dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLIC copy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
FEB 0 8 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section'203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please fmd the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
'\ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
;' 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The' employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based iinmigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1 1 53(b)(1)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the 
requisite extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and sUstained national or 
international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner: demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time 
achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. '8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Por the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's 
decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
we aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
'business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
Page 3 
,U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability: See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d' 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. Id. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, 'a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's ,receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
. recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations ill the field for whic~ 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought: Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) 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 specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles In the field, In 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
Page 4 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the perfonning arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
, 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under,this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 P.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a giv~n evidentiary criterion. l With respect to the criteria 
at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "fmal merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "fmal merits detennination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS detennines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top ofthe[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1 )(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-1120. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in tHe context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO,will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step anruysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 P. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 P.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); 
see alsoSoltane v. DOJ, 381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
According to the petitioner's initial statement, this petition, filed on August 12, 2009, seeks to 
classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability in medical imaging and simulation. 
The petitioner received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the 
2006. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working for the 
as a technical advisor in patent prosecution.' 
docum~ntation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).2 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplihes or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condit jon for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment ,or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by ,c611eagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not. satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
patent IS a 
record in the applications is a 
~ 
limited recognition under 37 CFR § 11.9(b) as an employe~) 
to and patent applications in which the 
and the atto~ 
a member of_ 
The petitioner also submitted a certification from the 
_stating: 
37 CFR § 11.9(b) as an eII:1ployee 
law firm to prosecute patent 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
The petitioner's receipt of "limited recognition" to prepare and prosecute patent applications with 
the USPTO does not equate 10 "membership" in an association in the field for which classification is 
sought. Further, there is no evidence showing that being given limited recognition by the USPTO 
requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field. 
initial documentation included evidence indicating that he is a member of the 
and information from'the association's 
we specifying its membership requirements. The submitted material from the_ 
website states: 
To qualify for membership, applicants must be members in good standing of the Bar of a 
court of record of the United States or any State. Foreign affiliate members must be able 
-to practice in a court of general jurisdiction in their countries to be considered for 
membership. _also has student memberships available for those regularly enrolled 
in a law school approved by the Association of American Law Schools and membership 
is available to patent agents who are registered with the USPTO. 
We cannot conclude that being a member in good standing of the Bar of a court of record located 
in the United States, being eligible to practice in a court of general jurisdiction in one's foreign 
country, or being registered with the USPTO equate to outstanding achi~vements. Further, there 
is no evidence showing that prospective AIPLA members are evaluated by recognized national 
or international experts in the petitioner's field. 
showing that he is a member of the ••• 
and general information about the association from its 
IS no (such as bylaws or rules of admission) showing that the _ 
requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in the petitioner's field.3 
In light of above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
3 According information posted on the _internet site, "The grade of Member is limited to. those who have 
satisfied _specified educational requirements and/or who have demonstrated professional competence in_ 
designated fields of interest. For admission or transfer to the grade of Member, a candidate may be either: (a) An 
individual who has received a three-to-five year university-level or higher degree from an accredited institution or 
program and in an-'designated field; (b) An individual who has received a tIu;ee-to-five year university-level or 
higher degrc:;e from an accredited institution or program and who has at least three years of professional work 
experience engaged in teaching, creating, developing, practicing or managing in IEEE-designated fields; or (c) An 
individual who, through at least six years of professional work experience, has demonstrated competence in 
teaching, creating, developing, practicing or managing within IEEE~designated fields." See http://www.ieee.org/ 
membership services/membership/join/qualifications.html, accessed on January 26, 2011, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceeding. With regard to the petitioner's "Member" grade, we cannot conclude that meeting minimum 
"educational requireVlents" and demonstrating "professional competence" equate to "outstanding achievements." 
Page 7 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media,relating to the alien's work 'in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall includi the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 
, 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the 
petitioner and, as stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or , 
other major media. To qualify as major media, the publication should have significant national or 
international distribution. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, 
unlike small local community papers.4 
The petitioner submitted articles posted at HPCwire.com, DOTmed.com, USNews.com, 
BusinessWeek online, and Virtual Medical Worlds' website. None of these articles mention the 
petitioner by name and they are not about him. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
however, requires that the published material be "about the alien." Further, there are no internet 
readership statistics or other comparable evidence showing that that HPCwire.com, DOTmed.com, 
and Virtual Medical Worlds' website equate to major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of six articles citing to his work. 5 Articles which cite to the 
petitioner's work are primarily about the author's own work, and are not about the petitioner or even , 
his work. With regard to this criterion, a footnoted reference to the alien's work without evaluation 
is of minimal probative value. As previously discussed, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
requires that the published material be "about the alien." The submitted articles do not discus~ the 
merits of the petitioner's work, his standing in the field, any significant impact that his work has 
had on the field, or' any other information so as to be considered published material about the 
petitioner as required by this criterion. Moreover, we note that the submitted articles citing to the 
petitioner's work similarly referenc~d numerous other authors. The research articles citing to the 
petitioner's work are more relevant to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will 
be addressed there. 
In light of above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the sam~ or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 
4 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For 
example, an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County,' 
Virginia, for instance, cannot serve to spre~d an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
5 In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted six articles citing to his work, but five of 
those articles were duplicate copies 'already submitted at the time the petition was initially filed. 
Page 8 
in the 
to the petitioner 
requesting that he review manuscript T-SP-03726-2005 for IEEE Transactions on Signal 
Processing. The petitioner also submitted an April 4, 2006 e-mail requesting that he review a 
manuscript entitled "Visualization of Depth in 2D Images (A Perspective Mathematical Model 
Approach)" for Journal o/Computing and lriformation Technology (JCIl) and a July 15, 2009 letter 
from the Editor.,.in-Chief of JCITverifying the petitioner's service as a reviewer. 
In response to the director's 
letter from 
* * * 
of the technical 
an~ 
During the review proc~ss, [the petitioner] completed a thorough and rigorous review of 
eight submissions in the area of his expertise. Of nearly 500 reviewers that we invited to 
review the submissions, [the petitioner] was among a very select group of reviewers who 
was able to provide in-depth comments and opinions that were extremely helpful in making 
decisions for acceptances and rejections. ( , 
at 
and 
the petitioner's Ph.D. thesis advisor. _states: 
Both IEEE TMI (Transactions on Medical Imaging) and IEEE Multimedia Magazine 
employ a stringent peer-review process for accepting submissions for publication. As an 
Editor of numerous IEEE-sponsored journals, I know only experts in the field are invited to 
serve as the reviewers for these two international journals. 
From December 2005 to January 2006, I invited [the petitioner] to review a submission to 
IEEE TMI, entitled "A fast and accurate tomosynthesis simulation model" (submission ID 
TMI-2005-0536) and two submissions to IEEE Multimedia Magazine, entitled "Interactive 
system for the active exploration of cultural heritage by blind people" and "Supporting 
Communication on Bioelasticity by Haptic Interaction, with Deformable Media," 
respectively. 
The petitoner's response included supporting documentation showing that the petitioner peer­
reviewed the preceding three articles. The petitoner also submitted October 2005 and January 2006 
e-mails . that the petitoner completed the review of manuscript T-
Page 9 
for IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.6 The petitioner's response also 
included e-mails from June and July 2006 -indicating that the petitoner reviewed the manuscript 
entitled "Visualization of Depth in 2D Images (A Perspective Mathematical Model Approach)" for 
JCIT. -
Thus, the record contains evidence showmg that the petitioner participated in reviewing five 
manuscripts for four journals and eight submissions to the ICASSP during 2005 and 2006. This 
documentation meets the plain language _ reqUirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). However, certain deficiencies pertaining to this evidence will be addressed 
below in our final merits determination regarding-whether the submitted evidence is commensurate 
with sustained national or international acclaim, or being among that small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
Evidence of the alien IS original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his work as a technical advisor in patent 
prosecution and as a biomedical engineering researcher. 
As a patent law firm, our work naturally concerns innovative technologies, many of 
which are the most advanced scientific findings in the world~ [The petitioner] is a 
technical advisor at Leydig, where he is responsible for the scientific and technical aspect 
of patent procurement in the field of electrical and mechanical engineering, such as signal 
and image processing, medical imaging, computer software, computer graphics and 
automotive engineering. He holds a critical role in developing patent applications, 
providing strategies for responses to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office actions, and 
preparing technical opinions on patent law issues relating to electrical and mechanical 
engineering topics. We hired [the petitioner] for his expertise and extraordinary ability in 
science and engineering, his solid kllowledge of U.S. patent law, and for his outstanding 
skills in patent procurement. 
* * * 
In January 2009, [the petitioner] transferred to our firm and quickly took on many 
challenging projects in patent prosecution. In these projects, [the petitioner] showed an 
outstanding ability to quickly assess the merit of an invention and to develop high-quality 
claims and arguments directed to given technologies .. Many of these inventions involved 
complex medical imaging and computer simulation technologies such as colposcopy 
imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, and image-guided surgery, developed by , 
6 We note that resume states that he served as 
_ from 2002 - 2006. 
Page 10 
renoWned scientists with years of experience in the field. In less than a week, [the 
petitioner] was able to gain a thorough understanding of these technologies by analyzing 
the scientific papers and materials authored by these scientists. Most importantly, he was 
able to qUIckly identify the most important novelties· of these inventions and incorporate 
them into the patent applications. 
The plaih language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's 
contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited to his law firm and its 
clients. The information provided by does not establish that the petitioner's work 
for significantly impacted the field of medical imaging and simulation 
beyond the scope of his projects for his current employer. 
In September 2007, we hired [the petitioner] as a Technical Advisor in patent prosecution 
because of his extraordinary scientific and technological skills. As a law firm specialized 
in patent procurement, MBHB helps clients to secure their patent rights by obtaining 
patents for their new inventions. At MBHB, [the petitioner's] work Involved analyzing 
the patentability of new inventions, developing patent claims and patent applications) that 
provide proper legal coverage for inventions, and working with the United St~tes and 
Patent Office (USPTO) to precisely define the scope of each patent claim: A majority of 
inventions for which [the petitioner] successfully developed patent applications involved 
complex technologies, such as optical imaging systems for biological tissue sample 
analysis and brain tumor diagnosis based on magnetic resonance imaging. These 
technologies were invented by well known scientists and researchers from universities 
and technological companies around the world. Properly understanding every inventive 
aspect of these technologies in order to develop high-quality patent applications and 
translating the technical descriptions into claims to provide comprehensive patent 
protection required [the petitioner's] extensive experience and unparalleled scientific 
abilities in medical imaging and simulation .. 
With regard to the letters submitted _, there is no evidence showing 
that the petitioner's work for their firms equates to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. While the petitioner's work as a technical advisor· was beneficial to the 
preceding firms and their clients, there is no evidence demonstrating that his projects for them 
have significantly impacted the field at large. Once again, a contribution to one's employer and 
its clients is not necessarily a contribution of major significance in the field. Further, the 
petitioner has not established that his specific work as a "technical advisor" prosecuting patents 
for technologies invented by "renowned" and "well known" scientists is original as required by 
the plain language of this criterion. Rather, the petitioner is translating the original technological 
innovations created by others into patent applications to provide proper legal coverage for those 
inventions. 
. Page 11 
In discussing the petitioner's Ph.D. research at the 
states: 
I have known [the petitioner] since he frrst joined our department in June 2001 as a Ph.D. 
stu~ent. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] was a key investigator of our research group, and worked on a number of' 
highly successful projects. One such pro' ect involved digital tomo . Imagmg, 
which was funded , a leading 
<,,,<,T,,,,,,,,<,. Digital tomosynthesis is a method for producing 
sectional images of a huinan body. . ., Traditional tomosynthetic images, however, 
contained excessive artifacts, and the imaging speeds were very slow. These technical 
issues seriously limited the practical application of tomosynthesis in clinical settings until 
[the petitioner] successfully developed his high-performance reconstruction algorithm. In 
order to improve the image quality and reconstruction speed, [the petitioner] used a novel 
multi-resolution statistical reconstruction method, which provided a perfect solution for 
high-quality, high-speed digital tomosynthesis. His ingenious approa~h reduced imaging 
time by ·60% and)mproved the image quality by 80%. As a result, [the petitioner's] 
tomosynthesis system has been shown to produce greater sensitivity and specificity in 
breast cancer screening than previously employed systems. 
While the petitioner's Ph.D. research produced statistical reconstruction 
method in a collaborative project funded by 
II, there is no evidence from the company i1{dicating that~it successfully implemented the 
petitioner's algorithm in its product line or that his statistical reconstruction method otherwise 
equates to an original contribution of major significance in -the field. Further, with regard to the 
petitioner's Ph.D. work in 
of Labor's Edition (accessed 
www.bls.govioco on January 27,2011 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), states: 
Electrical engineers design, develop, test, and supervise the manufacture of electrical 
equipment . .. , Although the terms electrical and electronics engineering often are used 
interchangeably in academia and industry, electrical engineers traditionally have focused 
j 
on the generation and supply of power, whereas electronics engineers have worked on 
I 
applications of electricity to control systems or signal processing .. Electrical engineers 
specialize in areas such as power systems engineering or electrical equipment 
manufacturing. 
Electronics engineers, except computer, are responsible for a wide range of 
technologies, from portable music players to global positioning systems (GPS), which 
can continuously provide the location of, for example, a vehicle. Electronics engineers 
design, develop, test, and supervise the manufacture of electronic equipment such as 
broadcast and communications systems. Many electronics engineers also work in areas 
. .. \ 
-Page 12 
closely related to computers. . . . Electronics engineers specialize in areas such as 
communications, signal processing, and control systems or have a specialty within one of 
these areas - control systems or aviation electronics, for example. 
(Emphasis added.) See http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm. If the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) is to have any meaning, it must be presumed that merely performing routine 
duties inherent to one's occupation (~;uch as designing, developing and testing novel systems) is 
not necessarily indicative of original scientific contributions of "major significance" in the field. 
_further states: 
In addition, [the petitioner] was also one of the first scientists to develop a practical 
digital tomosynthesis system using low cost X-ray imaging equipment. This was the ,first 
practical tomosynthesis system in the world and has been integrated into 
a commercial imaging system for clinical breast cancer screening, and is now undergoing 
the FDA approval. Notably, due to the success of [the petitioner's] research in 
tomosynthesis, _ was granted 
of the Year Award in women's health diagnostics. 
<'11"'1"\1"\.-1" or other dOI:;!!I~1!illlQD 
indicating that was granted 
the Year Award in women's health diagnostics "due to the success of 
re in tomosynthesis." As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted a 
November 11,2004 article posted on Virtual Medical Worlds' website entitled "Hologic receives 
2004 Technology Leadership of the Year Award in women's health 
diagnostics for breast cancer." This article, which does not even mention the petitioner, states: 
Hologic first demonstrated tomosynthesis with patient images and a prototype system as 
an· add-on to its Selenia full field digital mammography system at the Radiological 
Society of North America meeting in Chicago in November 2003. Clinical trials began . 
in the summer of 2004 at major university research sites.in the United States. 
In this instance, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner presented original work or' 
coauthored Hologic's presentation at the Radiological Society of North America meeting in 
Chicago in November 2003. Without evidence from Hologic Inc. detailing the specific nature of 
the petitioner's contribution to its commercial tomosynthesis system and the extent of his 
system's implementation as a mammography screening te'chnology, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner's work for the company's subsidiary, Direct Radiography Corporation, constitutes an 
original scientific contribution of major significance in the field . 
. _continues: 
During his Ph.D. training, [the petitioner] also made several notable contributions to the 
field of computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS), which has significant potential to 
improve medical trainin'g in our country. CASS is a new technology that has been shown 
-Page 13 
to help medical students master surgical skills quicker, and to enhance the understanding 
of a variety of surgical procedures~ [The petitioner's] research in CASS addressed 
important issues concerning soft tissue modeling and high-performance real-time 
interactIve simulations. . . . 'Working at the Bioinformatics Center at the Delaware 
Biotechnology Institute, [the petitioner] successfully developed a novel adaptive 
deformable modeL His adaptive deformation algorithm, based on efficient computation 
methods, is well suited for high-performance computer-aided surgical simulations where 
accurate soft tissue models and \ fast computations are highly desired. Following his 
exceptional findings, [the petitioner] designed and built from scratch a cutting-edge 
virtual surgical simulator using innovative haptic devices that generated accurate human­
computer interactions with extremely high efficiency. Unlike traditional surgical training 
models, which rely on physical materials that are expensive and potentially dangerous, 
training programs generated by [the petitioner's] simulator can be easily controlled and 
_I repeated without additional cost. . 
_ does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's adaptive deformable 
algorithm and surgical simulator are being utilized by others in the field. There is .. no evidence 
showing that petitioner's work is frequently cited by independent researchers or otherwise equates 
to original scientific contributions of major significance in the field. 
since 
September 2005. repeats Ah,,,pr"<>t·'A~'" regarding the petitioner's 
development of a multi-resolution statistical algorithm, adaptive deformation algorithm, and 
surgical simulation model. 
states: 
[The petitioner's] Ph.D. research was in the area of medical image processing. His 
research made significant contributions that expanded scientific knowledge in the field by 
improving tomosynthetic imaging, which is an advanced medical imaging technology for 
breast cancer detection. [The petitioner] invented a multi-resolution statistical 
reconstruction algorithm that substantially improved the quality and speed of 
tomosynthetic . imaging, which made cancer detection significantly easier. Tlus finding 
was been [sic] published· at several prominent international conferences, including the 
International Symposium of Biomedical Imaging and the 29th Bioengineering 
Conference. 
* * * 
Work by [the petitioner]. in computer-aided surgical simulation 
important results. During the course of this research at the 
_[the petitioner] developed a novel mathematic ... v~". 
computer-aided surgical simulations. His work has the potential to significantly reduce 
Page 14 
the use of animals and humans in medical training programs for surgeons and medical 
students, which will have the effect of improving the safety of these training programs 
while . the costs. This work has been at international conferences, 
and 
* * * 
[The p~titioner's] research work at also is beneficial to the 
United States. . .. [The petitioner] took the chal~enge to develop a computer-aided CT 
image analysis system to automate cardiac disease diagnosis by analyzing a patient's CT 
angiograms. This system is based on sophisticated medical image processing algorithms 
and multivariate quantification methods. A comprehensive clinical study led by [the 
petitioner] has confirmed that this discovery has narrowed the gap between research 
developmeI!t and practical clinical application in coronary disease diagnosis. This 
outstanding work by [the petitioner] has been published in the American Journal of 
Roentgenology, a high regarded, peer-reviewed journal with worldwide circulation. 
The regulations contain a separate criterion :regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the scholarly 
articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. The 
regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for 
authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly 
does not view the two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at 
least three separate criteria. We will fully address the petitioner's scholarly articles under the next 
criterion. ~egardless, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's peer­
reviewed publications are frequently cited by independent researchers or otherwise rise to the 
"level of original contributions of major significance in the field. 
[The petitioner] is one of the few scientists in the world who have done extensive 
research work on medical imaging. For example, [the petitioner] has made significant 
contributions to digital tomosynthesis (DTS) by inventing a multi-resolution statistical 
reconstruction algorithm .... He developed innovative reconstruction methods that used 
statistical modeling in a new multi-resolution framework. These methods substantially 
reduced image artifacts and increased the computational speed for DTS. A 
commercialized breast imaging system based on [the petitioner's] research was 
manufactured by and was widely reported by nationwide media outlets, 
including the U.S. News, the Business Week, the Medical Industry Business Weekly, the 
Page 15 
Virtual Medical Worlds Monthly, etc. [The petitioner's] innovative finding paved the way 
for routine clinical application of DTS, which improved breast cancer diagnosis. 
As previously discussed, none of the articles submitted from the preceding media sources 
identify the petitioner as a primary contributor to commercialized breast cancer 
imaging system. We further note that the December 2, 2005 article posted at USNews.com 
states that is "one of the companies developing tomosythesis systems. Others 
include GE which a model at the radiology meeting that has been 
industry. 
In this case, there is no evidence from 
detailing the specific nature of the petitioner's contribution to its coilunercial 
SIS system and the extent to which his original methods are being utilized in the 
_ continues: 
In addition, the results of [the petitioner's] research have beenpresented at prestigious 
international conferences including the IEEE International Symposium. on Biomedical 
Imaging and the 29th Bioengineering Conference. These_ important findings reached 
numerous researchers from all over the worlq at each of these conferences. 
* * * 
During the course' of his Ph.D. program, [the petitioner] conduyted cutting-edge research 
in virtual surgical simulation and obtained exciting results. He invented an adaptive 
algorithm for a high performance virtual surgical simulation.' [The petitioner] was the 
first to demonstrate that ,a mass-spring model based on an· adaptive algorithm can be as 
accurate as a finite element model, which is accurate but computationally slow. 
Following these new breakthroughs, [the petitioner] developed a novel, simple, and fast 
computer graphic program for virtual surgical simulations. [The petitioner]'s invention 
significantly reduced computational costs' for accurate virtual surgical simulations by 
over 80%. This improvement allowed simulators to be built at a significantly lower cost, 
arid allowed for the widespread application of such simulators in routine medical training. 
These significant findings have been presented as posters or oral presentations at several 
prestigious international conferences, including the Inter;national Symposium on Haptic 
Interface for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Medicine Meets Virtual 
Reality international conference, and the annual conference of the Special Interest Group 
on Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH). 
There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the findings presented by the petitioner at 
the preceding conferences are frequently cited by independent research groups or otherwise 
constitute original contributions of major significance in the field. While the petitioner's 
research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to be original and 
present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific community. Any 
Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication, 
presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It 
does not follow that every research engineer who performs original research that adds to the 
general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of "major significance" to the field 
as a whole. 
. states; 
[The petitioner] developed an innovative computer-aid~d virtual. surgery. simulation 
system by neatly integrating novel l;1aptic devices into virtual environments to render 
sophisticated immersive virtual surgical procedures: [The petitioner's] simulation system 
provided the medical trainees with realistic visual renderings of surgical environments 
and high-fidelity tactile feedback (simulated sense of touch). . .. Furthermore, [the 
petitioner's] system allowed surgeons to practice an operation multiple times without the 
use of any cadavers or animals. It also allowed for the simulation of rare pathological 
cases, where complications could conveniently be introduced during the simulated 
surgery to test the user on real world scenarios. 
[The petitioner] also developed a fast deformable model, a critical component for high­
fidelity surgical simulations. This. deformable model is\ considered to be a promising 
breakthrough in virtual surgery simulation for its ability tb simulate human tissues and 
organs quickly and accurately. This innovative work by [the petitioner] allows other 
scientists, like myself, to better understand simulated tissue responses in computer­
generated surgery environments. , 
The results of [the petitioner's] research work have been presented at a number ofleading 
international conferences, including the Medicine Meets Virtual Reality conference, the 
annual conference of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)'s Special I~terest 
Group on Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH), and the Symposium on 
Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment· and Teleoperator Systems. . . . [The 
petitioner's] publications in the proceedings 'of these conferences have been cited by 
researchers from China and Europe in the same field. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted an aggregate of only six articles citing to his body 
of work. No single article by the petitioner has garnered more than three independent citations. For 
instance, the petitioner submitted,documentation showing that his conference paper from the "14th 
Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and, Teleoperator Systems" was 
independently cited only twice. Ultimately, the limited number of submitted citations to the 
petitioner's articles is not indicative of contributions of "major significance" in the field. 
-Although I have never worked with [the petitioner] directly, I came across his research 
work by reviewing his paper submission when I served on the committee of the 2005 
ACM SIGGRAPH conference, and also his publications at 2006 
Page 17 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] paper was accepted as a poster presentation and he was further invited 
to give an oral presentation in the Poster Competition program, which is one of the major 
focuses of the conference. At the 2005 SIGGRAPH conference, only '20 posters were 
selected from the 144 accepted submissions to participate in the Poster Competition 
program. [The petitioner's] work was selected because of the novelty of his method and 
the significance of his results. His contribution was one of the most significant 
developments presented in our field of research at this conference. All my international 
colleagues on the review committee shared this opinion with me. 
'., 
In many biomedical applications, deformation modeling for simulating soft tissue 
behaviors is a central and critical issue, in particular, in real-time computer-based surgery 
simulation that is used to train surgeons and medical students. .,.. The mass-spring 
model proposed by [the petitioner] provides a revolutionary strategy for dealing with 
situations where it is not possible to for [sic] pure physical models to complete necessary 
computations due to the restriction of time in real-time simulation systems. It provides 
realistic result with a more economic design than those from finite element methods. 
Such high-level improvements to simulation strategy prove the huge significance of [the 
petitioner's] research in computer-based surgery simulation. In addition to the graphic 
simulation, [the petitioner] provided an excellent example of integrating a haptic 
simulation loop to the surgery simulation system, thereby generating a tactile feedback 
that provided trainees with even more realistic experience than conventional computer-
based surgery simulations. . 
_ does not provide specific examples of how the original mass-spring model proposed by 
the petitioner is being utilized by others in the field. Further, there is no evidence showing that 
the findings presented by the petitioner at the 2005 SIGGRAPH conference are frequently cited 
by independent researchers or otherwise equate to original contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
In 20 . [the ~ner] for his extraordinary 
, abilities in both medical imaging and computing, because_ clinical technologies are 
focused on medical image processing and computer-aided diagnosis aspects of radiology. 1 
* * * 
[The petitioner] was the first scientist in the world to develop a computer-aided stroke 
diagnosis system to improve the speed and accuracy of stroke detection and 
quantification. . .. [The petitioner] has made substantial findings in stroke diagnosis by 
creatively combining computer visualization technologies with CT brain perfusion 
Page 18 
, , 
imaging. He discovered that fast and accurate stroke diagnosis could be achieved by 
quantitatively comparing cerebral blood flow maps with cerebral blood volume maps 
produced by CT perfusion imaging. Based on, this groundbreaking discovery, [the 
petitioner] developed a computer program that rapidly located a patient's ~troke region 
and accurately quantified the salvageable brain tissue. This extremely valuable 
information allowed neuroradiologists to carry out accurate revascularization treatments, 
which could save the patient's life. Without [the petitioner's] work~ radiologists would 
have to spend hours, even days, manually identifying and quantifying pathological tissue 
in patient CT images. 
Another significant contribution is [the petitioner's] work in computer-aided coronary 
heart disease diagnosis. . .. It is well known that coronary calcification detected by CT 
imaging is a marker for atherosclerotic diseases with prognostic significance. 
However, potentially unstable plaque is characterized by a high lipid content rather than 
calcification, which makes detection using the calcium score very difficuit. To address 
this problem, [the petitioner] focused on the CT angiogram images and developed a novel 
system to assess the prevalence and seve,rity of atherosclerotic disease in patients without 
coronary calcification. To carry out his projects, he developed unique methodologies to 
analyze CT angiograms rooted in an information-based imaging model that not only 
considers the image features, but also takes into account other patient information, 
includinKstress'test results and the characterization of plaques. 
While the petitioner's work for _ was important to his employer, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the systems ,he developed while at" are widely recognized beyond that 
company such that they equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. As 
previously discussed, th~ plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires 
that'the contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited to a single 
research institution or employer. For instance,_does not indicate the extent to which 
the petitioner's computer-aided stroke diagnosis system and methodologies to analyze CT 
angiograms have b,een licensed or successfully marketed in the industry. Thus, the impact of the 
petitioner's innovations, at .. is not documented in the record. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of major significance in the field. We must presume that the phrase "major 
significance'" is not superfluous and, thus" that it has some meaning. While the evidence 
indicates that the petitioner has performed admirably on the various projects to which he was 
assigned, the submitted documentation does not establish that his work constitutes original 
contributions of "major significance" in the field. 
I 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director disregarded the information contained in the letters of 
support. 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 Matter of Caron 1nternational, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
Page 19 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting 
the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the conte~t of those 
letters as to whether they support the. alien's eligibility. See id. at 79S-796; see also Matter of v­
K-, 24 I&N Dec. SOO, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware 
of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent 
experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration .petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of an engineering researcher, who has 
rriade original contributions of major significance. Without supporting evidence showing that 
the petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major significance in his field, we 
cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship o/scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other m~/br media. I 
The petitioner has documented his authorship of eleven scholarly articles and, thus, has submitted 
qualifying eyidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(vi). 
1 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputa'tion. 
While the petitioner has 
oelt01m~:d a'~HJ.HaUIJI on projects to which he was assigned, there is no evidence showing that 
his roles were leading or critical for the preceding institutions. For example, there is no 
. organizational chart or other evidence where the petitioner's fell within the 
general hierarchy 
We note that the petitioner's role at the 
the petitioner worked as an engineer "intern" at The petitioner's 
evidence does not demonstrate how his positions differentiated him from the other professionals 
employed by the preceding institutions, let alone'their senior management or tenured faculty. The 
submitted documentation does not establish that the, petitioner was responsible for the preceding 
institutions' success or standing to ~ degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, we concur with the director's determination that the petltIOner has failed to 
demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least 
three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3). A 
fmal merits determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
) 
Page 20 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we will next conduct a [mal merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence 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," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); 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." Section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-1120. In the present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation 
submitted by. the petitioner have already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (iv), (v), and (viii). 
( 
With regard to the documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), the nature of the 
petitioner's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative 
of his recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. We 
note that four out of the five journal manuscript reviews performed by the petitioner were 
requested by his superiors at the and. 
r"'I111"'c'1"",t1 to review an article one's own advisor and another prc.tessor 
not evidence of national or 
international acclaim. Further, we note that peer review is a routine element of the process by 
which articles are selected for publication in scientific journals or for presentation at professional 
conferences. Normally a journal or conference's editorial staff will enlist the assistance of 
numerous professionals in the field who agree to review submitted papers. It is common for the 
editorial staff to ask multiple reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The 
editorial staff or may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish 
or reject submitted papers. Without evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his 
field, such as evidence that he served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal or for a 
reputable conference, we cannot conclude that his level of peer review is commensurate with 
national or international acclaim at the very top of the field of endeavor. Finally, there is no 
documentary evidence of the petitioner's participation in the peer review process subsequent to 
2006. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or 
international acclaim as been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)(3)(iv) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as of the 
August 12, 2009 filing date of the petition. 
Regarding the petitioner'S original research findings submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), as 
stated above, they do not appear to rise to the level of contributions of "major significance" in the 
field. Demonstrating that the petitioner's work was "original" in that it did not merely duplicate 
prior research is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of acclaimed work." 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an alien must (1) 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, education, business or 
athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) .... " Research work that is unoriginal would 
be unlikely to secure the petitioner a master's degree, let alone classification as an . engineering 
researcher of extraordinary. ability. To argue that all original research is, by definition, 
"extraordinary" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to presume that most 
research is "unoriginal." Notably, the Department of Labor's OOH, 2010-11 Edition (accessed at 
Page 21 
www.bls.gov/oco on January 27,2011 and incorporated into the record of proceedings), states that 
"Electrical engineers design, develop, test, and supervise the manufacture of electrical 
equipment." See http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm. As the design and development of 
electrical systems are inherent to engineering research, the mere originality of the petitioner's work 
does not set the petitioner among "that small percentage of individuals that have risen to the very 
top of their field of endeavor." '8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). For the reasons discussed above, the 
record does not contain sufficient evidence that the petitioner's original innovations had major 
significance in the field, let alone. an impact consistent with being ·nationally or internationally 
acclaimed as extraordinary. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence showiIig that the 
~ioner is responsib~e for any origjnal engineering contributions subsequent to his departure from 
_ in 2007.7 The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his 
national or international acclaim as been sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(I)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The documentation submitted for. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is not commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim 
as of the filing date of the petition. 
~titioner has published scholarly articles based on his research at~d the 
__ , the OOH (accessed at www.bls.gov/oco on January 28, 2011 and incorporated into the 
record of proceedings) provides information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary 
teacher and the requirements for such a position. See' http://www.~ls.gov/oco/pdflocos066.pdf 
The handbook expressly states that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish 
their work and that the professor's research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the 
doctoral programs training students for faculty positions require a dissertation, or wntten report on 
original research. Id This information reveals that original published research, whether arising 
from research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in 
that researcher's field. Further, there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner has 
published any articles or conference papers subsequent to July 2008. The statute and regulations, 
however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that his national or international acclaim as been 
sustained. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). The docUlTIentation submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) is not commensurate 
with sustained national or international acclaim as of the filing date of the petition. 
Moreover, the petitioner's citation history is a relevant ,consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the petitioner's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. As previously discussed, the documentation submitted by the petitioner 
indicates that his body of work has been independently cited to only six times. This minimal 
level of citation is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's articles have attracted a level 
of interest in his field commensurate with s~stained national or internationalacc1aim at the very 
top of his field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has nsen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner relies primarily 
7 The petitioner's work at • resulted in an article submitted to the American Journal of Roentgenology in July 
2007 and later published in July 2008. 
Page 22 
upon his participation in the widespread peer review process, his research work, less than a.dozer 
articles published with his research supervisors (such as y, copies of only six research 
articles by others citing to the petitioner's work, his and~ memberships (which have not 
been shown to require outstanding achievements), and his more recent work as' a patent technical 
advisor. 
Many of the petitioner's references' credentials are more impressive than those of the petitioner. For 
'example,_states: 
lam 
I am I 
have served as an 
Signal Processing, and am currently the 
In addition, I have served on numerous conference 
organizations and technical program committees and have served as the 
of several international conferences. I am currently a member 
have written over 200 journals and conference papers, and 
•••• states: 
lama 
respectively. I direct the which focuses on, medical robotics, 
surgical simulation, human-machine interaction, haptics, personal robotics and in g~neral, 
the rapid design and prototyping of a wide range of sophisticated electro-mechanical 
devices and work in haptic interfac~ technology led to, the founding' of 
the leading provider of 3D touch-enabled technologies 
including the popular PHANTOM haptic interfaces and the 3D FreeForm software. A 
of other created in lab have been licensed to companies such as 
and most recently to •••••• 
Each of these companies has served to transfer cutting edge emergent technologies 
commercial successes. creqentials also include . as a member of the 
,and as a 
I am the author/coauthor of over 140 scientific papers and the inventor/co­
inventor on over 30 patents in haptics and robotics, many of which have been considered 
seminal contributions to the field. In addition, I have served as an expert witness in patent 
infringement lawsuits involving haptic technologies and other litigation in robotics. 
has "served in program COlTIIInttlees 
published more than 50 articles. 
Finally,_ states: 
Page 23 
I was the acting Head of the School from 
2006 to 2007. . .. I have been responsible, for a variety of scientific research projects 
funded by the Research Councils and European Commission in I' hi h fI ! ! • 
visualization and virtual environments .. 1' am a member of the 
and . which is .,the mam UK government 
" .. >" .... ~"<JL .. '" and sciences. I have 
of 
I am a member of the program committee of major international conferences in the field 
of medical imaging an,d; simulation, which is [the petitioner's] expertise, including the 
ACM SIGGRAPH conferences (including the 2005 SIGGRAPH Poster C?~ 
and the Visualization conferences. I was the_ 
2001 and 2008 conferences. In 20091 was elected asa 
a world-wide professional association devoted to 
computer graphics arid all related visual disciplines. 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is above the 
) 
level he has attained. Moreover, the record does not include evidence of the petitioner's nationally 
or internationally acclaimed achievements and recognition in medical imaging and simulation 
:subsequent to his departure from"in 2007. ''Accordingly, the petitioner has not demonstrated 
.that he has national or international acclaim as a research engineer that has been sustained as of the 
filing date of the petition. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i), 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Further, the petitioner has not established that his achievements as a 
patent technical advisor since September 2007 are commensurate with sustairied national or 
international acclaim in medical imaging and simulation, or with being among that small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) ofthe Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in 
the initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts 
appellate review on a de novo basis). 
. . 
Page 24 
The petition will be denied for the above st~ted reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. 
Here, that burden has not been met. 
We note that the petitioner is the beneficiary of an approved petition cl'!,ssifying him as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act. This decision is without prejudice to the approval of that petition, filed under a lesser 
classification. 
ORDER: The appeal ~s dismissed ..