dismissed EB-1A Case: Theoretical Physics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 8, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a theoretical physicist, seeks classification as a foreign national of extraordinary 
ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner had not satisfied the regulation at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires a one-time 
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner contends that the record demonstrates his 
eligibility for the benefit sought and that the Director improperly applied the requirements for this 
classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 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 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers 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) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he 
must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9
1
h Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review 
where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered 
in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-
32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011); Matter o[Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that users examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, 
probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a former community college instructor who is currently involved in a "research 
collaboration" at the at 
We note that the record does not indicate the Petitioner holds a paid 
position with and a website listing all members does not include his name. 1 In support 
of his eligibility, the Petitioner provides evidence of his inclusion in biographic volumes, his 
participation in the peer review process, his scholarly articles, and the praise of his peers. 
We issued a notice of intent to dismiss (NOID), which included the following concerns: 
1. the source of several of the Petitioner's submitted 
prizes in his field, appears to charge money for its awards. 
2. The Petitioner's level of involvement with appears limited given that he is not a member 
and is not a credited coauthor on any of their numerous articles. 
3. The record does not include any recently published articles in peer reviewed publications. 
1 See Scientific Collaboration Directory, (last accessed on 
August 4, 20 16). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
We closed the NOID stating: "You may submit additional evidence to rebut this information." As 
the NOID was the Petitioner's opportunity to address specific deficiencies, we will focus on the 
portions of his response that relate to the above issues that were delineated in the NOID. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for 
the classification sought. Specifically, the Petitioner has not submitted a one-time achievement 
pursuant to 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 ), or documentation that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Even if the Petitioner's evidence 
had met the requisite number of criteria, the exhibits are not reflective of one of the small percentage 
at the very top in the field of endeavor, and sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the Petitioner's appeal. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner documented his inclusion in "several editions of 
and provided several accolades from the The Director determined that 
the Petitioner had not met the requirements of this criterion as the record did not establish the 
national or international recognition of his stated awards. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director disregarded the evidence. 
Regarding the Petitioner's inclusion in the Petitioner's initial filing statement 
described these as "honor[ s] achieved by only a few" and equated this recognition with a prize or an 
award under this criterion. However, the record does not include evidence that the 
a for-profit biographic volume, is nationally or internationally recognized or that its profiles 
are awarded for excellence in the field of endeavor. Supporting documents are necessary for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft ofCal(fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). 
Furthermore, while the publisher of describes inclusion in the compilation as 
"an honor that is achieved by only a select few," submitted excerpts from the publication indicate 
that it contains over 6,000 pages total, 19 of which cover physical.scientists. The page with the 
Petitioner's biography contains 22 other biographies. The publisher's own marketing letters 
promoting participation as an honor are not probative evidence of recognition of the biographical 
dictionary beyond the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO (C.D. Cal. July 6, 
2007) aff'd 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self­
serving statements on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). 
2 We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and will address those criteria claimed by the Petitioner, or for 
which he has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
The remaining documentation for this criterion derives from the 
(1) the 
which issued the Petitioner: 
(2) a nomination in the 
2009; (3) a nomination as one of the 2009; and (3) 
designation as one of 2008/2009. We note that a nomination for an 
award does not constitute the "receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards" as required. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The listed nominations resulted in the Petitioner 
being named a member of the and a congratulatory letter described the nominations as a 
distinction rather than as a prize or an award. As such, the Petitioner's nominations from the 
are not sufficient to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Moreover, as noted in our NOID, lists as a 
"scam." 3 This official government website advises that promotional materials create a false 
impression about the organization, and that the publisher embellishes certificates, medals, and sashes 
"to justify the cost of US$325 per item," with a discount for package deals. In conclusion, the website 
"advises people to consider carefully how much they are willing to pay for an ego boost which isn't 
necessarily worth the paper it is written on." The Petitioner did not address these concerns about the 
in his response to our NOID, nor did he submit any evidence to rebut the information presented. 
Accordingly, he has not established that the honors from constitute nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
For the reasons discussed above, we find the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class(fication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orfields. 
The Director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the Petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's findings or offer 
additional discussion. We therefore find the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel. as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied.field of specification for which class(fication is sought. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. We find that the 
record, which includes a letter confirming the Petitioner's role as a referee for the 
supports that finding. 
3 See 
(last accessed August 4, 20 16). 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
To meet this criterion, the documentation must establish that a petitioner's contributions rise to the 
level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an organization. 
"Contributions of major significance" connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted 
the field. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136. The plain 
language "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond 
one's colleagues. See id. (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion 
because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
The Petitioner puts forth two contributions under this criterion as explained m expert letters,4 
specifically his work on the and with the laboratory at 
The record includes multiple letters of support from the 
Emeritus from While his initial letter, offered with a 
previous petition, concluded that the Petitioner "is of the caliber that one would expect from a young 
professor at a strong, research-oriented university," a second letter, from 2009, stated: "[The 
Petitioner] has contributed extraordinary research in the field of alternative theories of gravitation." 
We note that use of language from the statute or regulations does not satisfy the burden of proof. 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
More specifically, attested to the Petitioner's development of and stated: "[The 
Petitioner] and colleagues discovered that predicts the existence of two families of superdense 
stars .... If general relativity turns out to be wrong and right, then [the 
Petitioner's] supermassive stars could be the objects that inhabit galactic cores." He continued that 
only future observations will reveal if or if is correct, but that he is betting strongly 
on Although indicated that the Petitioner offers an intriguing alternative 
providing a new area for researchers to consider, he signified that the Petitioner's research has not 
changed the overall support for theory in the field and he did not point to studies currently 
underway to test 
While concluded that the "ideas and predictions produced by [the Petitioner] are the 
types of discoveries that constitute important original contributions to the field of theoretical 
physics," he did not explain how has already had a significant impact within his field, which 
is required by this regulatory criterion. !d. For example, while asserted that the 
Petitioner has "opened up a new direction for research concerning gravity and the objects in galactic 
cores," he did not indicate that anyone, including himself, has pursued the implications of 
during the twelve years between when the Petitioner first published on and the date of 
letter. The possibility of a future impact, even a profound one, does not satisfy the 
regulatory requirements promulgated at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The Petitioner must be able to 
4 While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
demonstrate that his original work has already resulted in contributions of major significance in his 
field. 
The response to our NOID includes a November 2015 letter from which focuses on the 
Petitioner's work for the project. Although expands on his discussion of the 
Petitioner's research efforts, it remains that he characterizes the Petitioner's contributions in the field 
as having potential significance at some point in the future. For instance, after discussing the 
Petitioner's work relating to mirror shaping, he indicated that computer simulations predict the 
mirrors will reduce thermal noise allowing an increase in the volume of the universe that can 
explore·. We note the 
record does not indicate that this theory has been tested, or that the Petitioner 
has published peer-reviewed journal articles as a credited author on the subject or submitted patent 
applications for his mirror designs. 
associate professor of physics at the discussed 
the Petitioner's work on stating: "[The Petitioner's theory] has succeeded in explaining how 
[massive black holes] might exist, after several decades of unsuccessful attempts to do so with other 
theories." However, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the major significance of this theory. 
Despite the fact that the Petitioner published his work on in the late 1990's, he did not show 
that theoretical or applied physicists have cited or discussed it in the field's literature, or have 
attempted to confirm or determine its predictive capabilities. As such, while we accept the 
proposition that theoretical physics is advanced by the introduction of new theories, the Petitioner 
has not established that his work with has impacted his field at a level consistent with the 
regulatory requirement of contributions of major significance. Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136 
(concluding that USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from 
practitioners in the field was not arbitrary and capricious). 
The letter from also referenced the Petitioner's work on the project. 
indicated that the Petitioner's work was essential to the success of better designed mirrors 
used within the initiative. Similarly, a research associate professor at the 
attested that the Petitioner's input was vital to solving the 
instability of the mirrors. The Petitioner also provides a letter from professor of 
physics at stating that the Petitioner has been an integral part of the project and identifying 
the Petitioner's contributions as his work with mirror designs. states that the Petitioner's 
findings increase "the volume of the universe that can probe, if was indeed solely 
limited by thermal noise." also states: "[The Petitioner's] groundbreaking technique has 
since become a foundation for the advanced mirror technologies for the next generation of 
detectors, which will operate in the early 2020s." However, without probative documents to 
corroborate such assertions, the Petitioner has not shown the importance of this work or the level of 
his contribution to it. Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. We note, for instance, that the Petitioner has not 
submitted evidence confirming that he is listed as a coauthor on any sponsored article. 
Instead, there is documentation that he received acknowledgements for his assistance with the 
project from the credited authors of articles and presentations. 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
Information in the record reflects that is a collaboration of 700 scientists. We noted in our 
NOID that the Petitioner is not, in fact, a listed member of In response to that notice, the 
Petitioner references two other contributors to who are not named members, 
and We note that one of the other non-member contributors to 
is a listed author of a presentation and is named as a graduate student collaborator 
on a memorandum of understanding between the · and This 
memorandum does not include the Petitioner as faculty, technical staff, a postdoctoral scholar, or a 
graduate student. 
On appeal, the Petitioner addresses the probative value of the letters. While the Petitioner correctly 
notes that the Director requested letters in a notice of intent to dismiss the petition, letters were listed 
as one of many examples of items that might assist in determining eligibility under this criterion. 
The Petitioner further contends that the Director improperly 
made a distinction between testimonial 
evidence and documentary evidence and that USCIS prefers the latter. According to the Petitioner, 
his original contributions, explained in the expert letters, "are a type of evidence of extraordinary 
ability contemplated by the regulations." The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), however, does not specifically identify testimonials as the appropriate proof to 
meet this criterion. Compare 8 C.F.R §§ 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(B), (3)(iv)(5) (specifically identifying 
affidavits or testimonials as required initial evidence). 
Solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or specific examples 
of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 
1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). The opinions of experts in the 
field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive confirmation of eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the foreign national's eligibility. See id. at 795; 
see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding our decision to give minimal weight to 
general, solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions of 
major significance in the field). 
For the reasons discussed above, we find the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or mcljor 
trade publications or other major media. 
The director determined that the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The record, 
including articles in dating from 1997 through 1999 and presentations published in 
proceedings in 1997 and 1998, supports the Director's favorable finding. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The plain language of this criterion limits it to artistic exhibitions and showcases rather than 
scientific ones. The Petitioner asserts that his lectures constitute comparable evidence relating to 
this criterion. The Petitioner's presentations published in conference proceedings fall under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), relating to authorship of scholarly articles, and we have 
considered them in that context. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) allows petitioners to offer 
comparable evidence if the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the 
occupation. The Petitioner maintains that this criterion is not applicable outside of the arts, but that 
scholarly presentations are comparable because the presenter offers his work to an audience, 
sometimes at the invitation of the organizer. The Petitioner relies on the commentary to a new rule 
implementing comparable evidence in a different classification. 
Considering scientific presentations both under scholarly articles and this criterion would undermine 
the regulatory requirement that a Petitioner include documentation satisfying three separate criteria 
and the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); section 203(b )(I )(A)(i) 
of the Act. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122 (upholding our conclusion that scientific presentations 
and lectures are not relevant under this criterion). As the Petitioner is not an artist, he has not 
submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). In addition, he has not sufficiently explained how his lectures are 
comparable to artistic displays. Regardless, we will further consider these presentations in the final 
merits determination. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner raises this criterion for the first time in response to our NOID. The Petitioner's 
position that he has performed a leading or critical role with is not supported as he is not a 
named member, is not a credited author on any article or presentation, and is not an identified 
collaborator in a memorandum of understanding between and a participating institution. 
Similarly, his statement that he has performed in a leading or critical role for when the 
record lacks evidence that he has ever been employed there, is also not supported by the evidence. 
While the record reflects the listed the Petitioner as affiliated 
with in an unspecified manner in promoting his talk at one of their club events, this does 
not establish his role with that university. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence to satisfy three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
8 
Matter of P-K-
C. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has not met at least three of the regulatory criteria, the proper conclusion is that he 
has failed to satisfy the initial regulatory requirements. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, 
because the Director performed a final merits analysis, we will also conduct an analysis that 
considers all of the material in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. USers reviews all of the relevant, 
probative and credible evidence that the Petitioner provided as a combined whole in the final merits 
determination. 
We note that the Petitioner contests users' application of this method for determining eligibility, 
stating that "the 'two-part adjudicative approach' containing the 'final merits determination' as 
outlined in the December 22, 2010, Policy Memorandum is contrary to law."5 More specifically, the 
Petitioner states that users policy "has disregarded the holdings" of the following district court 
decisions that predate the Ninth Circuit decision in Kazarian: (1) Buletini v. INS, 860 F.Supp. 1222 
(E.D. Mich. 1994); (2) Racine v. INS, 1995 WL 153319; (3) Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 
1995); and (4) Giilen v. Cherto.ff, No. 07-2148,2008 WL 2779001. Under these cases, he maintains, 
an individual who satisfies three evidentiary criteria should be found to have extraordinary ability 
absent specific reasons to the contrary. 
USCrS is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters 
arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 r&N Dec. 715 (BrA 1993). Regardless, the 
Buletini court held, as the Kazarian court did, that it is an abuse of discretion for USCrS to deviate 
from the criteria of its own regulation. Buletini, 860 F. Supp. at 1234. The court continued: 
Once it is established that the alien's evidence is sufficient to meet three of the 
criteria listed in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the alien must be deemed to have 
extraordinary ability unless the INS sets forth spec!fic and substantiated reasons for 
its .finding that the alien, despite having satisfied the criteria. does not meet the 
extraordinary ability standard. 
!d. (Emphasis added.) As is clear from the italicized language, the Buletini court considered the 
possibility that a petitioner can submit evidence satisfying three criteria and still not meet the 
extraordinary ability standard provided that USCIS explains its reasoning. Similarly, the court in 
Muni contemplated an evaluation of whether the record established national or international acclaim 
after determining that three criteria were met. Muni, 891 F. Supp. at 445-46. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADII-14 (December 22, 
20 I 0), http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-l.pdf. 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
Since the Petitioner filed his appeal in 2011, the Ninth Circuit has reaffirmed the two-step approach. 
See Rijal, 772 F.Supp.2d at 1339; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136. Accordingly, this 
process is consistent with the statute, regulations , and federal case law. 
1. Application of Final Merits Analysis 
Regarding the Petitioner's experience as a judge of others in his field, head of 
the and an editor of the 
confirms that he "involved" the Petitioner as an expert referee for the journal. 
The nature of the judging experience, however, is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
evidence is indicative of the individual's national or international acclaim. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1122. Scientific journals are routinely peer reviewed and rely on many scientists to review 
submitted articles; not every peer reviewer enjoys international recognition. In this instance, the 
Petitioner obtained his Ph.D. from where he subsequently worked as a 
research associate . The record does not include evidence that sets the Petitioner apart from others in 
his field, such as documentation that he has reviewed manuscripts for a journal that credits an elite 
group of referees, has received independent requests from a substantial number of journals, or has 
served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that his judging experience is indicative of or consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
As noted above, the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in journals and conference 
proceedings. The articles date from the late 1990's, and the Petitioner self-published a book in 2003. 
While the Ninth Circuit stated that the field's response to these atticles is not a factor that may be 
considered in determining whether a petitioner has satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), the field's response may be considered in a final merits determination. Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. In this matter, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that other researchers have 
cited his articles in any context or have otherwise recognized those articles independently of the 
preparation of his immigration petitions. Although specifically requested within our NOID, the 
Petitioner does not offer evidence of published articles within the last decade. Instead, the Petitioner 
notes recent citations of a article that thanked him for "useful discussions and advice," and 
another article that acknowledged discussions with him. The Petitioner has not resolved the 
discrepancy between the level of influence credited to him by his references and the lack of a 
corresponding publication and citation record. The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner 's 
publication history is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Regarding conference participation, the record documents the Petitioner's attendance at three 
but the lists of participants reflect that he did not give a talk at the two most 
recent meetings in which he participated. The presentation slides that the Petitioner submits reflect 
that he was not the presenter or a listed coauthor, but a collaborator or consultant. The Petitioner has 
not established that his presentation history is consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
In addition, the record does not demonstrate the significance of the Petitioner's contributions to the 
project. While he received acknowledgements for his assistance with the project from the 
credited authors of articles and presentations, his participation was not sufficient to earn credit as a 
coauthor. The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner's work on the project has 
contributed to the field as a whole in a manner that is consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Ultimately, the exhibits in the aggregate do not distinguish the Petitioner as one of the "small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." The reference letters from 
physicists are the only documentation suggesting that the Petitioner's work is recognized in the field. 
However, while valuable, these letters are unsupported by any other material indicative of or 
consistent with national or international acclaim. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has distinguished himself as a theoretical 
physicist to such an extent that he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim or that he 
is within the small percentage at the very top of his field. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be 
approved. 
The 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of P-K-, ID# 15915 (AAO Aug. 8, 2016) 
11