sustained EB-1A Case: Materials Engineering

iwyiag data deleted to - 
U.S. Dcpartmenl of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W., Km. A3042 
Wash~ngton. I)C 20529. 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: WAC 03 258 53255 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 2 Inn$ 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. fj 1 I53(b)(I)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeais 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. 
~dministrative Appeals Office 
WAC 03 258 53255 
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 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. Cj 1 153(b)(I )(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 that the director did not fully assess all the relevant evidence, which, combined 
with the evidence submitted on appeal, demonstrates the petitioner's eligibility for classification under section 
203(b)(I)(A) of the Act. 
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. tj 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. 5 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. Cj 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 as a materials 
engineer. The record indicates that at the time of filing the petitioner was a Principal Research Fellow in the 
Department of Mechanical Engineering at the Imperial College in London. The petitioner submitted numerous 
supporting documents with his petition and in response to the director's Request for Evidence (WE). We 
WAC 03 258 53255 
Page 3 
address the evidence submitted and counsel's contentions in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria 
relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim eligibility under any criteria not discussed below. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internutionully recognizedprizes or uwards 
f)r excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Counsel claims the petitioner meets this criterion by virtue of his receipt of 1) the Royal Academy for 
Engineering Fellowship from 1998 to 2003, 2) "Window on Science" (WOS) program funding in 1998, 3) a 
Certificate of Appreciation from the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) in 2000 and 4) the 
Outstanding Technical Paper award at the 1998 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Annual 
Conference. We examine the relevant evidence of each of these achievements in turn. 
The record indicates that the petitioner received a Senior Research Fellowship from the Royal Academy of 
Engineering ("the Academy") from 1998 to 2003. The submitted printout from the website of the Academy 
states that through its fellowships, the Academy "honours the UK's most distinguished engineers. . . . Election 
to The Academy is by invitation only; up to 60 Fellows are elected each year from nominations made by 
existing Fellows." The program from the Academy's Annual 2001 annual meeting states that ail fellows "are 
elected by their peers for personal achievement of exceptional merit and distinction." According to the printout, 
Senior Research Fellowships, such as that held by the petitioner, "provide funding for Senior LecturerIReader 
level appointments, at UK universities, in order to enable individuals with several years of post-doctoral 
research experience to progress in their chosen field." The printout further states that a Senior Research Fellow 
"is expected to develop and lead a prestigious research group." The record contains no independent evidence to 
corroborate the significance and national recognition of the petitioner's fellowship. The evidence submitted 
does not persuasively establish that a Senior Research Fellowship from the Academy is a nationally recognized 
prize or award for scientific excellence, rather than a form of research funding for distinguished scientists. 
The record shows that the petitioner received WOS funding to visit the United States in 1998. The submitted 
printout from the website of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research states that the WOS program funds 
"visits to Air Force laboratories and research and development organizations by outstanding foreign scientists 
and engineers." The program is managed by the European Office of Aerospace Research and Development 
(EOARD) and the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development (AOARD). WOS participants are 
nominated by these offices or Air Force research and development organizations and subject to approval by 
EOARD, AOARD and the hosting Air Force organization. The printout states that the WOS program "arranges 
for a payment of an honorarium to offset part or all of the visitor's expenses." Although WOS funding may be 
prestigious, the record does not demonstrate that it is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
Rather, the evidence submitted indicates that the WOS program facilitates and partially funds research visits. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of his "Award of Appreciation" from the ASTM Committee E08 on Fatigue and 
Fracture. The award plaque states that it was presented to the petitioner in 2000 "[iln recognition of his 
technical contributions toward the modification of the Standard Test Method for Measurement of Creep Crack 
Growth Data in Metals to include creep brittle materials. His technical knowledge and insight made the 
modification a possibility and comptetion of the document brought recognition to ASTM." K. Ravi-Chandar, 
Professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Materials at the University of Texas at 
Austin, affirms the petitioner's receipt of this award but does not further discuss its significance. Jeff Adkins, 
Staff Manager of ASTM International, states that the petitioner "was presented a Certificate of Appreciation by 
his peers for the work he did during the revision of ASTM Standard E1457," but also does not further discuss 
WAC 03 258 53255 
Page 4 
the significance of this recognition. The evidence submitted does not demonstrate that the petitioner's 
appreciation award is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for scientific excellence in his 
field. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of his award certificate for Outstanding Technical Paper at the 1999 conference 
of the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division (PVPD) of ASME International. The program from the honors and 
award luncheon at this conference lists the petitioner as one of two individuals to receive "Conference Awards" 
and as one of over 50 individuals honored with awards, certificates of appreciation, special recognition or a 
medal at this event. Even if the petitioner's best paper award was nationally or internationally recognized, it 
was presented in 1999, four years before this petition was filed, and does not demonstrate the requisite sustained 
acclaim. 
The petitioner's accomplishments indicate that he has been recognized and honored by his peers in his field. 
However, the evidence submitted does not establish that this recognition was made in the form of prizes or 
awards reflective of the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(io Documentalion of the alien :s membership in association.s in the field for which classiJication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized nutional or international 
experts in their disciplines orfields. 
The petitioner did not initially claim eligibility under this criterion. In response to the director's RFE, however, 
counsel contended that the petitioner satisfied this criterion through his membership in ASME, ASTM, and the 
Versailtes Agreement on Materials and Standards (VAMAS) Technical Working Area (TWA) 25 Committee. 
The record indicates that the petitioner is a member of ASME. The submitted printout from ASME's website 
states that an individual is eligible to become a member of ASME if he or she has received a degree from an 
approved engineering curriculum or has eight years of active professional engineering practice or teaching. 
These criteria are not outstanding achievements and are notably distinct from the requirements for membership 
as an ASME Fellow, which the printout states is "a grade of distinction" granted to individuals who "have been 
responsible for significant engineering achievements." Accordingly, the ASME membership at the level held by 
the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
The record indicates that the petitioner has been a member of ASTM since the middle 1980s and has chaired the 
Creep Crack Task Group since 2000. The submitted printout from the website of ASTM lists different types of 
membership, but the printout is cut off on the right margin rendering much of the text illegible. Based on the 
legible text, the printout describes different membership types but does not stqte any eligibility criteria for 
ASTM membership or otherwise indicate that outstanding achievements a ' e to ASTM membership. 
However, on appeal, the petitioner submits a second letter from Mr taff Manager of ASTM 
International) who affirms the petitioner's chairmanship of the Creep Cr Committee. Mr. Adkins 
explains that the petitioner was appointed chairman by his peers "because of his national and international 
reputation, which he has developed since the 1980's. As an expert in experimental and numerical high 
temperature fracture mechanics, one can say that he ranks among only a handful of people in the world who 
could lead this chairmanship of this very specialized field." In addition, as discussed above under the first 
criterion, the petitioner received an appreciation award from the ASTM Secretary and Chairman in recognition 
of his work in this area. The record does not establish, however, that nationally or internationally recognized 
experts in the field appointed the petitioner as committee chairman. Consequently, the petitioner's ASTM 
WAC 03 258 53255 
Page 5 
membership does not satisfy this criterion. 
The record shows that in 1999, the petitioner was appointed Chairman of the VAMAS TWA25 Committee on 
Creeplfatigue Crack Growth and continues to serve in this capacity. A description of VAMAS submitted in 
response to the RFE explains that VAMAS was formed in 1985 afier a G7 summit meeting where the member 
countries agreed to encourage trade in advanced technologies. VAMAS was thus established as "a mechanism 
for international collaboration on pre-standardisation materials research to provide a technical basis for 
agreement on methodologies prior to the formal development of a standard." An informational document about 
VAMAS submitted on appeal states, "Chairmen are appointed by the VAMAS steering Committee, comprised 
of national representatives primarily from National Measurement Institutes. TWA chairmen need to be eminent 
in their technical field in order to plan and lead the technical work and, importantly, to command the respect of 
their peers participating in the research activity." The petitioner's work as a VAMAS TWA chairman is 
confirmed by Roger Hurst, Adviser to the European Commission Directorate Generat Joint Research Centre 
Institute for Energy, and A. Toshimitsu Yokobori, Jr., Professor of Tohoku University Fracture Research 
Institute and Secretary General of the International Congress of Fracture. Both Mr. Hurst and Professor 
Yokobori cite the petitioner's VAMAS TWA chairmanship as evidence of the international recognition of his 
expertise in this field. Hence, the evidence submitted establishes that the petitioner was appointed as a VAMAS 
TWA chairman by virtue of his internationally recognized expertise in his field, as judged by the nationally 
recognized experts comprising the VAMAS Steering Committee. The director did not address the evidence of 
the petitioner's VAMAS membership, which we find sufficient to meet this criterion. 
(iv) Evidence ofthe alien S participulion, either individually or on a panel, us a judge ofthe work of others 
in the same or cln allied$eld of spec$cution for which classification is sought. 
The director did not discuss the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion in his decision. Counsel claims the 
petitioner meets this criterion because he has reviewed manuscripts for several scientific journals in his field and 
edited a subsection of a scientific treatise. The record does not support this claim. We cannot ignore the fact 
that most scientific journals rely on peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication. Hence, service as a 
peer reviewer, in and of itself, does not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim without 
additional evidence that the alien has completed a significantly high number of reviews, has served on the 
editorial boards of journats in his or her field, or has otherwise judged the work of other scientists in a manner 
reflective of sustained national or international acclaim. 
In this case, the petitioner initially submitted six letters requesting his review of manuscripts submitted for 
publication to various scientific journals in his field. However, the petitioner submitted evidence that he 
actually completed the invited reviews for only two papers submitted to Engineering Fracture Mechanics. In 
addition, Professor Ravi-Chandar, Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Fracture, confirms that the 
petitioner has served as a reviewer for that journal. Professor Ravi-Chandar does not state the dates or number 
of the petitioner's reviews. 
The record shows that the petitioner was also the editor of the "'Fracture and Fatigue" subsection of the Third 
Edition (2001) of the Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology. The submitted description of the 
encyclopedia states that section chiefs were nominated by the Editor-in-Chief and the Executive Board. The 
description also states that the first and second editions of the encyclopedia "are now being used in some 3,000 
libraries located in centers of learning and research and development organizations worldwide." A letter from 
the Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia states that the Section Editor for Materials Science and Engineering 
WAC 03 258 53255 
Page 6 
recommended the petitioner "as the most qualified person to provide either an update of [the] existing article [on 
fracture and fatigue], or a completely new article on the subject." 
The record shows that the petitioner has reviewed an unspecified number of articles for two journals in his field 
and edited one subsection for a scientific reference book. This evidence does not persuasively establish that the 
petitioner has judged the work of others in his field in a manner consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scient$c, .scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-reluted contributions of 
major signiJicance in thejield 
The director did not address the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion in his decision. As evidence of the 
petitioner's eligibility under this category, counsel cites the recommendation letters submitted with the petition. 
The petitioner submitted ten recommendation letters from scientists working in his field or related specialties. 
While such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, they cannot 
by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate that the 
alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom he has 
worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an 
immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one 
would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. Accordingly, we review 
the letters as they relate to other evidence of the petitioner's contributions. 
Ashok Saxena, Regents' Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology 
in Atlanta, Georgia, states that he has known the petitioner for over 20 years. Professor Saxena states that the 
petitioner's "contributions in the field of nonlinear fracture mechanics have been outstanding and in particular 
his efforts in developing and integrating computational modelling and experimental aspects of high temperature 
fracture have been of substantial benefit to the power generation and aerospace industries across the world." 
Bahram Farahmand, Technical Fellow at the Boeing Aerospace Company, states that he knows the petitioner 
through their collaborative involvement in ASTM and at Boeing. Dr. Farahmand explains that Boeing is 
researching the high temperature creep and fatigue interaction of spacecraft components and that the petitioner's 
"work in this field both in terms of fundamental research and development of life assessment and testing 
standards is well known internationally and is very useful to our projects. In particular his views in dealing [sic] 
design and life assessment of operating components are of relevance to the advanced materials that we are 
testing." In a second letter submitted on appeal, Dr. Farahmand further explains that the petitioner's "high 
temperature crack growth knowledge is extremely helpful in structural integrity assessment of space structures 
upon re-entry where vehicle [sic] is exposed to elevated temperature environment." John J. Ruschau, Senior 
Research Engineer at the University of Dayton Research Institute and ASTM E08.06 Chairman, also confirms 
that the petitioner's "work on structural analysis and advanced materials has contributed to new and improved 
international test methods involving testing and analysis for high temperature fracture applications." 
Stephen W. Hopkins, Senior Manager of the Exponent company, states that he has known the petitioner for a 
number of years and that the petitioner's work on high temperature fracture mechanics "is very relevant to the 
on going problem in the USA of dealing with aging power plants and the energy industry in general." This point 
is also made by Jonathan Parker, Associate of Structural Integrity Associates, Incorporated and Judith A. Todd, 
Professor and P.B. Breneman Department Head Chair of Engineering Science and Mechanics at the 
Pennsylvania State University who collaborated with the petitioner at Imperial College in the 1980s. 
WAC 03 258 53255 
Page 7 
Other evidence in the record confirms the significance of the petitioner's work and its impact on his field. As 
discussed above under the first and second criteria, the petitioner received an award for Outstanding Technical 
Paper at the 1999 ASME International PVfD conference. The petitioner was appointed and had served as 
chairman of the ASTM Creep Crack Task Group for the three years preceding the filing of this petition and in 
2000 he received Award of Appreciation" from the ASTM Committee E08 on Fatigue and Fracture. The 
petitioner was also a Senior Research Fellow at the Royal Academy of Engineering from 1998 to 2003, where 
his work was featured at the Academy's Annual Meeting of Research Chairs and Fellowships in 2000. In 1999 
the petitioner was appointed Chairman of the VAMAS TWA25 Committee on Creeplfatigue Crack Growth, a 
position he continued to hold at the time of filing. The record further shows that the petitioner was a keynote 
speaker at the Seventh International Conference on Creep and Fatigue at Elevated Temperatures (CREEP7) in 
2001, and delivered invited lectures at the "SmiRT 17 Conference" in 2003 in Prague and the 2003 "ICF 
Conference" in Moscow. In addition, the record shows that the petitioner presented his work upon invitation to 
researchers at lbaraki University in Japan in 2003 and the United States Air Force Advanced Materials Group at 
the Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio in 1999. 
The petitioner's publication also affirms the significance of his research in his field. Dr. 
Hopkins states that "[slome of arly work on 'Creep Cracking' that he published in 1976 and 1977 
is still referenced today." copies of several scientific papers published as recently as 
2000 that cite his 1976 and 1977 articles on creep cracking. In addition, the record contains copies of numerous 
articles written by the petitioner that have been printed in peer-reviewed publications and books in his field 
between 1976 and 2003. The petitioner submitted evidence that other scientists in his field have consistently 
cited many of his publications. 
In review, the record shows that the petitioner has been appointed as chairman of two international committees 
to develop and revise important standards in his field, that his work has been applied in the aerospace industry 
that he has been repeatedly honored as a featured speaker at international scientific conferences, and that he has 
published peer reviewed articles in journals and books that have been consistently cited in the publications of 
other scientists in his field. The record shows that the petitioner's work has been recognized in his field since 
the late 1970s through 2003, the year this petition was filed. His accomplishments thus demonstrate sustained 
international acclaim. Accordingly, the petitioner meets this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the ulien's authorship 01 scholuriy articles in the field, in professional or mqjor trade 
publications or other major media. 
Duties or activities which nominally fall under a given regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) do not 
demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent or routine in the occupation itself. As frequent 
publication of research findings is inherent to success as an established research scientist, publications alone do 
not necessarily indicate the sustained acclaim requisite to classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Evidence of publications must be accompanied by documentation of consistent citation by independent research 
teams or other proof that the alien's pubtications have had a significant impact in his or her field. 
In this case, counsel claims the petitioner has authored or co-authored "over 95 published refereed papers in 
every leading international journal relevant to his field." The record does not fully corroborate this claim. 
Although the petitioner's curriculum vitae lists 95 publications, the record does not document all of these 
articles. Simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden 
WAC 03 258 53255 
Page 8 
of proof in these proceedings. Mutter of Soflcci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Malter of 
Treasure Craft of Caldornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). In his RFE response, the petitioner also 
submitted evidence of the recent publication of several additional articles authored and co-authored by him. We 
cannot consider this evidence because it arose after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(l2), Matter of Kafigbuk, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 197 1). 
Nonetheless, the record documents the petitioner's authorship and co-authorship of numerous published articles 
and book chapters in his field from the late 1970s through 2003. The petitioner has submitted evidence that 
many of his articles have been consistently cited in the publications of other scientists in his field. Moreover, 
the record shows that several of the petitioner's earlier articles have been consistently cited in international 
scientific literature in his field over the more than 10 and 20 years since their publication. Hence, the 
petitioner's publication and citation records demonstrate sustained international acclaim. The director did not 
fully assess all the relevant evidence which we find sufficient to establish the petitioner's eligibility under this 
criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her held. The record in this 
case demonstrates that the petitioner has achieved sustained international acclaim in his field. The petitioner is 
an outstanding member of one prestigious international association in his field. He has made original 
contributions of major significance to his field and has published numerous articles that have been consistently 
cited throughout his career. Several letters in the record attest to the need for the petitioner's expertise in the 
United States and the authors' estimation that the petitioner would have no difficulty finding employment in his 
field in the United States. The petitioner has thus established that he seeks entry into the United States to 
continue working in his area of extraordinary ability and that his entry will substantially benefit prospectively 
this country. He is thus eligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(I)(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. 1 36 1. The petitioner has met that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.