dismissed EB-1A Case: Software Engineering / Wireless Communication

(b)(6)
DATE: JAN 2 8 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. :Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
2
0 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-preced ent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion 
to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 
days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov /forms 
for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not 
tile a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~:zr~ 
Ron Rosenbergf--
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on April 9, 2013. The petitioner, who is· also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on May 8, 2013. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to part 6 of the petition and counsel's June 12, 2012 letter, initially filed in support of the 
petition, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as an "expert in secure 
wireless communication and a Software Engineer in Test," pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The director determined that the 
petitioner did not establish his sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section § 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 
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)-(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 submits a brief 
and the following documents: (1) an article entitled ' 
about 
~ ~ 
_; (4) a June 6, 2013 letter from 
Computer Engineering Department at (5 an online rintout about Professor 
and his curriculum vitae; (6) a June 6, 2013 letter from 
Engineering at . curriculum vitae. For 
the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) with relevant, probative evidence, and in the final merits determination, 
he has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the field and 
has not demonstrated his sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
Accordingly, the petitioner's appeal must be dismissed. 
I. THE 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-
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
United States 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 101st 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien 's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized award, 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 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 the evidence 
submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 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." Kazarian, 596 F.3d 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 
did not 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) ." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
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 this case, the petitioner has not shown that he meets at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In addition, in the final 
merits determination, the petitioner has not shown that he is one of a small percentage who have risen 
1 
Specifically , the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regula tions at 8 C.P.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
to the very top of the field or that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner can meet the basic eligibility 
requirements by presenting evidence of his receipt a one-time achievement that is a major, 
internationally recognized award. In this case, the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his 
evidence that he is the recipient of a major, internationally recognized award, at a level similar to that 
of the Nobel Prize. As such, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence 
under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In his April 9, 2013 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The 
record includes a certificate showing that the petitioner won the at the 2010 
-
Chair of the symposium, the symposium is one of eleven symposiums at the , and in 2010, it 
received "over 210 submission and 84 were accepted." further provides that the petitioner's 
paper won the , which "honors the top paper in each symposium based on the topic 
of the paper and its potential impact to that research area, timeliness, scientific rigor, novelty and 
originality and quality of presentation." The director concluded that the petitioner has not provided 
evidence showing that "the award is coveted by the best and most distinguished members of the 
discipline." On appeal, counsel has not specifically challenged the director's finding as relating to this 
criterion and the record supports the director's findings. 
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the • constitutes an example of the 
petitioner's receipt of a qualifying prize or award, the petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Specifically, the plain language of the criterion requires evidence of the petitioner's receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, in the plural, for excellence in the field of 
endeavor, consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i); see also section 203(b )(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Even if the petitioner's 
constitutes his receipt of one qualifying prize or award, this single example is insufficient to show his 
receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, in the plural, for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. 
2 
The petitioner does not claim that it has satisfied the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner has 
not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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 classifkation is sought. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In his April 9, 2013 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence 
in the record supports the director's finding. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted evidence of his 
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 has met this criterion. 
See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In his April 9, 2013 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence 
in the record does not support this finding. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. 
Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. Dep 't of 
Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
novo basis). 
The evidence in the record, including the reference letters, shows that while the petitioner has made 
one qualifying contribution, as relating to the "structured coding approach," the evidence is less 
persuasive that his others contributions constitute contributions of major significance in the field. For 
example, as relating to the "structured coding approach," , a Professor of Electrical and 
Computer Engineering at the _ ~' states that the petitioner's 
"'structured coding approach' . 
. . is now widely used to predict transmission rates when legitimate 
network users cooperate to jam the eavesdropper to ensure secure communication." According to 
-· - - - - - - - · the 
petitioner 's methodology "is now widely recognized as a powerful tool in predicting secure 
transmission rate and has been in several follow-up works by other researchers." According to __ _ 
- - - - -
- · · , the 
petitioner's findings relating to using a "structured code approach" have "significantly advanced the 
field at the international level and have been adopted by other researchers over previous long-adhered­
to traditional approaches." Based on the evidence in the record, including evidence not specifically 
referenced here, the petitioner has shown that his work relating to the "structured coding approach" 
constitutes an original scientific contribution of major significance in the field of secure wireless 
communication. 
The petitioner, however, has not shown that he meets this criterion. Specifically, the plain language of 
the criterion requires evidence of qualifying contributions in the plural, consistent with the statutory 
requirement for extensive documentation. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also section 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. While the petitioner's work relating to the "structured coding approach" 
may constitute a single example of a qualifying contribution, the record lacks a second qualifying 
contribution, as required by the plain language of the criterion. 
The record includes a number of reference letters discussing the petitioner's work on the use of an 
"untrusted relay." Although the evidence shows that the petitioner ' s work in this area is original, the 
evidence does not establish that this work constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Specifically, to show the importance of the work, the petitioner and his references note that the 
petitioner has authored a number of articles. The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the 
authorship of published articles. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). If the regulations are to be interpreted 
with any logic, it must be presumed that the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary 
requirement from scholarly articles. In other words, publications are not sufficient evidence under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." Kazarian 
v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)_3 
The petitioner has also presented evidence showing that other authors have cited the petitioner's articles 
relating to the use of an "untrusted relay," and the articles have inspired additional studies and 
research. Online printouts from , which the petitioner initially submitted to support 
the petition, show that his article ' , . . _ 
" had 
garnered a moderate number of citations , a few of which the petitioner authored. In response to the 
director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted an updated printout from 
scholar.google.com, showing additional citations to the petitioner's article. The ~ 
document, however, includes citations that postdate the petitioner's filing of the petition on June 14, 
2012. As such, this document does not establish the petitioner's eligibility, because the petitioner must 
demonstrate eligibility for the visa at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg' l Comm'r 1971). In other words, the petitioner cannot secure a 
priority .date based on the anticipation of future citations at a level consistent with contributions of 
major significance. See also Matter ofWing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l Comm'r 1977); 
Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. 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.") 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). 
The petitioner's other contributions relate to the "outer bound for the Gaussian two-way wiretap 
channel" and "multi-antenna wireless network." Although the evidence shows that the petitioner's 
work in these areas is original, the evidence does not establish that the work constitutes a contribution 
of major significance in the field, such that it fundamentally changed or affected the field as a whole. 
Specifically, the evidence shows that other authors have cited the petitioner's articles on these areas, 
the petitioner's work has had some effect on the research of other scientists, and that his work has 
improved one area in the field. The petitioner, however, has not established that these events are 
3 In 2010 , the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the a lien had 
not demonstrated contributions of major significanc e. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
indicative of major significance in the field as a whole. Rather, they establish that the petitioner's 
work is applicable and contributes to the overall progress in a field that is continually undergoing 
improvement. With regard to the petitioner's level of impact, states that the petitioner's 
work "will have significant impact in showing [] how to protect our national computing and 
communication resources, as well as making our communications more efficient." This prediction of 
the work's future importance signifies that the petitioner's work has not yet had a significant impact in 
the field at a level consistent with a contribution of major significance. 
Based on a review of all the evidence in the record, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence 
showing that he has made original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field of secure wireless communication. The petitioner has 
not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
In his April 9, 2013 decision , the director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence 
in the record supports this finding. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted evidence of his 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Based on the evidence in the record, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at 
least three evidentiary categories. Although the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence regarding 
the participation as a judge criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the 
authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the petitioner meets no other 
criteria. Notwithstanding this finding, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, given that the 
director's sole basis of denial was a final merits determination, the AAO will also conduct a final 
merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner 
has demonstrated: (1) his "level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of [a] small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that he "has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his [] achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
For the reasons discussed below , the petitioner has not made such a showing. Accordingly , the appeal 
must be dismissed. 
The petitioner received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering in August 2010, approximately two years 
before filing the petition. According to his curriculum vitae and other evidence of record, after 
receiving his degree, he began working for - -· as a Software Development 
Engineer in Test (SDET) pursuant to a nonimmigrant visa for a specialty occupation worker (H1-B). 
He was working as an SDET II at the time of filing. According to his May 2011 article in 
_ _ . the petitioner remained a student member of at that time. 
The petitioner has served as a volunteer technical referee and manuscript reviewer at the request of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
conference organizers and journal editors. He has coauthored book chapters, articles and conference 
presentations, one of which the conference organizers recognized with an award for its potential and 
others of which have individually garnered moderate citation as of the date of filing. Commensurate 
with his field of electrical engineering, a practical science, he has produced practical results, some of 
which others are applying at varying levels. For the reasons discussed below, these achievements, 
while consistent with a skilled and successful electrical engineer, are not sufficiently indicative of 
national or international acclaim and do not place him within that small percentage at the top of the 
field. 
With regard to the prizes or awards for excellence criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), as discussed above, the petitioner has not met this criterion. See section 203(b )(1)(A) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Specifically, the 
evidence in the record supports the director's finding that the petitioner did not submit sufficient 
evidence to show that his constituted a lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award of excellence in the fieia of secure wireless communication. In addition, the 
petitioner's achievement of receiving a does not match the achievements of at least 
one of his references. curriculum vitae indicates that he has been awarded five 
Moreover, the award was for the potential impact of the petitioner's paper. The 
petitioner has not established the ultimate impact of this paper. Specifically, at the time of filing his 
petition, this paper had garnered a lower number of citations as compared to some of the petitioner's 
other publications. 
With regard to the participation as a judge criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), although the 
petitioner meets this criterion , he has not shown that this evidence is indicative of national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. The nature of the beneficiary 's judging experience is a relevant 
consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of national or international acclaim. See 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. provides that the petitioner "has been invited to serve four times 
on technical program committees (TPC) for international conferences in 2011 and 2012, judging works 
and assigning reviewers for works submitted to these conferences .... [H]e is one of only 18 
reviewers worldwide to be selected to serve on the TPC for the 
~ _ _ _..., which in an international conference focused on 
physical layer security research." According to , 
a Professor in the Department of 
Electrical and Computer Engineering at the l the petitioner's "invited service as 
a reviewer for multiple technical program committees, journals and international conferences." 
According to 
Engineering at the , the petitioner "has provided his expertise on the technical 
program committees for the 
Communication and Applications The 
Final Programme shows that the pet1t10ner was one of approximately 200 Technical Program 
Committee members, and one of over 600 reviewers. The incomplete 
shows that the petitioner was one of at least 120 Technical 
Program Committee members, and one of at least 500 reviewers. The petitioner has not shown that his 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
participation as one of many technical program committee members and reviewers in conferences is 
indicative of his national or international acclaim in the field of secure wireless communication as a 
whole. 
The record includes email correspondence showing that the petitioner was invited to serve on the 
technical program committees for the 
m 2012, for a workshop on _ _ 
Security in 2011, and for the _ The petitioner has 
not provided sufficient evidence showing how many other scientists were also invited to serve on these 
technical program committees, such that his invitations are indicative of his national or international 
claim. 
According to the petitioner "received the honor of 'Exemplary Reviewer' as the top 3% of 
all reviewers by one of the top journals on communication theory." 
The record shows that the petitioner was one of over 60 exemplary reviewers in 2011. According to 
the January 2012 edition of the , exemplary reviewers are "reviewers 
who have written several high-quality reviews over the course of the year." The selection is not 
indicative of national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter from , individuals 
who hold a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering, "constitute 5.84% of the field," and because he 
"estimate[s] that significantly below half of those professionals with Ph.D. degrees are ever asked to 
serve as a reviewer ," he concludes that "serving as a reviewer is in fact limited to the top 3% 
professionals in the field." provides that "[a ]verage scientists and below rarely if ever are 
invited [to] serve as reviewer even if they hold a Ph.D. and would otherwise be at least theoretically 
qualified." In essence, asserts that anyone who holds a Ph.D. degree in electric 
engineering and who has served as a reviewer has achieved national and international claim. The 
evidence in the record does not support this assertion. The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
reveals that a degree can serve as evidence indicative of exceptional ability, the lesser classification 
that requires a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. It does 
not follow , however, that a degree is also indicative of national or international acclaim, the standard 
for extraordinary ability. Ultimately , the evidence does not show that if someone has a Ph.D. degree in 
electric engineering and has served as a reviewer, then he or she is at the top of the field in secure 
wireless communication. 
further provides that based on his experience as an editor, the petitioner's rate of 
invitations to review manuscripts "is truly extraordinary" and "shows that the [petitioner's] inherent 
national or international acclaim associated with reviewing is well sustained." According to Dr. 
·· the petitioner "stands out not only among the field as a whole, but even among those holding 
Ph.D. degrees and are therefore at least potentially of sufficient caliber to be asked to serve as a 
reviewer for [] international journals. " The petitioner ' s review experience, however, does not match 
that of some of his references. For example, 
has "served in editorial roles for major international journals , 
including service as the Associate Editor of 1 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
~ -
According to an online printout about she was an 
Associate Editor of 
- - -he has served as an Associate Editor for the 
According to an online printout about Dr. 
an 
and a Guest Editor for the ___ _ 
~ --
' The evidence does not indicate that the petitioner has ever ----------" served as an editor. 
With regard to the original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) , as discussed above, the petitioner has not met this criterion. See section 203(b)(1)(A) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Ultimately, the 
content of the letters submitted under this criterion does not demonstrate that the petitioner has already 
made contributions, in the plural , of major significance in the field of secure wireless communication. 
Indeed, speculates that the petitioner's work "will have significant impact" in the future. 
Research studies that have the potential to be contributions of major significance are not sufficient to 
meet this criterion. Even if the petitioner had met this criterion, he has not shown his sustained 
national or international acclaim in the field. Although the petitioner's articles have been cited by 
other scientists and his findings have been accepted by other scientists, the evidence does not establish 
his national or international acclaim or status at the top of the field. 
First, the evidence in the record does not substantiate the conclusory statements in the letters from 
The reference letters state -
that the petitioner ' s article is among the 
most cited works in the field. The evidence oes not establish that thiS article, wflich had been 
moderately cited at the time the petitioner filed the petition, constituted one of the highest cited works 
in the field at that time. Indeed, according to the - printout the petitioner filed in 
response to the RFE , as of March 2013 , the article ' 
had garnered over 100 citations. 
Moreover , evidence of the petitioner's publication of articles in top publications is not sufficient to 
show his national or international acclaim in the field. According to - _ · · 
Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of 
.======--' "3 [of the petitioner's] journal publications are published in 
states that 
ranked No. 13 by and No. 1 by .n 2010, 
indicating it is the field's most influential journal in the scientific community. [I]n 2010, 
is ranked No. 8 among the journals with the highest impact 
factor in the telecommunication area worldwide. " In response to the director's RFE , the petitioner 
submitted an online article entitled " ' that lists 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
the top journals by impact factor, . and The prestige of a 
publication, however, is not indicative of the importance or significance of every article published in 
the publication, or the acclaim of the authors of the published articles. In addition, while the 
petitioner's work 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 be published in a professional publication. Any research in order to 
be accepted for publication must offer new and useful information to the general pool of knowledge. It 
does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of 
knowledge has sustained national or international acclaim in the field. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a printout from _ _ 
showing that the petitioner's work has been cited since 2008. The figures are misleading, however, 
because they include citations to articles the petitioner did not author and/or are not in the field of 
secure wireless communication or other area of electrical engmeenng. Specifically, the printout 
includes a 2003 article entitled 
' 
a 2008 article entitled ' 
~ ' / 
_j ' In addition, the information listed under "Citation Indices" relates to the 
total numbers of citations for several articles, which does not specifically relate to the significance of 
any one of the petitioner's original contributions. Also, the printout includes citations that postdate the 
filing of the petition, which is evidence upon which the petitioner may not rely to establish his 
eligibility. See 8 C.P.R. §§ 103.2(b )(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Third, neither l nor any other evidence in the record provides specific information relating 
to the "more than a dozen of independent works" claimed to have been inspired by the petitioner's 
work on using an "untrusted relay." Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Fourth, according to , his own admission as a fellow of was based on his contributions 
to wireless network resource allocation. As of May 2011, according to one of the petitioner's articles 
published at the time, he was a student member of had yet to recognize the 
petitioner's contributions at a level similar to those of fellow. 
Ultimately, the evidence of contributions is not indicative of the petitioner's national or international 
acclaim or status at the top of the field. At most, the petitioner has shown that his work has contributed 
to the general pool of knowledge in the field and has practical applications. 
With regard to the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), while the 
evidence supports the director's findings that the petitioner meets this criterion, the evidence does not 
establish the petitioner's eligibility for the employment classification sought. See section 203(b)(1)(A) 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Pursuant to the 
reasoning in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122, the field's response to these articles may be considered in a 
final merits determination. The record shows that the petitioner has authored a number of published 
articles. According to , the petitioner is "one of the most productive researchers in secure 
communication " and that since 2007, the petitioner "has contributed more than 30 papers in 
international conferences and journals, most of which he is the first author and most of which are 
published at the most selective conferences and journals in this field." According to 
letter, the acceptance rate for manuscripts submitted to _ 
over the last 12 months is only 48.6%, which means that the journal rejects more manuscripts that it 
accepts." It also means, however, that nearly half of the manuscript submissions are accepted for 
publication. More significant is the impact of the petitioner's publications upon dissemination in the 
field. The moderate citation of the petitioner's work as of the date of filing is not indicative of a 
publication history consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Ultimately, the record does not support counsel's claim on appeal that the petitioner is an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the field of secure wireless communication. Even in the aggregate, the evidence 
does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor. In support of the petition, the petitioner has provided evidence relating to his volunteer 
participation in the widespread review process, his publication record that has garnered above-average 
citations, and his research studies that have received praise and have practical value. This evidence is 
insufficient to show that the petitioner is at the very top of the field of secure wireless communication. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
A review of the evidence in the aggregate, however, 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 or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field of secure wireless 
communication. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly 
above almost all others in his field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established his eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition rna y not be 
approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.