dismissed EB-1A Case: Theoretical Physics

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Department of110melandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve, N.W., MS2090
Washineton.DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Imrnigration
Services
DATE: Office: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
JUN282011
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby usin reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthat you wishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucharequestcanbefoundat 8C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto the office thatoriginally decidedyourcaseby filing a FormI-290B,Notice of Appealor
Motion, with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat anymotion must
befiled within 30 daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrant visa petition was deniedby the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter,andis nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) on appeal.
Theappealwill bedismissed.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationasan"alienof extraordinaryability" in thesciences,pursuantto
section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A).
The directordeterminedthatthe petitionerhadnot establishedthe requisiteextraordinaryability
throughextensivedocumentationandsustainednationalor internationalacclaim.
Congressseta very high benchmarkfor aliensof extraordinaryability by requiringthroughthe
statutethatthepetitionerdemonstratethealien's"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"and
present"extensivedocumentation"of thealien'sachievements.Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of the
Act and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).Theimplementingregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)statesthat
an aliencanestablishsustainednationalor internationalacclaimthroughevidenceof a one-time
achievementof amajor,internationallyrecognizedaward.Absentthereceiptof suchanaward,the
regulationoutlinestencategoriesof specificobjectiveevidence.8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)through
(x). The petitionermust submitqualifyingevidenceunderat leastthreeof the ten regulatory
categoriesof evidencetoestablishthebasiceligibilityrequirements.
Onappeal,counselarguesthatthepetitionermeetsatleastthreeof thetenregulatorycategoriesof
evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that he submitted comparableevidence of his
extraordinaryability pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(4). For the reasons
discussedbelow,theAAO will upholdthedirector'sdecision.
I. Law
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart,that:
(1) Priority workers.- Visasshallfirst bemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho
arealiensdescribedin anyof thefollowingsubparagraphs(A) through(C):
(A) Alienswithextraordinaryability.- An alienisdescribedinthissubparagraphif -
(i) the alien hasextraordinaryability in the sciences,arts,education,
business,or athleticswhichhasbeendemonstratedby sustainednational
or internationalacclaimandwhoseachievementshavebeenrecognized
in thefield throughextensivedocumentation,
(ii) thealienseeksto entertheUnitedStatesto continueworkin thearea
of extraordinaryability,and
(iii) the alien'sentryinto theUnitedStateswill substantiallybenefit
prospectivelytheUnitedStates.
Page3
U.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)andlegacyImmigrationandNaturalization
Service(INS)haveconsistentlyrecognizedthatCongressintendedto seta veryhigh standardfor
individualsseekingimmigrantvisasasaliensof extraordinaryability. SeeH.R.723101®'Cong.,2d
Sess.59(1990);56Fed.Reg.60897,60898-99(Nov.29,1991).Theterm"extraordinaryability"
refersonly to thoseindividualsin that smallpercentagewho haverisento the very top of the
field of endeavor.Id. and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).
The regulationat 8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)requiresthat an aliendemonstratehis or her sustained
acclaimandtherecognitionof hisorherachievementsin thefield. Suchacclaimandachievements
must be establishedeither through evidenceof a one-timeachievement(that is, a major,
internationalrecognizedaward)or throughmeetingatleastthreeof thefollowingtencategoriesof
evidence:
(i) Documentationof the alien's receiptof lessernationallyor internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefieldof endeavor;
(ii) Documentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield for which
classificationis sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof their members,
asjudged by recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin their disciplinesor
fields;
(iii) Publishedmaterialaboutthealienin professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia,relatingto thealien'sworkin thefield for whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshallincludethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,and
anynecessarytranslation;
(iv) Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudge
of the work of othersin the sameor an allied field of specializationfor which
classificationis sought;
(v) Evidenceof thealien'soriginalscientific,scholarly,artistic,athletic,orbusiness-
relatedcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield;
(vi) Evidenceof the alien's authorshipof scholarlyarticles in the field, in
professionalormajortradepublicationsorothermajormedia;
(vii) Evidenceof thedisplayof thealien'sworkin thefieldatartisticexhibitionsor
showcases;
(viii) Evidencethat the alien has performedin a leadingor critical role for
organizationsor establishmentsthathaveadistinguishedreputation;
(ix) Evidencethatthealienhascommandedahighsalaryorothersignificantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationtoothersinthefield;or
Page4
(x) Evidenceof commercialsuccessesin theperformingarts,asshownbyboxoffice
receiptsorrecord,cassette,compactdisk,orvideosales.
In 2010,theU.S.Courtof Appealsfor theNinthCircuit(NinthCircuit)reviewedthedenialof a
petitionfiled underthisclassification.Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9* Cir. 2010).Although
the courtupheldthe AAO's decisionto denythe petition,the courttook issuewith the AAO's
evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meetagivenevidentiarycriterion.1With respectto thecriteria
at 8C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(iv)and (vi), the court concludedthat while USCISmay have raised
legitimateconcernsaboutthe significanceof the evidencesubmittedto meetthosetwo criteria,
thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent"finalmeritsdetermination."Id. at 1121-22.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO'sevaluationrestedon animproperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to countthe typesof evidenceprovided(whichthe AAO did)," andif the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionis thattheapplicanthasfailed
to satisfythe regulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(astheAAO concluded)."Id. at
1122(citingto 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"final meritsdetermination"as
thecorollaryto thisprocedure:
If a petitionerhassubmittedtherequisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis one
of thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytopof the[ir] field of endeavor,"
8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2),and"that the alienhassustainednationalor international
acclaimand that his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of
expertise."8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Only alienswhoseachievementshavegarnered
"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary
ability"visa.8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id. at1119-20.
Thus, Kazarian setsforth a two-part approachwherethe evidenceis first countedand then
consideredin thecontextof afinal meritsdetermination.In reviewingServiceCenterdecisions,the
AAO will applythetestsetforthin Kazarian.As theAAO maintainsdenovoreview,theAAO
will conductanewanalysisif thedirectorreachedhisorherconclusionbyusingaone-stepanalysis
ratherthan the two-stepanalysisdictatedby the Kazarian court. SeeSpencerEnterprises, Inc. v.
UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d 1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),affd, 345F.3d683(9thCir. 2003);
seealso Soltanev. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143,145(3d Cir. 2004)(notingthat the AAO conducts
appellatereviewonadenovobasis).
Specifically,thecourtstatedthattheAAO hadunilaterallyimposednovelsubstantiveor evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthosesetforth in theregulationsat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
II. Analysis
A. EvidentiaryCriteria
This petition, filed on December21, 2009, seeksto classifythe petitioneras an alien with
extraordinaryability in theoreticalphysicsandthedevelopmentof algorithmsin theweb-based
servicesindustry. In 2008,the petitionerreceivedhis Ph.D.in Physicsfrom the Universityof
Coloradounderthedirectionof Fellowof theJointInstitutefor Laboratory
Astrophysics(JILA) andanAssociateProfessorin theDepartmentof Physicsat theUniversity
of Coloradoat Boulder.2 At the time of filin , the etitionerwas working in the positionof
"Member of Technical Staff" for The petitioner has submitted
documentationpertainingto thefollowing categoriesof evidenceunder8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).3
Documentationof thealien'sreceiptof lessernationallyor internationally
recognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
ThepetitionersubmittedanAugust12,2003letterfrom th Scholarship
Programme,InternationalRelationsOffice, University,to thepetitionerstating:
It is my pleasureto inform you thatthe selectioncommitteeof the Scholarship
Programmehasdecidedto acceptyour applicationfor a UnitedNationsUniversity/Van
Ginkelscholarship.
Thescholarshipincludesa monthlyliving allowance. . . for six monthsandtravelcosts
from andto yourcountry(economyclass).
Academicstudyis not a field of endeavor,but trainingfor a futurefield of endeavor.As such,
academicscholarshipsdo not constituteprizesor awardsfor excellencein thepetitioner'sfield
of endeavor. Moreover,competitionfor university scholarshipsis limited to other students.
Experiencedphysicistsandresearchersemployedin thefield whohavealreadycompletedtheir
educationdo not seeksuchscholarships.In this instance,thereis no documentaryevidence
demonstratingthatthepetitioner'sscholarshipwasrecognizedbeyondthepresentinguniversity
andthereforecommensuratewith a nationallyor internationallyrecognizedprize or awardfor
excellencein thefield.
The petitionersubmitteda June 11, 2007 letter from the of the American
Associationof PhysicsTeachers(AAPT) to thepetitionerstating:
2 ThepetitioneralsosubmittedhisMasterof Sciencedegreesin Physicsfrom the (2008)
andthe (2001).
3Thepetitionerdoesnotclaimtomeetor submitevidencerelatingtothecategoriesof evidencenotdiscussedin this
decision.
Page6
Congratulationson beingselectedasan for 2007.
Your achievementsand dedication to excellenceare a source of pride among your
colleaguesandaninspirationto thestudentswhoselivesyouimpact.
* * *
I am pleasedto extenda complimentary,one year membershipwith the American
Associationof PhysicsTeachers. You will receivea subscriptionto the American
Journal of Physics Online as well as Physics Today and our newest publication,
InterActions. Your membershipentitlesyou to attendmeetingat reducedstudentrates
andto receivespecialdiscountsonitemsandpublicationsfromourproductscatalog.
* * *
At theendof your currentterm,I hopeyouwill maintainyourmembershipat eitherthe
graduatestudentlevelor asafull member.
TheAAO notesthatcompetitionfor selectionasan OutstandingTeachingAssistantwas
limited to graduatestudents.Further,the petitionerdid not submitevidenceof the nationalor
internationalrecognitionof his particularaward,suchasnationalor widespreadlocalcoverageof
his awardin professionalor generalmedia. The plain languageof the regulationat 8C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(i)specificallyrequiresthat the petitioner'sawardsbe nationallyor internationally
recognizedin thefield of endeavorandit is his burdento establisheveryelementof thiscriterion.
In this instance,thereis no documentaryevidencedemonstratingthat the petitioner'steaching
assistantawardis recognizedbeyondthe presentingorganizationandthereforecommensurate
with anationallyor internationallyrecognizedprizeor awardfor excellencein thefield.
Thepetitionersubmittedevidenceof a NationalScienceFoundation(NSF)"Continuinggrant"
awardedt ColoradoSchoolof Mines. Thepreceding
grant was awardedto rather than the petitioner. The plain languageof this
regulatorycriterion, however,requiresdocumentationof "the alien's receipt" of nationallyor
internationallyrecognizedprizesor awards,nothis superior'sreceiptof theaward. In regardto
researchgrantsfor which thepetitioner'sresearchteamappliedandreceivedfunding,theAAO
notesthatresearchgrantssimply fund a scientist'swork. Everysuccessfulscientistengagedin
research,of whichtherearehundredsof thousands,receivesfundingfrom somewhere.Obviously
the pastachievementsof the principalinvestigatorarea factorin grantproposals.The funding
institutionhasto be assuredthattheinvestigatoris capableof performingtheproposedresearch.
Nevertheless,a researchgrantis principallydesignedto fundfutureresearch,andnot to honoror
recognizepastachievement.Thus,theAAO cannotconcludethattheprecedingNSFcontinuing
grantreceivedby constitutesthepetitioner'sreceiptof a nationallyor internationally
recognizedprizeor awardfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
ThepetitionersubmittedaDecember4, 2009letterfrom oneof thetwo
co-foundersoMCorporation, stating:"As a testimonyof hispotential,in thelastyear
Page7
thatthathehasspenthere,[thepetitioner]hasreceivedthreecompanyawardsat for his
contributions." Ratherthan submittingprimary evidenceof his three companyawards,the
petitionerinsteadsubmitteda letterfromhis employerattestingto thepetitioner'sreceiptof them.
Going on record without supportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficient for purposesof
meetingthe burdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici,22 I&N Dec. 158,165
(Comm. 1998)(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190(Reg.Comm.
1972)).A petitionmustbefiled with anyinitial evidencerequiredby theregulation.8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistenceor other unavailability of primary evidence creates a
presumptionof ineligibility. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). Accordingto thesameregulation,only
wherethepetitionerdemonstratesthatprimaryevidencedoesnot existor cannotbe obtainedmay
thepetitionerrelyon secondaryevidenceandonlywheresecondaryevidenceis demonstratedto be
unavailablemaythepetitionerrely on affidavits. Wherea recorddoesnot exist,the petitioner
mustsubmitanoriginalwrittenstatementonletterheadfrom therelevantauthorityindicatingthe
reasontherecorddoesnot existandwhethersimilarrecordsfor thetime and laceareavailable.
8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(ii).TheDecember4, 2009letterfrom doesnotcomply
with theprecedingregulatoryrequirements.Neverthelessthepetitioner'sthreecompanyawards
are internal institutional honors limited to .mployeesrather than nationally or
internationallyrecognizedprizesor awardsfor excellencein thefield of endeavor.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Documentationof the alien's membershipin associationsin thefield for which
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievementsof their
members,as judged by recognizednational or international experts in their
disciplinesorfields.
In orderto demonstratethatmembershipin anassociationmeetsthis criterion,a petitionermust
show that the associationrequires outstandingachievementas an essentialcondition for
admissionto membership. Membershiprequirementsbasedon employmentor activity in a
given field, minimum educationor experience,standardizedtest scores,gradepoint average,
recommendationsby colleaguesor currentmembers,or paymentof dues,do not satisfythis
criterionassuchrequirementsdo not constituteoutstandingachievements.Further,the overall
prestigeof a givenassociationis not determinative;the issuehereis membershiprequirements
ratherthantheassociation'soverallreputation.
The petitionersubmittedhis membershipcard for the AmericanPhysicalSociety(APS) and
generalinformationaboutthe organization,but thereis no evidence(suchasbylawsor rulesof
admission)showingthat theAPSrequiresoutstandingachievementsof its members,asjudged
by recognizednationalor internationalexpertsin thepetitioner'sfield.
titioner submitteddocumentationindicatingthat he performedgraduateresearchat the
hile attendingthe University of Colorado. The petitioner also submittedgeneral
information aboutthe The record,however,doesnot include documentaryevidence
Page8
identifying the petitioner as a "member" of the , its faculty or Active Fellows.4 As
previouslydiscussed,goingonrecordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficient
for purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin theseproceedings.Matterof Soffici,22 I&N Dec.
at 165. A petitionmustbefiled with anyinitial evidencerequiredby theregulation.8C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(1). The nonexistenceor other unavailability of primary evidence createsa
presumptio 'n li ibility. 8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(i).Thepetitioner'swork as a graduate
studentin esearchgroup at the doesconstitutehis membershipin an
associationin the field of physics. The plain languageof the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii)requires"[d]ocumentationof thealien'smembershipin associationsin thefield
for whichis classificationis sought,whichrequireoutstandingachievementsof their members,
as judged by recognizednational or internationalexperts in their disciplines or fields."
[Emphasisadded.]Merelysubmittingdocumentaryevidencereflectingthepetitioner'srole asa
graduatestudent without evidencedemonstratingthat the petitioner is a member of an
associationthat requiresoutstandingachievementsof its members,asjudged by recognized
nationalor internationalexperts,is insufficientto meetthe plain languageof the regulation.
Clearly,theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii)requiresthe titioner
to show"membershipin associations"andnot thepetitioner'stemporarywork at the asa
graduatestudent.In this instance,basedonthesubmittedreferenceletters,thepetitionerworked
at the as part of his graduatestudiesprogramand was not nominatedor electedto
"membership"in the basedon his outstandingachievements,asjudged by recognized
nationalor internationalexpertsin thefield.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Publishedmaterial aboutthe alien in professionalor major tradepublicationsor
othermajor media,relatingto thealien'swork in thefield for whichclassificationis
sought. Suchevidenceshall includethetitle, date,andauthorof thematerial,and
anynecessarytranslation.
In general,in orderfor publishedmaterialto meetthis criterion,it mustbe primarily aboutthe
petitionerand,asstatedin theregulations,beprintedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor
othermajormedia. To qualifyasmajormedia,thepublicationshouldhavesignificantnationalor
internationaldistribution. Somenewspapers,suchas the New York Times,nominally servea
particularlocality but would qualify asmajormediabecauseof significantnationaldistribution,
unlikesmalllocalcommunitypapers.5
The petitioner submittedcitation evidenceindicatingthat his work has beencited by other
researchersin their publications. Articleswhichcite to thepetitioner'swork areprimarilyabout
4See accessedonJune6,2011,copyincorporatedintotherecordof
proceedings.
5 Even with nationally-circulatednewspapers,considerationmust be given to the placementof the article. For
example,anarticlethat appearsin the WashingtonPost,but in a sectionthatis distributedonly in Fairfax County,
Virginia,for instance,cannotserveto spreadanindividual'sreputationoutsideof thatcounty.
Page9
the authors'own work or recentdevelopmentsin the field in general,and are not aboutthe
petitioneror evenhis work. The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)
requiresthatthepublishedmaterialbe"aboutthealien." With regardto thiscriterion,a footnoted
referenceto the alien'swork without evaluationis of minimal probativevalue. The submitted
documentationdoesnot discussthemeritsof thepetitioner'swork,his standingin thefield, any
significant impact that his work has had on the field, or any other information so as to be
consideredpublishedmaterialaboutthe petitionerasrequiredby this criterion. Moreover,the
AAO notesthat the articlesciting to the petitioner'swork similarly referencednumerousother
authors. The researcharticlescitingto thepetitioner'swork aremorerelevantto the regulatory
criterionat 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)andwill beaddressedthere.Accordingly,thepetitionerhas
notestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sparticipation,eitherindividuallyor onapanel,asajudge of
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specificationfor which
classificationis sought.
ThepetitionersubmittedaMay 26,2009e-mailfromthe of theOpticalEngineering
andPhotonicTechnology(OEPT)symposiuminvitingthepetitioner"to considerthepossibilityof
supportingthe reviewingprocessof OEPT2009. If you acceptto supportus in the reviewing
process,pleasefill [sic] the electronicform . . . ." There is no documentaryevidence
demonstratingthat thepetitioneractuallyparticipatedin thereviewingprocessfor OEPT2009.
Theplain languageof this criterionrequires"[e]videnceof thealien'sparticipation. . . asajudge
of thework of others." Receivinganinvitationto supportthereviewprocessis not tantamountto
evidenceof one'sactual"participation"asareviewerorjudge.
The petitioneralso submitteddocumentationfrom the APS Editorial Office indicatingthat the
petitionerpeerreviewedfour manuscriptsfor PhysicalReviewA andonemanuscriptfor Physical
ReviewLetters in This documentationmeetsthe plain languagerequirementsof the
regulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv).However,certaindeficienciespertainingto this evidence
will beaddressedbelowin ourfinal meritsdeterminationregardingwhetherthesubmittedevidence
is commensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,or being amongthat small
percentageattheverytopof thefield of endeavor.
Evidenceof the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-
relatedcontributionsof major sigm'ficancein thefield.
Thepetitionersubmittedseverallettersof supportdiscussinghiswork.
is a Nobel Prize recipient,a Senior Scientistat the
a ProfessorAdjoint in the PhysicsDepartmentat the
Universityof Colorado,anda Fellowof theM, theNIST andtheUniversityof Coloradoat
Boulder. states:
Page10
I interactedwith [thepetitioner]duringhisgraduatestudiesattheUniversityof Colorado
atBoulder. His Ph.D.workwasonthetheoryof n rotating
opticallattices.I wason his Ph.D.defensecommittee,which allowedme to get a close
lookathis work.
During his stayhere,[the petitioner]workedon stronglycorrelatedquantummechanics
andtheappearanceof fractionalquantumhall physicsin coldgasesunderthesupervision
of Heusedanalyticalandnumericaltechniquesto developmodels
to describeandpredictbehaviorof quantummaterialsin thisexoticregime.Oneof my
groupsalsodoesexperimentalresearchin thesamearea.His workhasbeena significant
contributionto this newemergingfield andhasresultedin thepublicationof four papers
in leadingphysicsjournalssuchasthePhysicalReviewLettersandPhysicalReviewA.
Hehasalsopresentedhisresearchatseveraldomesticandinternationalconferences.
With regardto the petitioner'spublishedandpresentedwork, theregulationscontaina separate
criterionregardingtheauthorshipof scholarlyarticles. 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).TheAAO will
notpresumethatevidencerelatingto or evenmeetingthescholarlyarticlescriterionis presumptive
evidencethat the petitioneralsomeetsthis criterion. Here it shouldbe emphasizedthat the
regulatorycriteriaareseparateanddistinctfrom oneanother.Becauseseparatecriteriaexistfor
authorshipof scholarlyarticlesandoriginal contributionsof major significance,USCISclearly
doesnotviewthetwo asbeinginterchangeable.6Toholdotherwisewouldrendermeaninglessthe
statutoryrequirementfor extensiveevidenceortheregulatoryrequirementthatapetitionermeetat
least three separatecriteria. Thus, there is no presumptionthat every publishedarticle or
presentationis acontributionof majorsignificance;rather,thepetitionermustdocumenttheactual
impactof his article or presentation.In this instance,Mdoes not provide specific
examplesof howthepetitioner'smodelsarebeingappliedby othersin thefield or thatthey
otherwiseequateto originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
tates:
[The petitioner]wasa graduatestudentin my researchgroupin atomic,molecular,and
opticalPhysicsanddefendedhis Ph.D.thesishereinMhe title of his thesiswas
rotatingopticallattices." [Thepetitioner]wasatruly outstandingstudentwho
excelledateveryprojecthewasassigned.
* * *
His work hashad significantimpact.His mostwell known paperis entitledM
" andwaspublishedin PhysicalReviewLetters.
6Publicationandpresentationsarenotsufficientevidenceunder8 C.ER. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)absentevidencethatthey
wereof "majorsignificance."Kazarianv. USCIS,580E3d 1030,1036(9* Cir.2009)aff'd inpart596E3d 1115
(9thCir.2010).In 2010,theKazariancourtreaffirmeditsholdingthattheAAOdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninfinding
thatthealienhadnotdemonstratedcontributionsofmajorsignificance.596E3dat1122.
Page11
Thisjournal is the mostprestigiousjournal of theAmericanPhysicalSociety,andonly
publishesthemosthighprofileworkthatwill havethebroadestimpactin physics.[The
petitioner's]work hasalreadyled to experimentalpursuitsof his predictionsin several
majorlaboratoriesaroundtheworld.
Thepetitionersubmittedcitationindicesfrom GoogleScholar.comindicatingthathis published
workhasbeenmoderatelycited. Forinstance,thepetitioner'stwo mostfrequentlycitedarticlesin
PhysicalReviewLettersandPhysicalReviewA hadbeencitedto 30and10timesrespectivelyasof
thepetition'sDecember21,2009filing date. Thepetitionerhasnot establishedthatthis moderate
levelof citationis indicativeof originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein the field. The
petitioner'sfield, like most science,is research-driven,and there would be little point in
publishingresearchthatdidnotaddto thegeneralpoolof knowledgein thefield. Accordingto
theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v),analien'scontributionsmustbenot only originalbut
of major significance.Thephrase"major significance"is not superfluousand,thus,that it has
somemeaning. To be considereda contributionof majorsignificancein thefield of science,it
canbe expectedthat the resultswould havealreadybeenreproducedandconfirmedby other
expertsandappliedin theirwork. Otherwise,it is difficult to gaugetheimpactof thepetitioner's
work.
Universityof ColoradoandFellowof thE states:
h itioner] obtainedhis Ph.D. in TheoreticalPhysicsunder Professo
I haveworkedcloselywith [thepetitioner]since2004
* * *
At Coloradohehada 4.0 gradepoint averageandwasthefirst to graduatewith a Ph.D.
from his class.As a memberof both PhysicsandMI wasdelightedto observehis
progressasa memberof his researchgroup. His publicationsareof thehighestquality
and of significant interest to the AMO [Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physics)
community.
InMamongst a groupof truly outstandingstudentsandpostdoctorals,he stoodout.
He is quickto understand,exceptionallytalented,andhardworking.He is, ashis resume
shows,very practicalandhasboth a flair andinterestin thebusinessworld. He works
well andpatientlywith colleaguesandbringsoutthebestin them.
I could go on andgive you detailedevaluationof his creativityin Physics,if that is
required.I will just saythathisresearchis outstandingandhighly original.
Significantly,thisofficehasheld,in aprecedentdecisioninvolvinga lesserclassificationthanthe
onesoughtin this matter,thatacademicperformance,measuredby suchcriteria asgradepoint
average,is not a specificprior achievementthat establishesthe alien'sability to benefitthe
nationalinterest. Matter of New YorkStateDep't. of Transp.,22 I&N Dec. 215, 219, n.6
Page12
(Comm'r. 1998). While the petitioner'sgraduateresearchunderthe directiono
wasno doubt of value,it canbe arguedthat any researchmustbe shownto be original and
presentsomebenefitif it is to receivefundingandattentionfrom thescientificcommunity. Any
Ph.D. thesis or graduateresearch,in order to be acceptedfor graduation,publication,
presentationor funding,mustoffernewandusefulinformationto thepoolof knowledge.It does
not follow that everyscientistwho performsoriginal researchthat addsto the generalpool of
knowledgehasinherentlymadea contributionof majorsignificanceto thefield asa whole.
doesnotprovidespecificexamplesof howthepetitioner'swork hasinfluencedothersin
thefield or thatit otherwiseequatesto originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
states:
I havebeencloselyinteractingwith [thepetitioner]sinceS tember2008whenhejoined
He hasbeenresponsiblefor all analyticsfor andhaslatelybeen
instrumentalin taking the lead o evel and applying advancedalgorithmsfor
increasingtheadvertisingrevenueo In particular,hiscontributionsinclude:
i. Revenueestimationat a keywordlevel in generalizedsecondprice auctions: [The
petitioner]took theinitiative in tacklinganextremelydifficult researchproblemto come
up with an elegantalgorithm.Early testsusingthe resultsof his researchare already
showinga 50-100%impacto grossmargins.Whenfully realized,his work
will beworth severalmillion additionaldollarsof additionalrevenueeveryyearandwill
contribute substantiallyto our company'svaluation, this is a significant research
achievementgiventhatthis problemhasbeenencounteredseveraltimesbut not entirely
solved.
ii. Feedbackloopsfor relevanceandcategorization:[thepetitioner]hasbeenresponsible
for collectingandchannelingcustomerdatafrom millions of userseveryday back into
the product. This has helpedMsubstantially in building a next generation
informationretrievalproduct.
iii. Analyticssystems:[thepetitioner]workson scalablelarge-scaleanalyticssystemsfor
retrieving, storing, processingand analyzingterabytesof data.He is responsiblefor
creating, generating and maintaining hundreds of reports that range from user
engagementreportsto performancereportsto productmetrics.
* * *
He hasdemonstratedthat he canbring his physicsexpertiseto internetproblems.His
experiencewith similarproblemsin adifferentdomainhasallowedhimto takeonvery
difficult problemsandpersistuntil a solutionis found.Hisbackgroundin Physicsgives
himaverystronganalyticaltoolboxthathecanapplycreativelyto anyclassof problems.
* * *
Page13
His consultingexperienceat (a prestigiousstrategymanagement
consultingfirm) giveshim perspectiveinto the businessaspectof researchproblems
frequentlyencounteredathi-techstartupssuchas
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v)requiresthat the petitioner's
contributionsbe "of major significancein the field" ratherthan limited to a single research
institutionor employersuchas While thepetitionerhashelpedto provided
analyticalsolutionsfor problemsencounteredby hisemployer,thereis no evidenceshowingthat
his level of contributionto the company'sexisting productsor servicesconstitutesoriginal
scientific or business-relatedcontributionsof "major significance"in the field. Further,the
petitioner'sphysicsbackgroundand consultingexperienceconstitute,essentially,occupational
trainingwhichcanbearticulatedonanapplicationfor analienemploymentcertification.Theissue
of whethersimilarly-trainedworkersare availablein the United Statesis an issueunderthe
jurisdiction of the Departmentof Labor. Matter of New YorkStateDep't of Transp.,22 I&N
Dec.at221.
icePresidentof Engineeringat states:
[The petitioner's]stronganalyticalbackgroundrootedin PhysicsandStatistics,andhis
businessbackgroundhashelpedussolvealong-standing,verydifficult researchproblem
aM[The petitioner]usedhis background(gainedthroughhisPh.D.education)to
comeup with a breakthroughmethodologythathehelpedapplyin at least2-3 solution
areasatEor monetizingour Internettraffic, aswell asreal-timedatamining to
find high impact stories in massivedata streams.Moreover,he also exercisedhis
leadershipskills in drivingtheexecutionof thefirst solutionmentionedabove,leadingto
our corebusinessbecomingprofitableon a monthly basisfor the last 2 months.This
methodologyhasbecomeakey competitiveadvantageforMand couldbecomean
industrystandardin real-timeinformationprocessing- this pioneeringeffort alonecould
helpestablishthecasefor his extraordinaryability to contributeto theUnitedStatesasa
citizen
* * *
[The petitioner's] unique combinationof a strong analyticalbackgroundin Physics,
strongbusinessbackgroundandstrongsoftwareskills wasexactlywhat we neededat
- thisparticularcombinationof skills is extremelyscarcein thefield - I havenot
meta singleotherpersonwhohasthisuniqueskillset.. . . [Thepetitioner]bringsall of
theskill setstogether- hehasanextraordinaryanalyticalbackgroundwith Ph.D.Physics
with a very strongbusinessbackgroundstemmingfrom his two yearsof experienceat
* * *
Page14
I've closelyworkedwith [thepetitioner]for thelastyearandahalf in his capacityasthe
leadfor analyticsfor In particular,[the petitioner]hasdeliveredextraordinary
impactwith his researchwork in thequantificationof themonetaryvalueof usersearch
queries.He hasalsoappliedthesameresearchto a completelydifferentandchallenging
problem- real-timedataminingto find high impactstoriesin massivedatastreams.His
innovationto establishstatisticalsignificanceon onedomainsetwhile usinga different
domainto measurethe quantityof interestis pathbreakingandis likely to establishan
industrystandardfor real-timeinformationprocessingin thenestfew years.Not only is
thescientifictheorybehindthis innovationverysound,it is alsopracticalto implementin
industrial strength applications. hopes to leverage[the petitioner's] work
stronglyto becomethenextbig playerin theinternetspace.
Theotherareaswhere[thepetitioner]madea significantcontributionis thedevelopment
of our Metrics & Analysissystem.Weekover week,[thepetitioner]usedhis Statistics
andBusinessbackground,to comeup with insightson our Internetusers,whatfeatures
on our site areworking well, what couldbe improved,andbackedup his conclusions
with soundstatisticalanalysis.[Thepetitioner's]amazingability to analyzeterabytesof
datais unmatchedandveryunique.
commentson the future significanceof the petitioner's methodologyfor
monetizing internettraffic andreal-timedatamining ratherthan how his work has
alreadyimpactedthefield soasto beconsideredanoriginalcontributionof major significance.
For instance,Mopines that the petitioner'smethodolo "could becomean
industrystandardin real-timeinformationprocessing"andstatesthat' hopesto leverage
[the petitioner's] work stronglyto becomethe next big playerin the internetspace." In this
instance,there is no evidenceshowingthat the petitioner'swork at theMhad already
significantlyinfluencedthe field asof the dateof filing. As previouslydiscussed,eligibility
mustbeestablishedatthetimeof filing. 8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),(12);Matterof Katigbak,14
I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannotbe approvedat a future dateafter the petitionerbecomes
eligibleunderanewsetof facts.MatterofIzummi,22I&N Dec.169,175(Comm'r.1998).That
decisionfurtherprovides,citingMatterofBardouille,18I&N Dec.114(BIA 1981),thatUSCIS
cannot"considerfactsthat comeinto beingonly subsequentto the filing of a petition." Id. at
176. alsofocuseson the petitioner's"softwareskills" andhis analytical
backgroundin physics,business,andstatistics.In orderto establisheligibility for thisregulatory
criterion,thepetitionermustestablishthathis skillsandexpertisehavealreadyresultedin original
contributionsof major significancein the field. doesnot provide specific
examplesof how thepetitioner'soriginalwork at asalreadysignificantlyimpactedthe
industryor otherwiseequatesto originalcontributionsof majorsignificancein thefield.
, theotherco-foundero states:
Therewasonespecificbreakthroughalgorithmthat[thepetitioner)helpedcreate,thatwe
believewill be thebasisof considerablecompetitiveadvantageforM For that
reason,it is atradesecretandwecannotdiscussit in detail.Webelievethisbreakthrough
Page15
is verygeneralandhasimpactacrossawidespectrumof applications.Wehaveprovenit
in onearea,whereit continuesto generatesignificantfinancialreturnsfor us. We are
prototypingit in anotherentirelydifferentarena,wheretoo it appearsto work amazingly
well.
Interestingly,the algorithmheusedhasits originsin thework of anotherPhysicsPh.D.
The applicationof the algorithmis very original. The ideais especiallyelegant.Most
importantly,it worksamazinglywell andproducesvaluableresultsoversomevery large
andcomplexsystems.
* * *
Webelievethis algorithmwill beakeybasisfor successin thefuture.
In this instance,there is no evidenceshowing that the petitioner's algorithm had already
significantlyinfluencedthe field asof the dateof filing. As previouslydiscussed,eligibility
mustbe establishedat thetime of filing. 8 C.F.R.§§ 103.2(b)(1),(12);Matter of Katigbak,14
I&N Dec.at 49. A petitionercannotfile a petitionunderthis classificationbasedsolelyon the
expectationof future eligibility. Id. To satisfythecriterionrelatingto originalcontributionsof
majorsignificance,thepetitionermustdemonstratenotonlythathisalgorithmis novelandusefulto
6but alsothat it hasalreadymadea demonstrableimpacton his field asa
whole. The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(v)requiresthat the
contributionsbe "of majorsignificancein thefield" ratherthanlimitedto a singleemployer.
Thereis no documentaryevidenceshowingthe widespreadcommercialimplementationof the
petitioner'swork or thatit otherwiseequatesto anoriginalcontributionof majorsignificancein
thefield.
statesthathe workedasa Directorof ProductManagementat rom July
2006to December2009. Hefurtherstates:
At I saw[the petitioner]demonstrateextraordinaryability in usingtechniques
he had learnedin advancedPhysicsto solveextremelycomplexproblems.One of his
solutionshashel ed createan improvedschemeof deliveringtargetedadvertisements,
which helped grow its revenuesubstantially.Before[the petitioner's] solution,
severalotherresearchers,primarily from the field of computerscience,at had
attemptedto solvethe sameissues,andhadbeenunableto solveit. [Thepetitioner]was
ableto craft his solutionusin techniqueslearntfrom Physics,especiallythetechniques
aroundmodeling
[Thepetitioner]wasalsoableto extendhis s lutionsto otherproblems,in thedomainof
providing a superiorexperienceto usersof ebsites,especiallyM.com,
whichcreatesa ersonalizednewspaper.His methodology,whichis beingregisteredasa
tradesecretby hasthepotentialto revolutionizethewaypeopleconsumenews
on theinternet.
Page16
[The petitioner's] skill set,of creatingnew algorithmsrelatingto largedatasetsin the
internetindustry,is very rare.It is worth notingthatthe lar st internetcompanieslike
Googleoftenfind it difficult to find this talent.At I haveconductedmany
interviewsof candidates,wherewe werelookingfor this ability. Throughthat processI
havedevelopedan appreciationfor the scarcityof this talent.It's alsoworth repeating
thatsomeof thesolutionsthat[thepetitioner]cameup with hadeludedotherresearchers
from the field of ComputerScience.His ability to apply ideasfrom other domainsto
solvingtheselargedataproblemsis askill setthatis exceptionallyscarce.
In additionto his researchabilities,oneof thereasonsfor [thepetitioner's]extraordinary
contributionsat hasbeenhis understandingof big picturebusiness& consumer
issues.He developedat andhashonedit sincethen.As an
example,his solutionaroundadtargetingcouldnot havebeendevelopedwithout a deep
understandingof the online advertisingmarketplace.Similarly,his solutionaroundthe
personalizednewspapercouldnothavebeendevelopedwithouta goodunderstandingof
howpeopleconsumenews.
Combinedwith his exceptionalresearchabilities, his ability to graspthe big picture
makes[the petitioner)a rare and invaluableasset.In the Internetservicesdomain,all
significant advanceshave comefrom the exceptionallyfew peoplewho possessthis
combinationof skills.
Assumingthepetitioner'sskills areunique,theclassificationsoughtwasnot designedmerelyto
alleviateskill shortagesin a givenfield. In fact,whetheror not thereareskill shortagesin a
given field properly falls underthejurisdiction of the Departmentof Labor throughthe alien
employmentcertificationprocess.SeeMatter of NewYorkStateDep't of Transp.,22 I&N Dec.
at221. Further,aspreviouslydiscussed,theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v)requiresthat
thecontributionsbe"of majorsignificancein thefield" ratherthanlimited to a singleemployer
h as While the petitionerdevisedmethodologiesfor improving
deliveryof targetedadvertisementsandfor dataminingnewsontheinternet,thereis no
evidenceshowingthatthepetitioner'soriginalwork hassignificantlyimpactedthefield beyond
his immediateemployeror otherwiseconstitutesan original scientific contributionof major
significancein thefield.
Theopinionsof expertsin thefield arenot withoutweightandhavebeenconsideredabove. As
previously discussed,USCIS may, in its discretion,use as advisory opinions statements
submittedas experttestimony. SeeMatter of Caron International,19 I&N Dec. at 795.
However,USCIS is ultimately responsiblefor making the final determinationregardingan
alien'seligibility for thebenefitsought. Id. Thesubmissionof lettersfrom expertssupporting
thepetitionis not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmayevaluatethecontentof those
lettersasto whethertheysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at795-796;seealsoMatter of V-
K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 500,n.2 (notingthat expertopiniontestimonydoesnot purportto be
evidenceasto "fact"). Thus,thecontentof theexperts'statementsandhowtheybecameawareof
Page17
the petitioner'sreputationare importantconsiderations.Even when written by independent
experts,letterssolicitedby analienin supportof animmigrationpetitionareof lessweightthan
preexisting,independentevidencethatonewould expectof a physicsresearcherwho hasmade
originalcontributionsof majorsignificance.
Althoughthe recordincludesnumerousattestationsof the potentialimpactof the petitioner's
work, the submittedevidencedoes not show how the petitioner's work has significantly
impactedthe field beyondhis workplace. While the referenceletters demonstratethat the
petitioneris atalentedphysicsresearcherwith potential,theyfall shortof establishingthathehas
already made original contributionsof major significancein the field. Accordingly, the
petitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Evidenceof thealien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thef ield,inprofessionalor
major tradepublicationsor othermajormedia.
Thepetitionerhasdocumentedhis co-authorshipof fourjournalarticles(with his supervisorDr.
thatwerepublishedasof thepetition'sfiling dateand,thus,hehassubmittedqualifying
evidencepursuantto 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Evidencethat the alien has commandeda high salary or other sigm·ficantlyhigh
remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield.
TheAAO withdrawsthedirector'sfindingthatthepetitionermeetsthisregulatorycriterion. The
petitioner submitted evidenceindicating that he receivesan annual salary from
in theamountof $125,000.Thepetitioneralsosubmitted0-Net OnLinereportsfor
"Financial QuantitativeAnalysts" and "BusinessIntelligenceAnalysts" indicating that the
medianannualsalaryfor thoseoccupationsis $57,150and $75,150respectively. The job
descriptionsfor FinancialQuantitativeAnalystsandBusinessIntelligenceAnalysts,however,do
not appearrelevantto thepetitioner'soccupation.Therecordis void of informationregarding
salariesfor thosewho performsimilarwork in theoreticalphysicsor analyticsin theweb-based
servicesindustry. SeeMatterofPrice,20I&N Dec.953,954(Assoc.Commr.1994)(considering
professionalgolfer's earningsversusotherPGA Tour golfers);seealso Grimsonv. INS,934F.
Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (consideringNHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL
enforcers);Muni v. INS, 891F. Supp.440,444-45(N. D. Ill. 1995)(comparingsalaryof NHL
defensiveplayer to salaryof otherNHL defensemen).Moreover,the petitioner'srelianceon
"median" annualsalarydatais not a properbasisfor comparison.The plain languageof the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix)requiresevidenceof a "high salaryor othersigm'ficantly
high remunerationfor services,in relationto othersin thefield" [emphasisadded],not simply a
salarythatplacesthepetitionerin thetop half of his field. For example,accordingto the
Departmentof Labor's OOH, 2010-11Edition, (accessedat www.bls.gov/ocoon June8, 2011
and incorporatedinto the recordof proceedings),the "highestten percent"of computerand
information scientists "earned more than $151,250" in May 2008. See
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos304.htm.
Page18
Thepetitioner'sdocumentationalsoincluded"ForeignLaborCertificationDataCenterOnline
Wage Library" salary information for "Financial Specialists,All Other" and "Computer
Specialists,All Other." The salary information showsthat the Level 4 (fully competent)
"prevailingwage"for FinancialSpecialistsandComputerSpecialistsin theSanFranciscoregionis
$96,970and$100,755respectively.Thepetitionerhasnot establishedthat thesesalaryresults
arerelevantto thosewho performsimilar work in theoreticalphysicsor analyticsin the web-
basedservicesindustry. Moreover,the petitioner'srelianceon salarydata limited to local
"prevailing"wagesis not anappropriatebasisfor comparisonin demonstratingthathis earnings
constitutea "high salaryor othersignificantlyhighremunerationfor services,in relationto othersin
the field." In this case,the evidencesubmittedby thepetitionerdoesnot establishthathe has
receiveda high salaryor othersignificantlyhighremunerationfor servicesin relationto othersin
thefield asof thepetition'sfiling date.
In light of theabove,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathemeetsthiscriterion.
Summary
In this case,theAAO concurswith thedirector'sdeterminationthatthepetitionerhasfailed to
demonstratehis receiptof a major, internationallyrecognizedaward,or that he meetsat least
threeof thetencategoriesof evidencethatmustbesatisfiedto establishtheminimumeligibility
requirementsnecessaryto qualifyasanalienof extraordinaryability. 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).
B. ComparableEvidenceUnder8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(4)
On appeal,counselarguesthat the director erredin failing to considerthe petitioner's
cholarship,his teachingassistantaward,andthereferencelettersascomparable
evidenceof his extraordinaryability. The deficienciesin the precedingdocumentationhave
alreadybeenaddressedunderthe categoriesof evidenceat 8C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)and(v).
Moreover,the regulationat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(4)allows for the submissionof "comparable
evidence"only if the ten categoriesof evidence"do not readily apply to the beneficiary's
occupation." The regulatorylanguageprecludesthe considerationof comparableevidencein
this case,asthereis no evidencethateligibility for visapreferencein thepetitioner'soccupation
cannotbe establishedby the categoriesof evidencespecifiedby the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3).For instance,thereis no evidenceindicatingthatprizesandawardsdo not readily
applyto researchersin thefield of physics. Specifically,theAAO notesthat is
a recipientof the in Physics,the from the Optical Societyof
America,the in Physics,andthe from the Royal
NetherlandsAca emyo rts an ciences.Wherean alienis simplyunableto meetthreeof
theregulatorycriteria at 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3),theplain languageof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(4)doesnotallow for thesubmissionof comparableevidence.
Nevertheless,there is no evidenceshowingthat the documentationthe petitioner requests
reevaluationof ascomparableevidenceconstitutesachievementsandrecognitionconsistentwith
sustainednationalor internationalacclaimattheverytopof hisfield. Thepetitioner'steaching
Page19
assistantawardandMscholarship werelimited to graduatestudents.Suchawardsare
notindicativeof sustainednationalor internationalacclaim,or alevelof expertiseindicatingthat
the petitioneris amongthat small percentagewho haverisen to the very top of the field of
endeavor.Scholarshipsandawardslimited to studentsdo not comparethe petitionerwith the
mostexperiencedandrenownedmembersof thefield. Regardingthereferenceletterssubmitted
by the petitioner,the AAO notesthat they are all from the petitioner's current and former
superiors. While suchlettersare importantin providing detailsaboutthe petitioner'srole in
various projects, they cannot by themselvesestablishthe petitioner's acclaim beyond his
immediatecircle of colleagues. Moreover,referencelettersare not comparableto extensive
evidenceof thealien'sachievementsandrecognitionasrequiredbythestatuteandregulations.The
nonexistenceof requiredevidencecreatesapresumptionof ineligibility. 8C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(2)(i).
The classification sought requires "extensive documentation"of sustained national or
internationalacclaim. Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and
8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3). Thecommentaryfor theproposedregulationsimplementingthe statute
providethat the "intentof Congressthat a very high standardbe setfor aliensof extraordinary
ability is reflected in this regulationby requiring the petitionerto presentmore extensive
documentationthanthatrequired"for lesserclassifications.56 Fed.Reg.30703,30704(July 5,
1991). Primaryevidenceof achievementsandrecognitionis of far greaterprobativevaluethan
opinionstatementsfrom referencesselectedby the petitioner. A final meritsdeterminationthat
considersall of theevidencefollows.
C. Final MeritsDetermination
In accordancewith theKazarianopinion,theAAO will nextconducta final meritsdetermination
thatconsidersall of theevidencein thecontextof whetheror notthepetitionerhasdemonstrated:
(1) a "levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisen
to theverytop of the[ir] field of endeavor,"8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2);and(2) "that the alienhas
sustainednationalor internationalacclaimandthathisorherachievementshavebeenrecognizedin
thefield of expertise."Section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct; 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).SeealsoKazarian,
596F.3dat 1119-1120.In the presentmatter,manyof the deficienciesin the documentation
submittedby the petitionerhave alreadybeenaddressedin our precedingdiscussionof the
regulatorycriteria at 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(i)- (v) and(ix).
With regardto the evidencesubmittedfor 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),this decisionhasalready
addressedwhy the submittedawardsdo not rise to the level of nationally or internationally
recognizedawardsfor excellence. The evidencediscussedaboveis alsonot indicativeof or
consistentwith sustainednationalacclaimor a levelof expertiseindicatingthatthepetitioneris
oneof that smallpercentagewho haverisento the very top of his field. The AAO notesthat
competitionfor thepetitioner'steachingassistantawardand scholarshipwaslimited
to students.Thus,they cannotestablishthat a petitioner"is oneof that smallpercentagewho
haverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor."8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2).USCIShaslongheld
thatevenathletesperformingatthemajorleagueleveldonotautomaticallymeetthe"extraordinary
ability" standard.Matterof Price,20I&N Dec.953,954(Assoc.Commr.1994);56Fed.Reg,at
Page20
Likewise,it doesnot follow that receivinga scholarshipor awardlimited to students
should necessarilyqualify a physicsresearcherfor an extraordinaryability employment-based
immigrantvisa. To find otherwisewould contravenethe regulatoryrequirementat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(2)thatthisvisacategorybereservedfor "thatsmallpercentageof individualsthathave
risentotheverytopof theirfield of endeavor."
Regardingthe documentationsubmittedfor 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(iv),the AAO cannotconclude
thatthepetitioner'slevelandfrequencyof peerreview(onlyfive manuscriptsfor twojournalsin
2008)is commensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimat the very top of the
field of endeavor.TheAAO notesthatpeerreviewof manuscriptsis a routineelementof the
processby whicharticlesareselectedfor publicationin scientificjournals. Normallyajournal's
editorial staff will enlist the assistanceof numerousprofessionalsin the field who agreeto
review submittedpapers. Thus,peerreview is routine in the field; not everypeerreviewer
enjoysnationalor internationalacclaim. Moreover,thepublication'seditorialstaff may accept
or rejectanyreviewer'scommentsin determiningwhetherto publishor rejectsubmittedpapers.
For example,thepetitioner'sresponseto thedirector'srequestfor evidenceincludedadocument
entitled"EditorialPoliciesandProceduresof PhysicalReviewA" stating:
PhysicalReviewA hasanEditorialBoardwhosemembersarelistedon theinsidecover
of theJournal. Boardmembersareappointedfor three-yeartermsby theEditor-in-Chief
uponrecommendationof theEditorafterconsultationwith appropriateAPSdivisions.
* * *
Refereereportsareadvisoryto theEditor(s). As a matterof practice,reportsof referees
aregenerallytransmittedby theEditor(s)to theauthors,but theEditor(s)maywithhold
or edit thesereportsfor cause. If in thejudgmentof the Editor(s) a paperis clearly
unsuitablefor PhysicalReviewA, it will berejectedwithoutreview. . . .
[Emphasisadded.] Without evidencethatsetsthepetitionerapartfrom othersin his field, such
as evidencethat he has receivedand completedindependentrequestsfor review from a
substantialnumberof journalsor servedin aneditorialpositionfor a distinguishedjournal, the
While a district court's decisionis not binding precedent,the AAO notesthat in Matter of Racine, 1995WL
153319at*4 (N.D.Ill. Feb.16,1995),thecourtstated:
[T]heplainreadingof thestatutesuggeststhattheappropriatefield of comparisonis nota comparisonof
Racine'sability with thatof all thehockeyplayersat all levelsof play;but rather,Racine'sability asa
professionalhockeyplayerwithintheNHL. Thisinterpretationisconsistentwithatleastoneothercourtin
thisdistrict,Grimsonv.INS,No.93C 3354,(N.D.Ill. September9, 1993),andthedefinitionof theterm
8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(2),andthediscussionsetforthin thepreambleat56Fed.Reg.60898-99.
Although the presentcasearosewithin thejurisdiction of anotherfederaljudicial district andcircuit, the court's
reasoningindicatesthatUSCIS'interpretationof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix)isreasonable.
Page21
AAO cannot concludethat his level and frequencyof peer review is commensuratewith
sustainednationalor internationalacclaimattheverytopof thefield of endeavor.For instance,
esumeindicatesthat he has servedas for the Journal of
QuantitativeSpectroscopyandRadiativeTransferandon theEditorial Boardof PhysicalReview
A.
With regardto thepetitioner'soriginalresearchwork submittedfor 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v),as
statedabove,it doesnot appearto riseto thelevelof contributionsof "majorsignificance"in the
field. Demonstratingthatthepetitioner'swork was"original" in thatit did not merelyduplicate
prior researchis not usefulin settingthepetitionerapartthrougha "careerof acclaimedwork."
H.R. Rep.No. 101-723,59 (Sept.19, 1990).Thatpage(59) alsosaysthat "an alienmust(1)
demonstratesustainednationalor internationalacclaimin thesciences,arts,education,businessor
athletics(asshownthroughextensivedocumentation)..."Researchwork thatis unoriginalwould
beunlikelyto securethepetitioneramaster'sdegree,let aloneclassificationasaphysicsresearcher
of extraordinaryability. To arguethatall originalresearchis,by definition,"extraordinary"is to
weakenthat adjectivebeyond any useful meaning,and to presumethat most researchis
"unoriginal." In this case,the recorddoesnot containsufficientevidencethat the petitioner's
researchfindingsandmodelshadmajorsignificancein thefield, let alonean impactconsistent
with beingnationallyor internationallyacclaimedasextraordinary.
Regardingtheevidencesubmittedfor 8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi),theAAO acknowledgesthatthe
petitionercoauthoredjournalarticles(4) andconferencespaperswith hissuperiorsatthe asa
partof his graduatestudiesat the Universityof Colorado. TheDepartmentof Labor's (OOH),
2010-11Edition(accessedatwww.bls.gov/ocoonJune9, 2011andincorporatedinto therecord
of proceedings),providesinformationaboutthenatureof employmentasa postsecondaryteacher
(professor)andtherequirementsfor suchaposition. Seehttp://www.bls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos066.pdf.
Thehandbookexpresslystatesthatfacultymembersarepressuredto performresearchandpublish
their work andthat the professor'sresearchrecordis a considerationfor tenure. Moreover,the
doctoralprogramstrainingstudentsfor facultypositionsrequirea dissertation,or writtenreporton
originalresearch.Id. This informationrevealsthatoriginalpublishedresearch,whetherarising
from researchat a universityor privateemployer,doesnot settheresearcherapartfrom facultyin
thatresearcher'sfield. Further,thereis no documentaryevidenceshowingthatthepetitionerhas
publishedanyjournalarticlesor conferencepaperssubsequentto Thestatuteandregulations,
however,requirethe petitionerto demonstratethat his nationalor internationalacclaimas a
researcherhas been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8U.S.C.
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentationsubmittedfor 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi)is not commensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimasof the
filing dateof thepetition.
Moreover,thepetitioner'scitationhistoryis arelevantconsiderationasto whethertheevidenceis
indicativeof thepetitioner'srecognitionbeyondhis own circleof collaborators.SeeKazarian,
596F.3d at 1122. As previouslydiscussed,the documentationsubmittedby the petitioner
indicatesthathisbodyof workhasbeenmoderatelycitedasof thepetitioner'sfiling date.This
levelof citationisnotsufficienttodemonstratethatthepetitioner'sarticleshaveattractedalevel
Page22
of interestin his field commensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimat thevery
topof thefield.
Regardingthe documentationsubmittedfor 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix),there is no evidence
demonstratingthatpetitioner'ssalaryis "high" in relationto othersperformingsimilarwork or that
hislevelof compensationplaceshim amongthatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento thevery top
of thefield.
Ultimately,the evidencein the aggregatedoesnot distinguishthepetitionerasoneof the small
percentagewho has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitionerrelies on
undocumentedinternalrecognitionby his immediateemployer,a scholarshipand a teaching
assistantawardlimited to students,his associationmembershipswhichhavenot beenshownto
requireoutstandingachievements,publicationsand conferencepresentationsresultingfrom his
supervisedgraduateresearchat the JILA, citationevidenceshowingthat his work hasbeen
moderatelycited,mediansalaryandprevailingwagedatafor unrelatedoccupations,andlettersof
praiselimitedtohiscurrentandformersuperiors.
TheAAO notesthatthepetitioner'sreferences'credentialsarefar moreimpressive.For example,
thebiographysubmittedbythepetitionerfor states:
is a Web andtechnologyentrepreneur.He is the co-founderof
He alsoco-foundedformeM andplayeda
significantroleatAmazon.comin thelate1990s.
While at Stanfordwherehepreparedfor his Ph.D., co-wrotea paperwith
and which is amongthe top 600 most cited computer
sciencearticesoverthelast20 years.Togetherwith four otherengineers,
founde pioneeredInternetcomparisonshopping.
wasacquiredb Amazon.comInc.in August1998for 1.6million sharesof
stockvaluedat $250million. enton to become Technology
at Amazon.com,wherehewasresponsiblefor technologystrategy.Hehelpedlaunchthe
transformationof Amazon.comfrom a retailerinto a retailplatform,enablingthird-party
retailersto sell on Amazon.com'swebsite.Third-party transactionsnow accountfor
almost25% of all U.S. transactions,andrepresentAmazon'sfastest-growingandmost
profitable businesssegment. also was an inventor of the concept
underlyingAmazon.com's
and his businesspartner, co-founded
anearlystageVC [VentureCapital]fund,in 2000.Cambrianwentonto back
severalcompanieslater acquiredby Google.Cambrianhas fundedcompanieslike
In 2005,the businesspartnersco-
founded In additionto actingasaconsutmgassistantprofessorin theComputer
ScienceDepartmentat StanfordUniversity, also has a blog called
Page23
on which he discussesdatamining techniquesin search,socialmedia,and
advertising.
Accordingto esume,he is a Fellow of the APS anda Fellow of the American
Associationfor the Advancementof Science. academicappointmentsinclude
Professorand Chairmanof the Departmentof Physicsat the University lorado. His
researchappointmentsinclude ResearchFellow and Chairman at the and visitingprofessorshipsat Universityof British Columb' University,Universit of Newcastle,
Universityof Otago,andUniversityof Oregon. alsoservedas for
the Journal of QuantitativeSpectroscopyand RadiativeTransferandon the Editor1alBoard of
PhysicalReviewA.
is aNobelPrizerecipient,a SeniorScientistatthe aProfessorAdjoint in
thePhysicsDepartmentat theUniversityof Colorado,anda Fellow of the , theNIST and
the Universityof Coloradoat Boulder. s alsoa Memberof the U.S. National
Academyof Sciencesand a Fellow of both the Optical Societyof Americaand the APS.
Further,he receivedthe 2000 al Societyof America, the
BenjaminFranklinMedalin Physicsin 1999,andtl from theRoyalNetherlands
Academyof Arts andSciencesin 1998.
Mr. is Vice Hestates:
At eBay, I led a team of 70 engineerswho developedthe entire ShoppingSearch
experience.I havealsoworkedat Sun,andanumberof startupcompaniesin theInternet
and Enterprisespace.I have more than 6-7 patentsand severalpublicationsin areas
rangingfrom 3-D graphicsto Searchtechnology.I havealsomanagedteamsof up to 71
engineers. . . .
states:
I co-foundeda companyright afterStanfordcalled that wasthe first Shopping
SearchEngine.Mas acquiredby Amazon.comin 1998for $250 Million. At
Amnazon.com,I wasinstrumentalin Amazon.comenteringtheMarketplacebusiness-
todayaccountsfor 30%of all ordersatAmazon.com.After Amazon.com,in
2000, I co-foundeda venturefund, CambrianVentures,that focusedon early stage
investments.In 2004I co-founded
Finally, theAAO notesthat is a Fellow of th anda in
theDe artmentof PhysicsattheUniversityof Coloradoin Boulder. In his letterof support,Dr.
who supervisedthe petitioner's graduateresearch,states: "I look forward to the
developmentof [thepetitioner's]careerwith greatanticipation."Thepetitioner,however,seeks
a highly restrictivevisa classification,intendedfor individualsalreadyat the top of their
respectivefields, ratherthan for individualsprogressingtoward the top at someunspecified
futuretime.
Page24
Whilethepetitionerneednotdemonstratethatthereis no onemoreaccomplishedthanhimselfto
qualifyfor theclassificationsought,it appearsthattheverytopof hisfield of endeavoris far above
thelevelhehasattained.In thiscase,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthathisachievementsatthe
time of filing werecommensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimas a physics
researcher,or beingamongthatsmallpercentageattheverytopof thefield of endeavor.
III. Conclusion
Reviewof therecorddoesnotestablishthatthepetitionerhasdistinguishedhimselfto suchan
extentthathemaybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandto be
within thesmallpercentageat theverytop of his field. Theevidenceis not persuasivethatthe
petitioner'sachievementssethim significantlyabovealmostall othersin hisfield at anationalor
internationallevel. Therefore,the petitionerhasnot establishedeligibility pursuantto section
203(b)(1)(A)of theAct andthepetitionmaynotbeapproved.
An applicationor petitionthatfails to complywith thetechnicalrequirementsof thelaw maybe
deniedby theAAO evenif the ServiceCenterdoesnot identify all of thegroundsfor denialin
theinitial decision.SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229F. Supp.2d at 1043,
aff'd,345F.3dat683;seealsoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3dat 145(notingthattheAAO conducts
appellatereviewon adenovobasis).
Thepetitionwill bedeniedfor theabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependent
andalternativebasisfor denial. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for
thebenefitsoughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.
Here,thatburdenhasnotbeenmet.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.