dismissed EB-1A Case: Semiconductor Physics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.; Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 8EC 2 J 2805 
IN RE: 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. 5 1153(b)(l)(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 that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. - I 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established that the 
beneficiary had achieved the sustained national or international acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. On appeal, counsel submits additional evidence and a letter from the petitioner, which 
contends that the director misstated and misapplied the statutory standard under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The petitioner's claims and the additional evidence submitted on appeal do not overcome the deficiencies of the 
petition and the appeal will be dismissed. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the record shows that the petitioner employs the beneficiary as a principal scientist to conduct 
research on semiconductor lasers. On appeal, the petitioner describes the beneficiary's field as "physics of 
semiconductor lasers diodes and, specifically, molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) growth of 111-V and 11-VI 
semiconductor compounds, the design, and fabrication of GaAsIAIGaAs and ZnSeIZnCdSe semiconductor 
Page 3 
lasers, photolithography, thin film deposition and metallization processing for high power semiconductor laser 
diode applications." We address the evidence submitted and the petitioner's contentions in the following 
discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to this case. The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary is 
eligible under any criteria not discussed below. 
(9 Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in thejeld of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims the beneficiary meets this criterion by virtue of 1) his receipt of the "Talented Young 
Scientists of Russia" award in 2000, 2) his invited participation in the Japanese Society for the Promotion of 
Science (JSPS) research program in 1999, and 3) his receipt of three research grants from the Russian 
Foundation for Basic Research. The record does not establish that these accomplishments are nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards in the petitioner's field. 
As evidence of the beneficiary's receipt of the Russian award, the petitioner submitted two "extractions" from 
the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences on April 11, 2000. These documents are printed in English 
as partial translations, but the petitioner has not submitted a copy of the original document in Russian nor a 
certification regarding the accuracy of the submitted translation. Supporting documents must be submitted in 
the original or a legible photocopy. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(4). Any documents containing a foreign language must 
be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and 
accurate, and by the translator's attestation of his or her competence to translate from the foreign language into 
English. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(3). Because the petitioner submitted neither the original document in Russian (or 
a photocopy) nor a certified English translation of the Russian original, we cannot ascertain whether the 
submitted documents support the beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion. 
We note, however, that the director determined that the documents submitted indicated that the petitioner's 
award was a "fellowship" and stated, "Scholarships and fellowships are academic awards and are not considered 
to be nationally or internationally recognized prizes that are indicative of sustained national or international 
acclaim in a specific field of endeavor." On appeal, the petitioner contends that the director mischaracterized 
this award as an "academic award" and a "scholarship" and asserts that the beneficiary's award was granted 
after the beneficiary received his doctoral degree and is a "professional award." The record does not support 
this contention. The submitted uncertified translation of the extract from Resolution Number 77 of the Russian 
Academy of Sciences Presidium is captioned "On awarding of state scientific scholarships" and repeatedly 
refers to the talented young scientists of Russia awards as "state scientific scholarships." In addition, the 
submitted documents do not show that the talented young scientists of Russia awards are consistent with 
national acclaim in Russia for scientific excellence among all scientists, regardless of age. 
The record also fails to establish that the beneficiary's selection to conduct collaborative research in Japan 
meets this criterion. The petitioner submitted a letter from JSPS informing the beneficiary of his invitation to 
participate in the "JSPS Invitation Fellowship Program for Research in Japan" for ten months beginning in 
November 1999. The letter indicates that Dr. Takafumi Yao of Tohoku University would be the beneficiary's 
host scientist and the petitioner submitted evidence of Dr. Yao's standing in the field, but the record contains no 
documentation that the beneficiary actually accepted the invitation and participated in the program. On appeal, 
the petitioner submits excerpts from the 2002 JSPS External Review Report which show that long term JSPS 
research fellowships in the physical sciences had an 18.4 percent acceptance rate in fiscal year 1996 and a 29.1 
percent acceptance rate in fiscal year 2000. The report states that the eligibility criteria for these fellowships are 
possession of a doctoral degree for six or more years and being a professor, research associate or other 
individual who does not have a doctoral degree, but has substantial professional experience. While this 
evidence indicates that the JSPS long-term fellowships are competitive, the record does not establish that the 
fellowships are nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence in the beneficiary's field, 
rather than a source of funding for collaborative research. 
The record similarly fails to show that the beneficiary's purported research grants from the Russian Foundation 
for Basic Research (RFBR) meet this criterion. First, the record fails to document the beneficiary's alleged 
grants. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary received three grants from the RFBR between 1995 
and 1998. The petitioner's curriculum vitae also states that he received three RFBR grants, but the record 
contains no corroborative evidence of any of these relevant document submitted is 
entitled "Abstract of final report" for RFBR Grant Numbe The document does not identi@ the 
petitioner as an investigator for this grant. The is is the abstract of final [sic] report 
in the manner how it was sent out to RFBR." The one-page English document is attached to a six-page 
document in Russian. Because the petitioner submitted an incomplete and uncertified English translation of the 
original document in Russian, we cannot ascertain whether the submitted documents support the beneficiary's 
eligibility under this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(4). 
Second, even if fully documented, the petitioner's alleged RFBR grants would not meet this criterion. Although 
they may be highly competitive and prestigious, research grants are not prizes or awards for excellence in a 
given field. Grants support promising research; they do not recognize past achievements except to the limited 
extent that prior studies may support the viability of the proposed project. The submitted report, "Russian Basic 
Science: Changes Since the Collapse of the Soviet Union and the Impact of International Support," explains 
that the RFBR was established in the early nineties, fostered competition and peer review as opposed to the 
"base funding ideology" traditional in Russian science, and had a very small budget compared to other Russian 
government expenditures on civilian research. While this evidence indicates that RFBR funds were highly 
competitive and granted on the basis of peer review, the report does not establish that RFBR grants are 
nationally recognized prizes or awards. 
On appeal, the petitioner requests that the beneficiary's alleged JSPS fellowship and his purported RFBR grants 
be considered as comparable evidence of his eligibility under this criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4). 
As discussed above, the record does not document the beneficiary's acceptance of the JSPS fellowship 
invitation or his receipt of RFBR grants. Even if fully documented, however, these accomplishments would not I' warrant invocation of the comparable evidence provision. CIS will consider comparable evidence of an alien's 
eligibility only when the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. fj 204.5(h)(3) "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation." Neither the petitioner nor counsel has explained or documented why the ten criteria do not readily 
apply to the beneficiary's occupation such that consideration of comparable evidence is warranted. 
The petitioner has not properly documented the beneficiary's receipt of the Talented Young Scientist of Russia 
award, his JSPS fellowship and his alleged RFBR grants. Even if fully documented, however, the relevant 
evidence submitted does not establish that these accomplishments are nationally or internationally recognized 
awards or prizes for scientific excellence in the beneficiary's field. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet 
this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien S work in theJield for which classzjication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessav translation. 
The petitioner did not initially claim that the beneficiary met this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner claims that 
the beneficiary satisfies this criterion by virtue of one published article regarding work on which the petitioner 
collaborated and citations to the petitioner's co-authored articles. The record does not support this claim. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a section entitled "Newsbreaks" from the July 1995 edition of Laser Focus 
World. This section contains a two-paragraph description of "a room-temperature electron-beam-pumped 
vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL)," as reported in a paper presented at a scientific conference. 
This short description attributes the work to "Russian Nobel Laureates, N.G. Basov and A.M. Prokhorov." The 
beneficiary is not named. The petitioner claims that this document is published material about the beneficiary 
because on a list of the beneficiary's presentations, he is included as one of nine co-authors of the referenced 
conference paper. The record contains no copy of the conference paper or other independent verification that 
the beneficiary was a co-author of the presented manuscript. The petitioner also failed to submit any evidence 
to support its claim that Laser Focus World is "a major trade publication for the photonics and optoelectronics 
industry." Simply going on record without supporting documentaq evidence is not sufficient to meet the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofjci, 22 I&N Dec. I 58, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Cornm. 1972)). Even if properly documented, however, 
the brief mention of research in which the petitioner was involved over eight years before this petition was filed 
does not demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim. The submitted excerpt from Laser Focus World thus does 
not satisfy this criterion. 
The citations to the petitioner's co-authored articles also fail to meet this criterion. Citations of an alien's work 
by other scientists in their scholarly publications rarely meet this criterion because the citing articles are 
primarily about the authors' own research, not the work of the alien. On appeal, the petitioner submitted 
printouts from the ISI Web of Science showing that nine published articles of which he is a co-author have been 
cited a combined total of 36 times. The printouts do not list the citing articles or provide any evidence that the 
citations to the petitioner's work were made in the course of substantiial discussion of his work, as opposed to 
brief citations to review prior work in the field or establish a subsidiary point. Accordingly, the beneficiary does 
not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major significance in theJie1d. 
The petitioner initially claimed that the beneficiary met this criterion because in 1994 he was part of "the first 
Russian laboratory to succeed in the laser generation of ZnCdSeIZnSe quantum well system at room 
temperature with optical excitation" and because in 1995 the beneficiary "joined Nobel Prize winners A.M. 
Prokhorov and N.G. Basov in presenting their research of the devellopment and characterization of vertical 
cavity surface emitting lasers with electronic beam excitation." As evidence of the beneficiary's contributions, 
the petitioner cited the five recommendation letters submitted with the petition. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits an additional three letters of support. While such letters provide relevant information about an alien's 
experience and accomplishments, they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion 
because they do not demonstrate that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited 
number of individuals with whom he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters 
Page 6 
solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent 
evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim. Accordingly, we review the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's 
contributions. 
Abdelhak Bensaoula, Research Professor of Physics at the Texas Center for Superconductivity and Advanced 
Materials at the University of Houston, states that he is familiar with the beneficiary's achievements through his 
publications. Professor Bensaoula affirms that in 1994 the beneficiary was part of the first research team within 
the former Soviet Union to develop and demonstrate "room temperature laser generation based on epitaxial 
ZnCdSeIZnSe quantum well system." Professor Bensaoula explains that the beneficiary's main 
accomplishments concern "the development and characterization of vertical cavity surface emitting lasers with 
electron beam excitation or, in other words, 'laser cathode ray tube' (LCRT)." Professor Bensaoula confirms 
that the beneficiary worked closely and published articles with the two (now deceased) Nobel Prize winners, 
A.M. Prokhorov and N.G. Basov, and that the results obtained by the beneficiary "still hold the highest laser 
optical power record for IT-IV materials for a laser in a vertical geometry." 
The record only partially corroborates Professor Bensaoula's statements. The list of the beneficiary's articles 
and presentations submitted on appeal includes five articles and four presentations that the beneficiary co- 
authored with A.M. Prokhorov and N.G. Basov. Yet the record contains evidence of only two of these 
manuscripts. The citation lists submitted on appeal verify that an article co-authored by A.M. Prokhorov, N.G. 
Basov, the beneficiary and six other individuals was published in 1995 in Kvantovaya Elektronika and has been 
cited four times and that another article by the same authors was published in 1996 in Laser Physics and has 
been cited 13 times. The submitted citation lists do not include the citing articles, hence, we cannot determine 
the dates of the citations or whether any of the citations to these two articles include self-citations by the 
beneficiary. Without this information, it is not possible to conclude that the citations evidence sustained 
acclaim. 
Richard R. Craig, Chief Executive Officer of Santur Corporation, which develops and sells tunable laser sources 
and other components for advanced optical networking systems, states that he is also aware of the beneficiary's 
work through his publications and presentations at scientific conferences. Mr. Craig states that the beneficiary's 
"research in the field of zinc selenide (ZnSe) based high power vertical emitting lasers using Molecular Beam 
Epitaxy has advanced the science in this field." The citation lists submitted on appeal show that the petitioner 
co-authored four articles that appear to relate to this research that were published in scientific journals between 
1995 and 2001 and that have been cited a combined total of 19 times. The record does not indicate the dates of 
the citations or what number of the citations, if any, are self-citations by the beneficiary. Mr. Craig also notes 
that the beneficiary's work for the petitioner "is vital to the development of high power and high reliability 
diode sources for telecommunications optical amplifiers used throughout the communications industry," but Mr. 
Craig does not discuss any of the beneficiary's work for the petitioner that has already made a major 
contribution to his field. 
William F. Krupke, former Deputy Associate Director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, states 
that he is a member of the petitioner's Board of Directors. Mr. Krupke reports that the beneficiary "has 
affiliated with [sic] research teams of the first rank" and notes his publication of several papers with the Nobel 
Prize winners, A.M. Prokhorov and N.G. Basov. Mr. Krupke opines that "[oln the basis of his published 
semiconductor laser research I certainly place [the beneficiary] at the top of his field." Mr. Krupke describes the 
Page 7 
beneficiary as "a very talented scientist who is making major contributions in the implementation of new 
approaches and new materials for the fabrication of high power lasers in the 970 nrn spectral range." 
Sergey Mirov, Professor of Physics and Associate Director of the Laser and Photonics Research Center at the 
University of Alabama at Birmingham, states that he has known the beneficiary for nearly 13 years. Professor 
Mirov also affirms the beneficiary's participation in the team that "first succeeded in high power surface 
emitting laser (VCSEL) fabrication and operation at room temperature, edging out major competitors" from 
other countries. Professor Mirov further states that the beneficiary was "the first researcher who suggested and 
applied the atomic hydrogen cleaning approach to ZnSe substrates for homoepitaxial growth and this approach 
is effectively used by other researchers all over the world." Yet the record contains no evidence to corroborate 
that other researchers use the beneficiary's approach. Professor Mirov also explains that "[alfter perfecting his 
state-of-the-art expertise in Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE)[,] [the beneficiary] proposed and was also the first 
researcher to realize high reflective monocrystalline distributed Bragg reflectors integrated with transparent 
ZnSe wafers." A citation list submitted on appeal documents that the beneficiary is the lead author of an article 
on this topic that was published in 2001 in the Journal of Crystal Growth and has been cited four times, but the 
record does not establish that this article made a major contribution to the field. 
John A. Taylor, a staff member of the MIT Lincoln Laboratory, states that the beneficiary has "developed a new 
technique for the passivation of laser diode facets using a nitride compound. . . . He has applied for a US patent 
on this invention." The record contains a copy of an application filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark 
Office on August 21, 2002 entitled "Laser Diode with Nitride Passivation." The application and associated 
documents identie the beneficiary as the first inventor. Yet the record contains no documentation of the 
approval of this application or other evidence that the beneficiary's work has made an original contribution of 
major significance to his field. Even if the beneficiary's work had been patented, that fact alone would be 
insufficient to meet this criterion. To establish eligibility under this category by virtue of patents, a petitioner 
must not only show that the beneficiary's work has been granted a patent, but that the patented invention 
constitutes a scientific contribution of major significance to his field. Accordingly, the significance of a 
patented invention is determined on a case-by-case basis. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 
I&N Dec. 215,221 n.7 (Comm. 1998). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits letters from Stewart Wilson, Jason Farmer and Helmut Wenisch that discuss 
the beneficiary's work in this area. However, the letters predominately discuss the beneficiary's work that was 
presented to his field in 2004 and 2005. Consequently, we cannot consider these letters because they are 
primarily based on evidence that arose after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish the 
beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 
(Comm. 197 1). Similarly, the submitted copy of a manuscript co-authored by the beneficiary ("High-Efficiency 
970 nm Multimode Pumps") cannot be considered because the record indicates that it was presented to the field 
after the petition was filed. Id. 
We further note that the record contains two letters attributed to Mr. Farmer. The first letter is unsigned and 
captioned, "[TO BE PREPARED ON ORGANIZATION STATIONERY] [DATE]." (emphasis in original). 
The second letter is dated February 14, 2005, is signed by Mr. Farmer as Vice President of Advanced 
Technology for the nLight Corporation and is printed on letterhead stationery for the nLight Corporation. The 
text, language and tenor of this letter differs significantly from the first unsigned letter. The first letter thus 
appears to be written by someone other than Mr. Farmer. 
The record contains several documents which provide general information on VCSEL, the laser cathode ray 
tube developed by Principia Light Works, and MBE, but none of these documents mention the beneficiary. On 
appeal, the petitioner submits evidence that two manuscripts co-authored by the beneficiary were presented by 
invitation at two conferences in his field, but we cannot consider this evidence because it arose after the petition 
was filed. The petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
On appeal, the petitioner also repeatedly stresses the purported significance of the beneficiary's work with the 
Nobel Prize winners, A.M. Prokhorov and N.G. Basov. The petitioner contends, "To have workerl with mtady 
original). We do not dispute the honor and prestige of the beneficiary's work experience with Mr. Prokhorov 
and Mr. Basov. However, past collaboration with Nobel laureates alone does not establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility under this criterion for two reasons. First, the record does not show that the beneficiary was involved 
in the Nobel Prize-winning work of Mr. Prokhorov and Mr. Basov, such that their acclaim could indirectly be 
attributed, in part, to the beneficiary himself. The evidence submitted also does not establish that the 
beneficiary's collaboration with these Nobel laureates made original contributions of major significance to the 
field in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. Although many of the 
recommendation letters praise the beneficiary's collaborative work with the Nobel laureates, the record only 
documents that two of their co-authored publications have been cited a combined total of 17 times. 
Second, although the beneficiary's "List of publications" includes five published articles and four presentations 
that he purportedly co-authored with Mr. Prokhorov and Mr. Basov, the record only documents two of the 
published articles through the citation lists submitted on appeal. Without corroborative documentation, the 
beneficiary's self-produced list does not establish his authorship of these publications and presentations. Simply 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The petitioner did not submit, for example, copies of the 
beneficiary's publications or a complete list of his published articles from an independent source. 
In review, the recommendation letters praise the beneficiary's work and discuss its importance to his field. Yet 
the record does not hlly document the beneficiary's accomplishments or corroborate the significance of the 
beneficiary's work as assessed in the recommendation letters. Apart from the letters, the record documents the 
publication and citation of eight articles co-authored by the petitioner between 1994 and 2000. The cited 
reference index submitted on appeal lists a ninth article, which we cannot consider because it was published in 
2004, a year after the petition was filed. We are also unable to consider additional documentation of the 
beneficiary's recent work that was submitted on appeal because this evidence arose after the petition was filed. 
Again, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Neither the short article from Laser Focus World discussed 
above under the third criterion nor the informational documents regarding subjects on which the petitioner has 
worked mention the beneficiary or demonstrate that his work has made major contributions to his field. 
Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(vij Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Duties or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(h)(3) do not 
demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the occupation itself. As frequent 
publication of research findings is inherent to success as an established research scientist, publications alone do 
not necessarily indicate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent research 
teams or other proof that the alien's publications have had a significant impact in his or her field. 
In this case, the record contains two lists of the beneficiary's publications and presentations. As discussed 
above under the fifth criterion, the beneficiary's self-produced lists do not establish his authorship of published 
scholarly articles without corroborative documentation. Simply going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165. The petitioner did not submit, for example, copies of the beneficiary's publications or a complete list of his 
published articles from an independent source. The record also contains no documentation of the editorial 
process of the journals that have published the beneficiary's work or other evidence regarding the standing of 
these journals in the beneficiary's field. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that the beneficiary is the principal author of eight published articles and four 
presentations, as stated on the revised publications list submitted on appeal. However, the record contains 
corroborative evidence of just one published article of which the beneficiary is the lead author (as documented 
by the citation record submitted on appeal for the beneficiary's article published in 2001 in the Journal of 
Crystal Growth). The petitioner contends that the order in which authors are listed does not reflect the nature of 
the authors' contributions to the published work because the authors may be listed alphabetically or reflect the 
seniority of the scientists at a particular institution. Yet, the petitioner submitted no evidence to establish that 
these manners of listing authors are standard or common practices in the United States or Russia. Again, simply 
going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. We do not deny that a listed author, regardless of his or her place in 
the list, has contributed to the published research. However, repeated lead authorship may reflect sustained 
acclaim, whereas co-authorship may only reflect continuous work in the alien's field. 
The citation lists submitted on appeal document eight articles co-authored by the beneficiary that were published 
prior to filing. The. petitioner is the first author of one of these articles. The eight articles have been cited a 
combined total of 35 times. The record does not contain lists of the citing articles from which we could 
determine the dates of the citing articles and whether or not the citations include self-citations by the 
beneficiary. Without this information, we cannot conclude that the citations of the beneficiary's work 
demonstrate the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner did not initially claim that the beneficiary met this criterion, but on appeal claims that the 
beneficiary performs a critical role for the petitioner. The record does not support this claim. As evidence of 
the petitioner's reputation and the beneficiary's accomplishments while employed by the petitioner, the 
petitioner cites documents submitted on appeal that were published or arose after the petition was filed. We 
cannot consider this evidence because the beneficiary's eligibility must be established at the time of filing; a 
petition cannot be approved at a hture date after the beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Consequently, the beneficiary does not meet this 
criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzjicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner did not initially claim that the beneficiary met this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner claims the 
beneficiary satisfies this criterion because he "receives annual [sic] salary of $120,000 and has stock options 
with a potential worth up to $635,000 or more when exercised." The record contains no documentation of the 
beneficiary's salary or stock options. Again, simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The record thus 
does not establish that the beneficiary's income or remuneration at the time of filing was significantly higher 
than that of other individuals in his field or comparable to such individuals at the top of his field. Accordingly, 
the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
Finally, we address the petitioner's contention that the director misstated and misapplied the statutory and 
regulatory standards for petitions filed under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h). In the 
prefatory comments of his decision, the director stated, "The beneficiary's colleagues have submitted 
testimonials indicating that they hold him in high regard. However, the beneficiary's accomplishments appear 
to pale in comparison with the accomp~ishments of the colleagues who have made these attestations." The 
petitioner contends that the director thus denied the petition because he "did not believe the Beneficiary is thg 
scientist . . . ." (emphasis in original). We do not read the director's comments as applying an inappropriate 
standard. The director did not state that the beneficiary's petition was denied because he is not the best scientist 
in his field or because his accomplishments were not comparable to those of the authors of his recommendation 
letters. Rather, the director discussed the relevant evidence under each of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3) and concluded that the record did not establish that the beneficiary was an alien of 
extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
We acknowledge that in his discussion of the recommendation letters as evidence of the beneficiary's eligibility 
under the fifth criterion, the director stated that the majority of the letters were written by individuals who had 
worked with the beneficiary and that while notable, such letters do not establish that an alien's work has 
received recognition beyond his circle of colleagues and in a manner consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. As we noted in our discussion of the letters under the fifth criterion, scientists with no 
stated association with the petitioner wrote three of the five letters submitted with the petition. A member of the 
petitioner's Board of Directors wrote the fourth letter and the fifth letter was written by an individual who states 
that he has known the beneficiary for 13 years. We cannot consider the three additional letters submitted on 
appeal because they predominately discuss work of the beneficiary that was disseminated to his field after the 
petition was filed. The beneficiary's eligibility must be established at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 3 
103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. We have noted the associations of the letters' authors with the 
beneficiary and have assessed their evaluations of the beneficiary's work in conjunction with other evidence of 
the beneficiary's accomplishments in the record. We have also explained that, even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition carry less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one would expect of an alien who has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in 
this case indicates that the beneficiary is an accomplished scientist, but the record does not establish that, at the 
time of filing, the beneficiary had achieved sustained national or international acclaim placing him at the very 
top of his field. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A), and his 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. 3 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.