AAO notes that the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive. For example, 
states: 
in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the 
I am also Co-Director of the Center for Energy Research 
at y, I am President of the Chinese in America Thermal 
Engineering Association (CATEA). I am the technical reviewer for 16 journals, chair, 
co-chair and technical reviewer for over 20 international conferences. . .. My research 
experiences include being PI [Principal Investigator 1 and Co-PIon different projects. 
The research funding amounted to more than $8.85M from Department of Energy (DOE), 
Department of Defense (DOD), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National 
Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Sandia National 
Laboratories (SNL), Clark County of the state of Nevada, and private sectors. . .. In my 
professional career, I am the author or co-author of nearly 350 technical journal and 
conference papers and 100 technical presentations in different fields .... 
is a Professor of Strength of Materials and Materials Science at the 
According to his resume, 
serves on ical Mesomechanics and has 
authored more than 300 papers, 4 book chapters, and 2 books. 
_states: 
I have published over 100 technical papers in various archival journals and conference 
proceedings and have authored two books covering a wide range of thermal science fields 
including thermodynamics, single and two-phase flows, and phase-change heat transfer 
mechanisms. I am also a member of a number of technical committees on Nuclear 
Reactor Engineering, Technology and Safety, and currently am serving as the Chair of 
the Technical Programmes at the Executive Committee of the Nuclear Engineering 
Division of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers .... 
_states that he has "published about 60 papers in journals, conferences and reports." 
According to his curriculum vitae, _ has served on the editorial boards of Open 
Corrosion Journal and Protocells. 
-Page 24 
Professor and Chair of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the 
According to his resume, he has authored 42 publications and 17 
conference presentations. 
_states: 
Further, according to his resume, _ has served in an editorial capacity for numerous 
journals. For example, of International Journal on Architectural 
Science and International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes. 
_states: 
I am currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering at. 
I have authored/coauthored over 100 research publications, and 
have been invited to give more than 10 talks worldwide. I am an active ASME member 
and technical reviewer for over 20 peer-reviewed journals. 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is far above 
the level he has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the 
time of filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as an engineering 
researcher, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner 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' 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
Page 25 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 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, 
a/rd, 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 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 V.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.