sustained EB-1A Case: Nanomaterials Science And Nanotechnology

ridentifiing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw ananted 
invasion of person4 privacy 
iwM.#K3 COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 09 800 045 1 1 
IN RE: 
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 Ofice 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. 
/C(W& 
0 Perry Rhew 
lL Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
SRC 09 800 045 11 
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 sustained and the petition will be approved. 
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)(l)(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 necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. More specifically, the director found that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The director also determined that the petitioner had not submitted 
clear evidence that he would continue to work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3) and that he intends to continue working in his area of expertise in the United States. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) 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. 
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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 
60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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). 
 The specific requirements for supporting 
documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant 
criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that 
he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
SRC 09 800 045 11 
Page 3 
This petition, filed on November 10, 2008, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability in nanomaterials science and nanotechnology. At the time of filing, the 
petitioner was employed as a Device Engineer, Research & Development Group, Department of 
Technology, SanDisk Corporation. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien 
can establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of a major 
internationally recognized award, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to 
qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. We find that the petitioner's evidence meets at least 
three of the regulatory criteria. 
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 alliedjield of speczjication for which classzjication is 
sought. 
We concur with the director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business- 
related contributions of major signzficance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his original research contributions. We cite 
representative examples here. 
Although I do not know [the petitioner] personally, I am aware of his work through his 
publications on nanomaterial fabrication, especially carbon nanotube electronics. . . . [The 
petitioner] invented a nano-sphere lithography (NSL) method combined with 
photolithography to grow dense aligned single walled carbon nanotubes for integrated 
circuits. . . . [The petitioner's] method broke new grounds to produce carbon nanotube arrays 
with simultaneous control over the nanotube orientation, position, density, diameter, and 
even chirality, making these structures viable building blocks for future nanoelectronics and 
ultrahigh-speed electronics. 
[The petitioner] also made substantial contribution to the development of superconducting 
and ferromagnetic nanocables. . . . However, synthesizing such nanostructures is an 
extremely hard task to accomplish due to the complex chemical composition of the targeting 
materials. To solve these technical problems, [the petitioner] developed a new non- 
equilibrium synthetic approach that enables our research team to synthesize a wide variety of 
previously unavailable materials. He also successfully demonstrated a nanoscale magneto- 
resistive device based on Fe304 nanocables and for the first time observed the room 
temperature niagnetoresistance in one-dimensional nanostructures. Since its publication in 
SRC 09 800 045 11 
Page 4 
Nano Letters and the Journal of the American Chemical Society, [the petitioner's] systematic 
study on Fe304 nanocables and nanotubes has been frequently cited by other researchers. 
California, Los Angeles, states: 
I have not met [the petitioner] personally and my comments in this letter regarding his 
contributions are based on his scientific papers published in the prestigious peer-reviewed 
journals, such as Applied Physics Letters and Journal of the American Chemical Society. 
[The petitioner] ha[s] published more than 25 co-authored research papers in peer-reviewed 
journals, which have been extensively cited (more than 580 times within the last five years). 
Based on the exceptional quality and heavy impact of [the petitioner's papers], I can certainly 
attest his significant contributions to the area of nanomaterials. 
Of particular interest to me is his paper published in Applied Physics Letters, in which [the 
petitioner] discussed his groundbreaking technique for fabricating multi-level molecular 
memories. [The petitioner's] writing paradigm represents a significant departure from the 
channel hot electron - CHE injection method commonly used for silicon flash memory, 
where a high driving field - in the order of 10 Vlmm is applied to the source - drain channel 
for hot electron charge injection. Such high source-drain biases lead to significant power 
consumption and the formation of interface traps, thus making the long-term operation error 
prone. In contrast, the novel devices developed by [the petitioner] can be programmed into 
multiple levels by applying gate biases of different amplitude with 0 V applied to the source 
and drain, and the readout is usually carried out with a small electric field applied to the 
nanowire channel. As a result, the required power for this operation is significantly lower 
than that for silicon flash memory. 
The novel multilevel molecular memory devices developed by [the petitioner] also provide 
nonvolatile data storage up to three bits - eight levels per cell, in contrast to the standard one- 
bit-per-cell - two levels technology. Moreover, the charge storage stability was tested up to 
retention of 600 hours, as compared to the longest retention of a few hours previously 
reported for one-bit-per-cell molecular memories. By creating a seamless integration of 
nanowires and molecular wires, [the petitioner's] multilevel data storage represents a 
conceptual breakthrough in molecular memory. 
As a further development, [the petitioner] reported his innovative complementary detection 
of prostate-specific antigen using nanowires and carbon nanotubes in the Journal of the 
American Chemical Society. . . . [The petitioner] developed novel sensing strategies, through 
which he was able to detect prostate-specific antigen (PSA). PSA is an oncological marker 
for the presence of prostate cancer. Despite its utmost importance, detection of PSA using 
nanowires and nanotubes had not been previously reported. . . . This is a substantial 
advancement in application of novel nano-materials to medically relevant biosensors. 
SRC 09 800 045 1 1 
Page 5 
Administration Ames Research Center, states: 
[The petitioner] was the first to introduce the concept of "multilevel data storage" to the field 
of molecular electronics. . . . Using these distinct charging states to represent different 
memory levels, [the petitioner] created multilevel memories that can hold three bits of data, 
by virtue of having 8 separate, stable identifiable electronics states in each cell. This 
remarkable breakthrough tripled the data storage density of existing molecular memories. 
Such devices are able to achieve unprecedented compact data storage - about 40 Gigabits per 
square centimeter - a far greater density than any achieved with silicon. 
In addition, [the petitioner] developed a revolutionary device architecture consisting of 
"mo1ecule/nanowire" hybrid structures, in which specific redox-active molecules are 
seamlessly integrated onto the surface of indium oxide nanowires using a self-assembly 
technique. . . . This ingenious design significantly improves the stability of the molecular 
memories. The retention time of his multilevel memory cells reached up to 600 hours, in 
sharp contrast to the typical values reported by peer researchers, which range from seconds to 
a few hours. This groundbreaking innovation created a strong impact on a sub-field called 
"molecule/nanowire" hybrid structures. Since its publication in Applied Physics Letters in 
2003, this work has been . . . frequently cited by experts in peer-reviewed publications. 
In support of the preceding experts' statements, the petitioner submitted documentation showing 
hundreds of independent cites to his published findings. In addressing this evidence, the director's 
decision only considered cites to articles for which the petitioner was identified as "first author." 
The director did not consider the citation history for the numerous other articles coauthored by the 
petitioner. For example, the petitioner submitted evidence showing that "Detection of NO2 down to 
ppb levels using individual and multiple In203 nanowire devices,"' was cited to more than one 
hundred times. As modern scientific research endeavors routinely involve collaborative efforts, we 
find no statutory, regulatory, precedential, or evidentiary basis to conclude that USCIS should not 
assign weight to collaborative scientific research such as the petitioner's. It could be argued that the 
director was simply seeking stronger evidence of the petitioner's prominent role in his research 
studies. However, statements from the petitioner's first-author collaborators submitted on appeal 
confirm that he played an integral role in their jointly published research. 
The citation records submitted initially and on appeal showing hundreds of cites to articles 
coauthored by the petitioner are solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by his 
work and are familiar with it. This evidence corroborates the experts' statements that the petitioner 
has made original contributions of major significance in his field. The record reflects that the 
petitioner's contributions are important not only to the institutions where he has worked, but 
throughout the greater field as well. Leading scientists have acknowledged the value of the 
petitioner's work and its major significance in the fields of nanomaterials science and 
nanotechnology. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
I 
 The record reflects that the petitioner coauthored this article, but he was not identified as its first author. 
SRC 09 800 045 1 I 
Page 6 
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 of his authorship of numerous articles in publications such as 
Journal of the American Chemical Society, Advanced Materials, Nano Letters, and Applied Physics 
Letters. As previously discussed, the petitioner also submitted evidence of hundreds of articles that 
cite to his work. Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
In this case, the petitioner has satisfied three of the regulatory criteria required for classification as 
an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). 
The director also found that the petitioner had not submitted clear evidence that he would continue to 
work in his area of expertise in the United States. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires 
"clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of 
expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of 
prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on 
how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States." On appeal, the petitioner 
submits an August 9, 2007 job offer letter and a May 21, 2009 employment verification letter from 
SanDisk Corporation. Accordingly, the petitioner's evidence overcomes the director's finding and 
satisfies the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5). 
In review, while not all of the petitioner's evidence carries the weight imputed to it by counsel, the 
totality of the evidence establishes an overall pattern of sustained national acclaim and extraordinary 
ability. The petitioner has also established that he seeks to continue working in the same field in the 
United States and that his entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Therefore, the petitioner has overcome the stated grounds for denial and thereby 
established eligibility for immigrant classification under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 sustained that burden. Accordingly, the decision of the 
director denying the petition will be withdrawn and the petition will be approved. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.