sustained EB-1A Case: Automatic Control And Signal Processing

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
pUBW4: COPY 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: BEc 0 8 2m 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
'Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, California Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The decision of the director will be 
withdrawn and the appeal will be sustained. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)Jl)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. On appeal, counsel submits a brief and 
additional evidence. We find the evidence submitted previously and on appeal sufficient to establish the 
petitioner's eligibility for classification under section 203(b)('l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), and 
the appeal will be sustained. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by, meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating-that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C..F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences, specifically 
in the field of automatic control and signal processing. The record shows that the petitioner was a visiting 
professor in the Department of Molecular Biosciences and Bioengineering at the University-of Hawaii at Manoa 
at the time of filing and was previously a Professor in the Department of Automatic Control at the Beijing 
Polytechnic University in China where he was employed in various academic positions for nearly 40 years. 
With his petition and in response to the director's Request for Evidegce (RFE), the petitioner submitted 
numerous supporting documents including evidence of his academic credentials and employment, his published 
scholarly articles and books, his research funding, his peer review o-f manuscripts for an international journal in 
his field, his receipt of two scientific prizes and a special salary subsidy in China, his membership in scientific 
associations, professional evaluations of his work and achievements by his peers in China, and 11 
recommendation letters from collaborators and colleagues. The petitioner submits additional evidence of his 
achievements on appeal. We address the relevant evidence, the director's decision and counsel's and the 
petitioner's claims in the following discussion of the principal regulatory criteria applicable to the petitioner's 
case. 
fi) Documentation of the alien S receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion by virtue of his receipt of the Beijing Municipal Academic 
Outstanding Prize in 1982 and a Thir&Place Beijing Municipal Science-Technology Prize in 1992. The record 
documents the petitioner's receipt of thesethonors, but does not establish their national recognition. In addition, 
the honors were accorded 21 and 13 years before this petition was filed and do not reflect sustained acclaim. 
The record contains no information regarding the selection criteria for the Beijing Municipal Outstanding Prize 
or any other evidence that the significance of this prize extends beyond the Beijing metropolitan region and is 
nationally recognized in China. The "Beijing Municipal Awarding Provisions on Science-Technological 
Progresses" state that those prizes are granted, in part, to promote the scientific and technological progress of the 
city of Beijing. The Provisions also state that the judgment standard for the third-place prize is that "[tlhe main 
science-technological indexes have achieved the national advanced level, the achievement plays a relatively 
significant role in promoting the science-technological progress, and has obtained relatively big economic effect 
or social effect." This evidence indicates that while the awarded work is at a "national advanced level," the 
prize itself is a regional honor limited to the Beijing metropolitan area. On page two of his cover letter 
accompanying his Form 1-140, the petitioner states, "Beijing, as the capital city of China, has a population of 16 
million with over two thousand national level research universities, scientific institutions, and hi-tech 
companies. So, the prizes awarded in Beijing reflect the national science-technology level of China to a great 
extent." The submitted evidence does not support this statement and simply going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). 
The director briefly noted the petitioner's receipt of these two prizes and the submission of supporting 
documentation, but did not specifically address the relevant evidence or analyze its significance. The submitted 
evidence does not establish that the petitioner's prizes were nationally recognized in China. Moreover, the 
petitioner's receipt of prizes 21 and 13 years prior to filing this petition does not demonstrate the requisite 
sustained acclaim. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
. (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 alliedfield of specfxation for which classiJication is sought. 
Page 4 
The petitioner submitted evidence that in 1991 he was appdinted to the Beijing Municipal High-Level Judge 
Committee for University Faculty Series to examine and evaluate the work of electrical engineers. The record 
further shows that from 1997 to 1999, the petitioner was appointed to the same committee for the "University 
Faculty Series (i.e., full and associate professors)." The petitioner submitted evidence that the University 
Faculty Series is the highest ranked judge committee for the Beijing Municipal region, but the record does not 
establish that the petitioner's appointment to this committee was nationally recognized or otherwise consistent 
with national acclaim. 
In 1998 and 1999, the record further shows that the petitioner served as an invited member of the committee to 
judge projects on developing target products for the "863ICwS [Computer-Integrated Manufacturing System]" 
by the National Expert Group on the High-Tech C~mputer~htegrated Manufacturing System Subject in China. 
The evidence indicates that the petitioner was asked to judge projects by a national body due to his expertise in 
the field. 
The petitioner also claims to meet this criterion, in part, due to his review of manuscripts and editorial work for 
scientific journals. Because peer review is a common feature of the publication process for many scientific 
journals, service as a peer reviewer in and of itself will not satisfy this criterion without evidence that the alien 
has served on the editorial board, completed a substantial number of reviews, or has otherwise conducted peer 
review of other scientists' work in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. In this 
case, the petitioner submitted evidence that he reviewed a substantial number of manuscripts for Zentralblatt 
MATH, an international journal edited by the European Mathematical Society, between 1996 and 2001. The 
record also shows that the petitioner was appointed Associate Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Beijing 
Polytechnic University from 1993 to 1995. 
The relevant evidence demonstrates that between 1993 and 2001, the petitioner was appointed to a national 
judging committee in China due to his expertise in his field, completed a substantial number of peer reviews for 
an international scientific journal and served as Associate Editor-in-Chief for a Chinese scientific journal. The 
director did not fully assess this evidence, which we find sufficient to show that the petitioner has judged the 
work of other scientists in his field in a manner consistent with the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he authored 56 articles published in Chinese scientific journals in his 
field between 1963 and 2001 and authored 12 more articles published in ~n~liih in Chinese scientific journals 
and conference proceedings between 1992 and 1997. In addition, the record documents the petitioner's 
authorship of two books published in China in 1986 and 2001 and his co-authorship of a third book published in 
China in 1988. The petitioner submitted cipies of numerous independent evaluations of his research and 
professional achievements that attest to the significance and impact of the petitioner's books and published 
articles on his field. Scientists from, for example, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Tsing-Hua University 
wrote these evaluations between 1988 and 2001. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that he has published twelve scholarly articles in English in professional, 
international scientific journals between 1981 and 2003. The petitioner is the lead author of seven of these 
articles. The record also documents the petitioner's publication of 15 manuscripts in the proceedings of 
international scientific conferences in his-field between 1984 and 2001. The petitioner is the lead author of 12 
of these manuscripts. The record also .documents the impact factor and rank within the discipline of six 
international journals that have published the petitioner's articles. Many of the recommendation letters 
submitted with the petition and the three.letters from independent experts submitted on appeal further attest to 
the significance of several of the petitioner's published articles. The evidence thus shows that the petitioner has 
authored 94 scholarly manuscripts published in Chinese and international professional scientific journals in his 
field. He has also authored three books in his field published in China. The petitioner's publication record 
demonstrates that he achieved national acclaim in China, which has been sustained through his subsequent 
publications after his arrival in the United States. Accprdingly, we concur with the director's determination that 
the petitioner meets this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salay or other signiJcantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the$eld 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion because he received a 100 yuan monthly salary subsidy from the 
Chinese government. The record contains a certificate issued to the petitioner that reads: "This is to certify that 
you have made extraordinary contributions to the development of higher education of this country, and [are] 
hereby qualified to gain the governmental special subsidy [as of) October of 1992 and awarded with this 
certificate." The State Council of the People's Republic of China issued the document. A certificate verifying 
the work experiences of the petitioner at the Beijing Polytechnic University affirms that he was awarded "the 
monthly Governmental Special Subsidy for Extraordinary Contribution Experts by the State Council of P.R. 
China since October 1992." The petitioner also submitted materials from the national Chinese Ministry of 
Personnel and the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Science-Technologica1 Personnel that document the national 
selection criteria and local implementation of the special subsidies. The materials show that the subsidies are 
awarded selectively to high-ranking individuals who have made distinguished contributions which have been 
nationally or internationally recognized. The latter document states that subsidies in Beijing will be granted in 
two classes, 100 yuan and 50 yuan, and that scientists who receive 100 yuan subsidies must be engaged in 
research at an "internationally advanced level," but that scientists awarded a 50 yuan subsidy must only show 
perform research at a "nationally advanced level." 
The director found the evidence did not clearly show that the petitioner's remuneration was significantly high in 
comparison to other individuals in his field. On appeal, the petitioner submits an official notice from the 
national Chinese Ministry of Personnel dated June 6, 1990, which announces the "Basic Salary and Position 
Salary Standards for Faculty at Colleges." This notice states that the salary for a full professor of the tenth grade 
is 180 yuan. A letter from the Personnel Section of the Beijing University of Technology (formerly the Beijing 
Polytechnic University) submitted on appeal further verifies that the petitioner received the standard salary for 
full professors of the tenth grade, which has been 180 yuan per month since January 1992. The letter affirms, 
"Due to his extraordinary contribution to the cause of national high education and scientific research, Professor 
Xu was awarded by the State Council of China to enjoy a life-time governmental special subsidy of $1 00 buan] 
per month since October 1, 1992." 
On appeal, the petitioner also submits an article entitled "Extra Pay to Credit Leading Scholars" that was 
published in the December 5, 1991 national edition of China Daily. The article reports that "China's 
outstanding scientists and intellectuals are getting a special monthly allowance as a reward for their contribution 
to the country's development." The article explains that the salaries of Chinese intellectuals have remained 
basically unchanged for the last decade and that the special subsidies are a governmental effort to "upgrade the 
Page 6 
economic position of Chinese intellectuals." On appeal, the petitioner also submits an article entitled "China's 
Brain Drain Problem: Causes, Consequences and Policy Options" and published in the Fall 1992 edition of the 
Journal of Contemporary China. This article affirms the low salaries of professors in China and discusses the 
challenges facing the Chinese government in adequately compensating professors and teachers. The evidence 
submitted on appeal, combined with the documents previously submitted, demonstrates that the petitioner 
received a high salary in comparison to other professors in the sciences in China from 1992 until his departure in 
2000 in a manner consistent with sustained national acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Because we find the petitioner meets three of the regulatory criteria sufficient to establish sustained national 
acclaim under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), we do not address the less persuasive claims of counsel and the petitioner 
regarding his eligibility under the remaining criteria. The petitioner has established that he has achieved the 
requisite sustained acclaim as a scientist and that his achievements have been recognized in his field of 
expertise. The petitioner submitted documentation of his credible intentions to continue working in his field in 
the United States and the record shows that his entry will substantially benefit prospectively this country. The 
petitioner has thus established his eligibility for immigrant classification under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), and his petition will be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has met that burden. 
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.