dismissed EB-1A Case: Sensor Technology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: WAC 03 082 52096 Office: CALIFORNLA SERVICE CENTER Date: FE 1 4 2005 
IN RE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 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 
cided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
I 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director Y' Admmistrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 082 52096 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Californ~ia Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director did not give sufficient weight to the expert opinions submitted and 
that Citizenship and Immigration Services "has absolutely NO RIGHT to substitute its opinion for that of a high 
ranking Agency official who is writing an ADVISORY OPINION." Counsel concludes that the director's 
decision is "abysmal." 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation ai: 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that she has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, according to Part 6 of the Form 1-140, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a "research assistantfgraduate student." We note that an "assistant" or "student" bears a 
heavy burden of demonstrating that she is one of the very few at the top of her field including in comparison 
with the most experienced members of the field. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award). Barring 
the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied 
n alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
oner has submitted evidence that, she claims, meets the following criteria.' 
ocumentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or crwards for 
8 
cellence in theJield of endeavor. 
Cou sel does not challenge the director's determination that graduate assistantships cannot serve to meet this 
crit ion. 
t 
ublished nzaterials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major nzedia, 
r lating to the alien 's work in the field for which class $cation is sought. Such evidence shall ii7clude the 
t tle, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
1 
sel does not contest the director's determination that the petitioner has not established that she meets this 
vidence of the alien 'sparticipation, either individually or on apanel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
me or an alliedfield of specijcation for which classzfication is sought. 
sel does not contest the director's conclusion that peer review is routine in the field; thus, not every peer 
enjoys sustained national or international acclaim. 
idence of the alien's original scient$c, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
ajor sign$cance in theJield. 
the petitioner submitted three reference letters, although counsel's cover letter (relating to a different 
references additional letters. In response to the director's request for additional information, the 
a second letter from one of the first references and letters from two new references. On 
submits all the letters referenced in counsel's initial cover letter. Thus, the record now 
claimed to have been submitted. 
concluded that most of the witnesses attesting to the petitioner's contributions had worked with her 
that "eligibility cannot rest wholly or primarily on subjective witness statements from close 
maintain that the petitioner is nationally or internationally known in his or her field." On 
notes that the petitioner also submitted her publication and presentation history and job offers at 
Institute of Technology and the University of California (UC), Berkeley. Counsel further 
submitted "several letters from [National Science Foundation (NSF)] Administrators 
petitioner] is one of the top people in her field, and that she has contributed 
peers towards her field." Finally, counsel asserts that the petitioner is listed as a 
a professor at UC Irvine, asserts that she knows the petitioner professionally and classifies her 
researcher who has successfully worked on projects "founded by NSF" and "founcled by US 
petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
WAC 03 082 52096 
Page 4 
Air Force." First, 
w 
explains that monitoring technology is vital to securing the integrity of structural 
systems including UI ings, bridges and utility facilities. She further asserts that conventional monitoring 
systems are not used in large numbers because they are large, expensive, require high power and require 
1 transmission and power supply, making them susceptible to lightening strikes. 
e petitioner developed a cheaper, wireless PVDF sensor for structural monitoring that 
r overcoming the difficulties associated with conventional sensors." Later in 
VDF sensor is the first in the world and can monitor a full-scale skyscraper. 
per that has been successfully monitored by PVDF or an agency that has 2 
licensed the sensor technology. 
~econdsserts that the petitioner is a "key developer" for the Adaptive Real-Time Geoscience and 
Environmental Data Anal Modeling and Visualization, a new technology to protect the environment and 
forecast natural disasters.{ hdoes not, however, identify a specific contribution made by the petitioner to 
this project or attest to any success this project has enjoyed.  ath he-sts to the technology's 
complexity and predicts that this area of research "will help our country to set up a real-time, highly reliable, 
economic environmental monitoring and protection system." 
an associate professor at UC Berkeley, asserts that the petitioner is a "key researcher" on a 
project to provide real time assessment of structures after catastrophic events funded by 
NSF. Specifically, the petitioner is working on "key parts of this project to develop robust, low cost, wireless, 
adaptive field sensor networks capable of real time distributed data evaluation and transmission, and 
visualization and adaptive modeling of the observed phenomenon.'sserts that the beneficiary's past 
projects for the U.S. Air Force "are well recognized and considered significant," but does not explain their 
impact on the field. 
- professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, discusses the petitioner's work in his 
research center. explains that the petitioner's work with PVDF, "founded b NSF," resulted in 
infrared energy and, thus, measure stress and strain. sserts that the 
beneficiary "precisely measured the hybrid frequency response of a charge-mode curvature sensor in the range 
0.1-45 (Hz) using a random vibration method in conjunction with a precision displacement stage." - 
concludes that the petitioner was the first in the world to use PVDF successfully and accurately in low 
fre uency applications and that her innovations are considered standard in the field. Once again, however, Dr. 
mb ovides no examples of government agencies, universities, or private institutions applying the 
petitioner's sensors beyond funding the initial research. 
n associate professor at Lehigh Uni\,ersit),. provides similar infomiation.- 
explains that the goal of the Adaptive Real-Time Geoscience and Environmental Data Analysis, Mocleling and - 
Visualization project is to develop "Smart Dust" capable of sensing and responding to changes in temperature, 
humidity, sound, light, electromagnetic waves, displacement and acceleration. The applications for "Smart 
Dust" include monitoring for upstart forest fires and monitoring enemy activities in war. 
a professor at the University of Pavia in Italy, discusses the importance of sensor technology 
and asserts that the petitioner "has successfully developed a structural monitoring system based on PVDF - - 
material that allows, for example, the structuralintegritp of a high-rise building or bridge to be tested after a 
potentially weakening event." 
WAC 03 082 52096 
Page 5 
a senior research scientist at the Institute of Construction Materials, University of 
Stuttgart, Germany, provides general praise of the petitioner's credentials and responsibilities at UC Berkeley. 
In his initial lett~irector of the Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems in the Directorate 
for Engineering at the National Science Foundation (NSF), asserts that he first met the petitioner while she was 
a student at Tongji University and currently interacts with her during his frequent visits to UC ~erkele,- 
describes the petitioner's research on two projects "founded" by NSF and a U.S. Air Force pr0jec.t as "truly 
outstanding." ~~ecificall~asserts that the petitioner "successfully measured and modeled the low 
frequency response and the hybrid characteristic of the PVDF materials and then developed a very promising 
PVDF sensor, which could meet the needs for the civil structure monitoring in an unusually effective way - the 
first of this lund in the professional domain." Regarding the petitioner's work on Adaptive Ileal-Time 
Geosciences and Environmental Data Analysis, Modeling and ~isualizationsserts that the petitioner 
worked with piezo-material sensors, ultrasonic sensors, and non-destructive testing of structures and materials. 
concludes that this work "has been well known and highly raised and valued by her colleagues, 
professional.and usen.'es not provide any examples of "users." 
ho recruited the petitioner to the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, asserted that she 
designed an optical sensing system using micromechanical machines (MEMs) for wavefront sensing under a 
grant from the U.S. Air Force.psserts that this system could be used for monitoring arid finding 
hidden targets.loes not assert that the University of Massachusetts or the U.S. Air Force patented 
this system or that the military has begun experimenting with this system. The record does not include letters 
from the U.S. Air Force explaining the significance of this project. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, including advisory opinions, the petitioner - - 
submined a second letter fro~ernphatically asserts that-his initial letter constitutes such an 
opinion. ontinues: 
The fact that I am talung time to write a SECOND Advisory Opinion when your examiner 
couldn't take the time to read the first letter is a strong indication that [the petitioner] is 
INCREDIBLY VALUABLE TO NSF PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE NATIONAL 
INTEREST, and THAT WE FULLY EXPECT THAT THE PROSPECTIVE BENEFIT OF 
ISSUING THIS WAIVER TO HER WILL RESULT IN RESEARCH THAT WILL BENEFIT 
THE NATIONAL INTEREST. 
[The petitioner] is worlung on a project that is funded by NSF. As I stated in my previo~~s 
letter, she is UNIQUELY QUALIFIED TO DO THIS WORK, and her results so far have been 
spectacular. 
(Emphasis in orignal.) This letter does not add any examples of specific contributions or explain how they have 
influenced the field beyond being orignal. 
]rector of the Mechanics and Materials Program, Englneenng D~rectorate, NSF, asserts that 
comb~ned education allows her to successfully complete her researc-urther 
asserts that the petitioner's PVDF sensor is "one of the best systems In the world for monltonng the full scale 
structure's health and safety."-oncludes that the petlt~oner's current work on a project "founded" by 
WAC 03 082 52096 
Page 6 
NSF involves developing real-time, integrated database management and field data acquisition tools (luring and 
following major catastrophic events." 
Project Manager, Resilient Systems and Operations at the National Aeronautics imd Space 
Agencv (NASA) Ames Research Center, provides iimilar information, concluding that the federally "founded" - -. 
research projects on which the petitioner has worked "are self-evidently in the national interest of the United 
States.,' does not assert that NASA as an agency has expressed any interest in utilizing the . . 
petitioner's sensors. 
The oetitioner also submitted an article in the University of Illinois at Chicago's College of Engineering - - - 
Magazine discussing the work of Profess the petitioner's PVDF collaborator. The article. 
published in the Fall of 2001, asserts magnetic sensor was to be installed in the - 
Kiswaukee Bridge in Northwest Illinois. The article does not mention the petitioner by name. According to one 
of the articles authored by the petitioner, PVDF is the abbreviation for Polyvinylidene fluoride. The abstract for 
that article references PVDF film, but no mention is made of magnets or magnetism. It can be expected that if 
the petitioner's sensor were actually in use one of the petitioner's references would have identified the structure 
monitored. It remains, the petitioner ha's not established that her PVDF work relates to the magnetic sensors 
installed on the KiSwaukee Bridge. 
Finally, the petitioner's references claim that she has developed a first-of-its-kind wireless sensor system that 
outperforms all other sensor systems, yet they provide no examples of its use. It can be expected that an 
individual who had developed a groundbreaking sensor system would be able to produce a patent application for 
the system, evidence that manufacturers are expressing interest in licensing and marketing the system, and 
evidence that customers are expressing interest in utilizing the system. The petitioner has not submitted such 
evidence. The petitioner's references claim that she is among the key personnel on various research projects, 
ner submitted a grant 
as the authors of the 
I or at all ard none of 
her articles are cited as references for the proposal. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an article about a California team, also funded by NSF, devising a wireless 
sensor using quartz crystals. This article merely serves to establish that other groups are also working towards 
developing wireless sensors. 
While letters from high-ranking experts in the field are useful in evaluating a petitioner's claimed contributions 
to the field, the content of the letter must be evaluated. In evaluating the content of reference letters, Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (CIS) considers letters that identify specific contributions and explain flow those 
contributions have already influenced the field more persuasive than letters that simply discuss the irnportance 
of the project, provide general praise of the petitioner's skills and rank the petitioner in relation to others in the 
field. 
The above letters do not explain how the field has already been influenced by the petitioner. While we do not 
question the credibility of the references, the claims they make would obviously be more persuasive if supported 
by objective evidence. While counsel is correct that the petitioner submitted evidence of her publication record, 
publication alone is not evidence of the petitioner's influence in the field. More persuasive would be evidence 
that those articles have been widely cited does state that the petitioner is "highly cited..' Evidence 
WAC 03 082 52096 
Page "7 
of citation, however. is easy to produce either through a published citation index or electronic citation database. 
The petitioner has not provided evidence that any of her articles have been cited. 
Finally, we do not find the job offers to be persuasive evidence to meet this criterion. Not every researcher who 
receives a job offer from a prestigious institution can be presumed to have made a contribution of major 
significance to the field. A job offer, regardless of the entity offering the job. is not indicative of national or 
international acclaim. 
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 commu:nity. Any 
Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must 
offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who 
obtains a Ph.D. or is working with a government grant has made a contribution of major significance. The 
record does not establish that the petitioner's work represented a groundbreaking advance in her field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or rncrjor trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that, as of the date of filing, she had authored 22 published articles' and has 
presented her work at various conferences. The Association of American Universities' Committee on 
Postdoctoral Education, on page 5 of its Report and Recomnzendations, March 31, 1998, set forth its 
recommended definition of a postdoctoral appointment. Among the factors included in this definition are the 
acknowledgement that "the appointment is viewed as preparatory for a full-time academic andlo]- research 
career," and that "the appointee has the freedom, and is expected, to publish the results of his or her r1:search or 
scholarship during the period of the appointment." Thus, this national organization considers publication of 
one's work to be "expected," even among researchers who have not yet begun "a full-time academic and/or 
research career." This report reinforces CIS'S position that publication of scholarly articles is not automatically 
evidence of sustained acclaim; we must consider the research community's reaction to those articles. 
Counsel acknowledges that the mere publication of articles may not be sufficient to meet this criterion, but urges 
that the petitioner's witness letters and job offers be considered supporting evidence to meet this criterion. The 
most objective evidence of an article's significance, however, is whether it has been widely cited. The record 
contains no evidence that independent experts have cited the petitioner's work. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role .for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The director concluded that while UC Berkeley may have a distinguished reputation, not every researcher who 
plays an important role in a distinguished university's lays a leading or critical role for the 
University as a whole. On appeal, counsel contends that ssertions that the petitioner is uniquely 
qualified to do this work and that her results have been sufficient to establish the petitioner's 
leading or critical role in her projects. 
One of the articles submitted initially had not yet been published. 
WAC 03 082 52096 
Page 8 
We have already considered the petitioner's alleged contributions above. The relevant considerations for this 
criterion are, according to the plain language of 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(ix), whether the employer enjoys a 
distinguished reputation nationally and whether the role the petitioner was hired to fill is a leading or critical 
one. We concur with the director that not every researcher working at a university with a distinguished 
reputation plays a leading or critical role for the university as a whole. Thus, the petitioner's employment as a 
researcher cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrat~e that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as a research 
assistant to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to 
be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence indicates that the petitioner shows 
talent as a research assistant, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above 
almost all others in her field. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 3 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.