dismissed O-1A Case: Sciences

u.s. Department of Homeland Securlly 
U.S. Citizenship and (mmigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and ImmigratIOn 
Services 
FILE: Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUL 3 0 20 to 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section I Ol(a)( 15)(0) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101('XI5)(0). 
ON BEHALF OF PETIT[ONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find 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 
infonnation 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. § [03.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form [-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
P~R~ 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.usc.is.gov 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, recommended denial of the petition and certified her 
decision to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for review, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.4(a)(5). The AAO 
will affinn the director's decision and deny the petition. 
The petitioner, a university, filed this petition seeking to classify the beneficiary as an 0-1 nonimmigrant 
pursuant to section 10 I(a)( 15)(0)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary as an ••••••• 
for a period of three years. 
On December 14, 2009, the director recommended denial of the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed 
to establish that the beneficiary has received "sustained national or international acclaim" and is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of her field of endeavor. Specifically, the director determined 
that the evidence submitted did not satisfy the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). 
The director certified her decision to the AAO and advised the petitioner that it had 30 days in which to submit a 
brief or other written statement to the AAO. Counsel has submitted a detailed brief for the AAO's consideration. 
Counsel asserts that the director's decision to deny the petition is "based on a blatant misreading and 
mischaracterization of the evidence." Counsel contends that the petitioner's evidence establishes by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the beneficiary meets four ofthe eight evidentiary criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8). 
I. TbeLaw 
Section I Ol(a)( 15)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.s.c. § 11 01(a)( 15)(0)(i), provides for the classification of a qualified 
alien who: 
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, and seeks to enter the United 
States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability.. .. 
The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive for aliens in the 
fields of business, education, athletics, and the sciences. See 59 FR 41818, 41819 (August 15, 1994); 137 Congo 
Rec. S18242, 18247 (daily ed., Nov. 26, 1991) (comparing and discussing the lower standard for !be arts). In a 
policy memorandum, the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service emphasized: "It must be remembered 
that the standards for 0-1 aliens in the fields of business, education, athletics, and the sciences are extremely high. 
The 0-1 classification should be reserved only for those aliens who have reached the very top of their occupation 
or profession." Memorandum, Lawrence Weinig, Acting Ass!. Comm'r., Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
"Policy Guidelines for the Adjudication of 0 and P Petitions" (June 25, 1992). 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(oX3Xii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the field of science. education, business, or athietics means a level of 
expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top 
ofthe field of endeavor. 
With respect to the field of education, tlle AAO notes that the drafters of the regulation considered public 
comment on the application of the 0-1 classification to university and college professors and declined to lower 
the standard: 
One commenter suggested that the 0-1 criteria for university and college professors are 
excessive and should be altered. The Service will not adopt this suggestion since the 0-1 
category is reserved for those aliens who have reached the very top of their occupation or 
profession. The standard for the classification as created by Congress was designed to be 
extremely high and limited to only the best individuals employed in a particular field. 
59 FR 41818, 41820 (August IS, 1994). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(oX3Xiii) states, in pertinent part: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business. or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence ot' 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(8) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(I) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(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 or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(3) Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media 
about the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, 
and any necessary translation; 
Page 4 
(4) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel. or individually as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classification is sought; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field; 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
journals, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organi7.ations and establislunenls that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) Evidence that alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (oX3Xiii) of this section do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to 
establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 
Additionally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(oX2Xiii) provides: 
The evidence submitted with an 0 petition shall conform to the following: 
(A) Affidavits, contracts, awards, and similar documentation must reflect the nature of the 
alien's achievement and be executed by an officer or responsible person employed by the 
institution, firm, establishment, or organization where the work was performed. 
(8) Affidavits written by present or fonner employers or recognized experts certifYing to the 
recognition and extraordinary ability ... shall specifically describe the alien's recognition 
and ability or achievement in factual terms and set forth the expertise of the affiant and the 
manner in which the affiant acquired such information. 
The decision of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a particular case is dependent upon the 
quality ofthe evidence submitted by the petitioner, not just the quantity of the evidence. The mere fact that the 
petitioner has submitted evidence relating to three of the criteria as required by the regulation does not 
necessarily establish that the alien is eligible for 0-1 classification. 59 Fed Reg at 41820. 
In determining the beneficiary's eligibility under these criteria, the AAO will follow a two-part approach recently 
set forth in a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Kazarian v. USCIS, 2010 WL 
725317 (9"' Cir. March 4, 2010). Similar to the regulations governing this nonimmigrant classification, the 
regulations reviewed by the Kozarilm court require the petitioner to submit evidence pertaining to at least three 
Pag~ 5 
out of ten alternative criteria in order to establish a beneficiary's eligibility as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Cj 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Specifically, the Kazarian court stated that "the proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided 
(which the AAO did)," and ifthe petitioner failed to submit sullicient 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 *6 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(hX3)). The court also explained the "final merits detennination" as the corollary 
to th is 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 of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(hX2), 
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.F.R. § 204.5(hX3). Only aliens 
whose achievements have garnered "sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for 
an "extraordinary ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1 I 53(b)(1XA)(i). 
Jd. at *3. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then, if qualifying under at 
least three criteria, considered in the context of a final merits detennination. The final merits detennination 
analyzes whether the evidence is consistent with the statutory requirement of "extensive documentation" and the 
regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor." 
Although the decision predates the director's certification, the AAO finds the Kazarian court's two part approach 
to be appropriate for evaluating the regulatory criteria set forth for 0-1 nonimmigrant petitions for aliens of 
extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(oX3)(iii), (iv) and (v). Therefore, 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 analysis rather than the two-step 
analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See SO/lane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the 
AAO reviews appeals on a de novo basis). 
In the present matter, the petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to four of the evidentiary criteria, but has 
not established that the beneficiary has risen to the very top of her field or that she has sustained national or 
intemational acclaim. 8 C.F.R. s§ 214.2(0)(3)(ii) and (iii). 
II. Tbe Beneficiary's Eligibility under tbe Evidentiary Criteria 
The beneficiary in this matter is a native and citizen of Mongolia. The beneficiary holds a Ph.D. in Political 
Science from the University of Hawaii that was conferred in 2007. approximately two years before the filing 
of this petition. The beneficiary also holds a Master's degree in Public Administration from the University of 
Hawaii (2002) and a Bachelor's degree in English and Russian Language and English Literature from the 
Page 6 
Foreign Language Institute in Mongolia the beneficiary was working as a 
postdoctoral research fellow for the The record reflects 
that the beneficiary was last admitted to the United States on March 29, 2009 in 1-1 classification as an 
exchange visitor, subject to the 2-year foreign residence requirement at section 212(e) of the Act. 1 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability in the social 
sciences, specifically as an assistant professor who is a "nationally and internationally-recognized expert on the 
politics, law and the cultural geography of Mongolia." The petitioner initially submitted a job offer for the 
beneficiary, the beneficiary'S resume, the beneficiary'S dissertation, articles authored by the beneficiary, 
infomlation regarding the petitioner, the beneficiary's educational diplomas, and eleven letters of 
recommendation. In response to a Request for Evidence ("RFE") dated November 25, 2009, the petitioner 
submitted a supplemental letter, an updated list of publications, evidence of pending publication offers, and other 
supporting evidence. Subsequent to its initial response to the director's RFE on December I, 2009, the petitioner 
provided four additional testimonial letters which were not incorporated into the record of proceeding prior to the 
director's decision. The AAO has obtained a copy of this supplemental evidence and has considered the totality 
of tile evidence in rendering its decision. 
On December 14,2009, the director denied the petition, finding that the beneficiary meets only one of the eight 
regulatory criteria for establishing sustained national or international acclaim at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(oX3Xiii)(B). 
On appeal, counsel contends that the beneficiary meets at least four of the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3XiiiXB); specifically, 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(oX3XiiiXBX 4), (5), (6) and (7). As counsel implies that the 
beneficiaJ), may satisty other criteria tlle AAO will weigh the submitted evidence against all criteria set forth at 
8 § C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3Xiii). 
After careful review of the record, it must be concluded that the petitioner has failed to overcome the grounds for 
denial. The extraordinary ability provisions of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive, In 
order to establish eligibility tor extraordinary ability, the statute requires evidence of "sustained" national or 
intel1lational acclaim and evidence that the alien's achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor 
through "extensive documentation." The petitioner has not established that the beneficiary's abilities have been so 
recogn ized. 
If the petitioner establishes through the submission of documentary evidence that the beneficiary has received 
a major, internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), then it will meet its 
burden of proof with respect to the beneficiary'S eligibility for 0-1 classification. The regulations cite to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a major award. Jd. There is no evidence that the beneficiary has received any 
major awards in her field, and the petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
I As will be disclissed in the conclusion, the AAO recognizes that because the beneficiary is a J-I exchange 
alien subject to the 2-year foreign residence requirement, her immigration options are effectively restricted 
solely to petitioning for the 0-1 nonimmigrant classification. 
Page 7 
As there is no evidence that the beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, the 
petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria set forth at 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). 
I. Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recogllized prizes or 
awards fvr excellence in the field of endeavor 
To meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(1), the pelltIOner must submit evidence that the 
beneficiary has received nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion, but does note that she has been the 
recipient of numerous full tuition grants and scholarships and two research travel grants during the course of 
her academic career. 
While they may be prestigious. research grants, scholarships and other sources of competitive financial support 
are not nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards because only other students - not recognized 
experts in the field _. compete for such funding. We cannot conclude that receiving funding for one's research 
and academic training constitutes receipt of a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. Such support funding is presented not to established researchers with 
active professional careers. but rather to students seeking to further their research, training and experience. 
Academic awards and honors received while preparing for a vocation tall substantially short of constituting a 
national or international prize or award for recognition in the field. 
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 hy recognized national 
or international experts in their diSciplines or fields 
The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion, nor has it submitted any documentary 
evidence that purports to meet this criterion. Based on the evidence submitted, it is not apparent that the 
beneficiary is a member in any associations in her field, much less a member of an organization that requires 
outstanding achievements of its members. The petitioner has therefore not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(2). 
3. Published material in professional or major trade puhlications or major media about the alien, 
reialing 10 the alien's work in Ihe field/or which classification is sought. which shall include the title. 
date, and author 0/ such published material, and any necessary translation 
The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary meets this criterion, and the record is devoid of any 
evidence that either the beneficiary or her work in her field of endeavor has been recognized in professional 
publications. trade pUblications or major media outlets. The petitioner has therefore not provided evidence to 
satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8)(3). 
4. EVidence ()( the beneficimy's participation on a panel, or indiVidually, a, a judge of the work of 
others in the same or in an alliedfield of specialization to that/or which the classification is sought. 
Counsel claims that the benefiCiaaJry.m.eletlsltlhlis.crlitleiriioin~. iFiirist~' ~cioiuinsie~lj~;~~;~, served on the peer review panel. 
submits a letter dated May 12, 2008 from 
_ indicates that the_ is published annually by the Mongolian Institute of International Studies and 
"otlers the most authoritative articles by leading scholars of Mongolia and public officials on foreign policy, 
politics, and economics in Mongolia." He states til at the beneficiary has served as a "periodic peer reviewer" 
for the journal since 2003 and "most recently reviewed this summer several articles submitted for publication 
in the upcoming yeaf." Counsel asserts that the benefici the work of others to determine its 
suitability for publication," and emphasized that recognized that the beneficiary as "one 
of the preeminent political scientists in Mongolia on the politics of nomadism in post-Soviet Mongolia." 
tlhe beneficiary "has served on a panel at an international conference of. 
where, as the principle commenter, she judged and critiqued the work of 
privatization and post-Soviet development." Counsel emphasized tlhat 
"is the most preeminent organization of scholars who study Central 
IllS,lorV I,mgualles, cultures, and modem states and societies." The petitioner submitted tlhe 
table of contents and list of panels relating to the Tenth Annual Conference of the Central Eurasian Studies 
Society, held at the University of Toronto from October 8 October 11,2009. The is listed 
as the_ for the panel titled held 
from II :00 to 12:45 on October II, 2009. The other panicipants in the panel were presenting work in 
"Modemi7ation, Markets, and Shuttle Trade as Alternatives to Pastoral Nomadism in Contemporary Inner 
Asia"; "Uzbek Migrants to Turkey"; and "Herders, Refonners, and Rescaling Governance in Pastoral 
Kyri,'Yzstan." Counsel emphasized that, as a discussant, the beneficiary critiqued the work of others. Counsel 
asserted that the role of discussant on panels at academic conferences "is assigned to established scholars in 
their field, who critique the work of junior scholars." The petitioner submitted published material from tlhe 
Association for Higher Education which discusses the "role of the discussant." 
~sel asserts that the beneficiary reviews policy proposals related to land privati7""tion for the. 
_ in Mongolia. The petitioner submits a letter the Mongolian 
Administration of Land Affairs, Geodesy and Cartography states that, due to the 
beneficiary's "rising prominence, ALAGaC has ... regularly consulted with her as to issues related to land 
privatization and particularly the impact of land privatization on nomadism in Mongolia." _ 
further states: 
As part of rthe beneficiary's] work as a consultant with ALAGaC, she has reviewed policy 
proposals and position papers to judge the impact of such proposals on the sustainability of 
nomadic pastoralism, and the accompanying concerns of urbanization as herding families 
leave herding for perceived opportunities near city centers. 
Additionally, [the beneficiary's] comparative 1u1Owledge of nomadism in other post-Soviet 
and Inner Asian countries has been invaluable in helping Mongolia attempt to avoid some of 
the policy courses that have all but destroyed pastoralism in other palts ofinner Asia. 
Page 9 
Based on this evidence, the director detennined, without comment, that the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
~ 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(B)(.I) had been satisfied. The AAO agrees that the evidence submitted satisfies the plain 
is based on the beneficiary's role as a peer reviewer for 
and hased on her role as discussant at the 2009 
5. Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly. or business-related contributions of major 
significance in Ihe(ield 
At the time of filing, the petitioner submitted eleven (11) letters intended to establish that the beneficiary 
meets the criterion for having made original scholarly contributions of major significance in the field, 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(oX3)(iii)(B)(5). 
Counsel asserted, specifically, that the beneficiary "has made contributions of major significance in the field 
of politics, law and cultural geography in post-Soviet Mongolia," and is deemed by her peers as having made 
"a significant contribution to academic understandings of Mongolia, and post-Soviet transitions." 
(a) A Review oflhe Lellers 
a tenured law professor at New York University School of Law, states: 
Although still a junior scholar, [the beneficiary's] PhD dissertation ... demonstrates that she 
is already an exceptional scholar in two distinct fields of special importance to American 
scholarship and national security. These fields are law and development and Mongolian 
studies . ... 
As to law and development, she combines the study of property rights with a deep knowledge 
of the evolution of Mongolian society. . .. [T]he processes she describes in her dissertation 
will be of great interest and importance in evaluating and planning similar transitions in land 
rights in countries as apparently far removed as Sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia. 
Furthermore, and of crucial importance in tenns of her qualifications for a visa. she is the 
only person I know writing about these issues in English .... I know of no one with anywhere 
close to [the beneficiary's 1 expertise and perspective on land rights in Mongolia proper .... 
acknowledges that he is not an expert authority with respect to Mongolia, but states that he 
belle'ves that the beneficiary's importance in the area of Mongolian studies "is equally great." He states that 
he is convinced that the beneficiary "is the best scholar of contemporary Mongolian politics" and "the only 
person working on the central issues of Mongolian law and politics" of which he is aware. He notes that her 
experience in Mongolia would be "impossible for any American citizen to match," and that it would be "in the 
national interest of the United States to enable her to stay here and contribute to our knowledge about this 
important region of the world." 
at the University of Hawaii, states that the 
beneficiary "is able to research and write at a level comparable to the best scholarship on Mongolia," and 
indicates that the beneficiary "is making a genuine contribution to both Mongolian society and higher 
~ through her research on nomadic culture bUilding., in Mongolia, a field ofresearch that is rare. _ 
~xplains that "increasing globalization is forcing peoples all over the world to re-formulate land 
discourse by r~m in a world view which is increasingly about limits, multiple uses and 
sustainability." _also indicates that "[the beneficiary's] work is itself situated at this intersect of 
important issues .and perspectives." 
Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, and a member of 
the beneficiary's dissertation committee, states that the beneficiary's "exploration of nomadism, urbanization 
and development in Mongolia and Central Asia in general are unique in the United States." He further states: 
Mongolia. like other Central Asian states is finding its place in the region and the world after 
decades of heing a Soviet client state. Part of this fast-paced development is the integration of 
market principles into a traditional society based on nomadic lifestyles. As [the beneficiary] 
has begun to show in her work, this social transformation is not only a challenge for 
individuals and households in their adaptation to the presence of new globally connected 
economics in Mongolia, but also for the Mongolian state in managing the development of 
natural resources and the resulting environmental externalities. 
It is this second aspect of [the beneficiary's] work that I think is the most promising and the 
most important for the scholarly community to nurture .... [The beneficiary's) dissertation 
and book manuscript have revealed to her a hidden crisis in Mongolia surrounding the 
development of the mining industry. According to her field research, the growth of the 
mining industry . ... 
This hidden environmental crises is not unique to Mongolia, but common to many of the 
emerging energy-based economies of Central Asia .... 
These challenges of environmental security lie largely below the scope of American 
scholarship because of difficulty of access. It is for this rcason why I feel so strongly that [the 
beneficiary] is unique in her contributions to both American scholarship, as well as to U.S. 
foreign policy. As a Mongolian national. [the beneficiary] is especially well positioned to 
examine the growing environmental challenges in Central Asia. 
_ Professor of Law at Yale University School of Law, states that the beneficiary's 
doclc.mi dissertation is "an amazing case study ofa national mythology, in which she explores the genesis and 
maintenance of the self-identification of Mongolians with 'nomadism' .... " Regarding the beneficiary, 
Professor Rose states: 
Page II 
[The beneficiary] can playa tremendously valuable role in the U.S. academic world. First, 
she is uniquely situated to bring knowledge of modem Mongolia to an American audience ... 
. [The beneficiary's] insightful work will be a revelation to American scholars of these issues. 
She has a deep understanding of the culture, history and modem economy of that country, 
combined with complete fluency in English. I have read widely in the literature in English on 
international rural economic development, and I can attest that in that field, any scholarship at 
all on Mongolia is very thin indeed - much less scholarship with the depth of [the 
beneficiary's 1. 
Second, and perhaps even more important, [the beneficiary] brings a hands-on knowledge of 
the development prospects and problems of a post,Soviet state, and in that sense her 
knowledge can translate well outside of Mongolia. The introduction of unfamiliar free­
market ideas. the sometimes unwelcome intmsion of international financial institutions and 
NGOs, the patterns of favoritism and corruption, the new urbanization and displacement of 
established employment and land use patters, thc environmental issues accompanying mining 
and tourism - all thesc are issues that [the beneficiary] has documented and analyzed in 
Mongolia, and that can have form [sic] the basis for tremendously useful comparative 
analyses \vith other post-Soviet political economies. 
at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in 
herlefici"rv cOllltriihuted a chapter to a book that he co-edited. _ 
states that the beneficiary's chapter was "a brilliant comparative study of Mongolian and Central Asian 
Democratic transformations," and displayed the beneficiary's "first-hand knowledge of post-Communist 
nations like Mongolia and her phenomenal grasp of Western political thought" He further states: 
IThe beneficiary 1 has a great scholarly future. She can contribute immensely to the 
advancement of social sciences in the United States through her great talents, depth and total 
dedication to the accomplishment of her scholarly ambitions and goals. 
at the University of Hawaii and chairperson of the 
beneficiary'S dissertation committee, states: 
In one quite obvious way, [the beneficiary] has already risen to the top of her field. There are 
at most a handful of scholars doing this kind of law and social science research on Mongolia. 
Its location near China in particular makes Mongolia an extraordinarily important research 
site for understanding the interplay of land regime. globalization. and population shift. This 
aspect of Mongolian politics and society has barely emerged as a source of inquiry. [The 
beneficiary's] dissertation standing alone makes a major contribution. Its focus on Mongolia 
makcs the work a major contribution to area studies analysis in both China and Central Asia. 
Her research is also a major and unique contribution to the law and social science field in 
ways that transcend the focus on Mongolia ..... [ cannot identify any other scholar who 
focllses on Mongolia. From a law and social science perspective her analysis of nomadism is 
Page 12 
a novel perspective because of its focus on the role that the nomad as symbol plays in the 
ways Mongolian leaders govern. 
In sum, [the beneficiary's] contributions are original and exceptionally significant for three 
reasons. First, her work focuses on an increasingly significant country that only a handful of 
people study. Second, she brings an original understanding to the role of nomadism in 
governance. Third, as her faculty position at University of Arizona implies, her work 
manifests a unique and cross-disciplinary synthesis of work in cultural geography, politics, 
socio-Iegal analysis and Mongolian area studies. 
the University of Wisconsin - Madison, states that he has 
h""o';,,;,,",'< work and finds her eligible for classi!ication as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
the field of Mongolian studies. Specifically, he states: 
Although [the beneticiary] has just received her doctorate in 2007, she has already 
established herself as one of the leading political scientists studying post-[S]oviet Mongolia. , 
.. ,This work has clear policy implications, and [the beneficiary] is one offew scholars in the 
US with the background and training to speak to these issues, Her critical analytical 
approach to the subject is missing in much of the (much less well-informed) realpolitik 
treatments of the subject. 
Her dissertation work is similarly first-rate. The topic of nomadism and the transformation of 
land tenure systems in Mongolia following the socialist era is clearly crucial to any 
understanding of the politics surrounding Mongolia's post-socialist transformations, yet very 
little in the way of grounded !ieldwork has been done in this research areas .... Because [the 
beneficiary] is a Mongolian whose everyday life was involved in these issues, she is in a 
unique position to analyze the processes and politics at work in remaking Mongolian identity 
and how this relates to issues of land ownership, privati7ation and land tenure. .. [H]er 
critical analysis of the uses of the category 'nomad' associated with the political 
transfonnations related to land ownership and land tenure is first-rate; a fine-grained 
qualitative study that gocs well-beyond the standard qualitative spatial-analytical approaches 
to this topic. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from at 
Pepperdine University. _ identifies a very 
experts in the United States focusing on identity issues and nomadic adaptation to post-Marxist Leninist 
socio-economic and political realities." He indicates that the beneficiary "has already published several 
pieces that have influenced the field." Spccifically,_ states: 
Her work on "Legacy of Sovietism in Mongolia" (2006) is particularly important, as very few 
western scholars have the language skills enabling access to this specific data or textured 
understandings of the history of that state. 
Page 13 
Her dissertation the 
(2007) contributes to a growing field of study revolving around nomadic peoples 
and their adaptation to new globalized fields of culture, economics, and politics. At a recent 
conference on nomadism and modem societies (sponsored by the University of Halle in 
Gemlany), [the heneficiary's) work was mentioned repeatedly. 
_ concluded by stating that "if recently scholarly efforts are an indication of future contributions, 
rthe heneficiary's] academic career is in rapid accent [sic1," 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
Program at the University of Hawaii and also a member of the beneficiary's dissertation committee. He 
indicates that "the level of in-country scholarship is quite low" in Mongolia, and that the beneficiary's 
dissertation will likcly result in a book that will "find intemational acceptance among those concerned about 
Mongolia's trajectory in the post-Soviet period." and also "raise the bar for Mongolian scholars." 
_ opines that there are "too few scholarly resources available for American academics and policy 
makers to understand Mongolia's complexities," and that the beneficiary "will be one of a small number 
making up a new generation of scholars whose work will reshape what we know." He discusses the 
beneficiary's dissertation and declares that it is "a substantial contribution to both our understandings of 
Mongolian society and to American higher education through this work and the work that is sure to follow." 
_raises the beneficiary's intellect, language and social skills and states that "her insightful 
dissertation demonstrates the promise of her future contributions." 
The petitioner also submitted the above-referenced letters of recommendation from _and_ 
that the beneficiary has become "one of the preeminent political scientists in 
Mongolia on the politics of nomadism in post-Soviet Mongolia," whose work "promises to contribute greatly 
to academic understandings of how calls to nomadism distort and shape political dialogue on land 
privatization." He further opines that the beneficiary'S forthcoming book "promises to help reshape academic 
understanding of both domestic and intemational political discourse on Mongolia in the post-Soviet era." _ 
_ states that the heneficiary's knowledge of Mongolia "is unparalleled among intemational scholars of 
nomadism and she is thus uniquely situated among the top scholars both nationally and internationally in her 
field." 
In a supplemental response to the RFE, the petitioner nrr)vl(ieo 
_California State University, Long Beach; 
of AberystW)1h University, United Kirlgd(}m; 
states that the beneficiary has made "excellent cOlltribut:iorlS 
indicates that he knows the beneficiary "through her important work on 
identity politics in her dissertation and forthcoming 
He further states: 
I can attest that [the beneficiary's] exceptional work is unique and contributes greatly to 
understanding the role of nomadic discourse in shaping hoth identity and development in 
Page 14 
Mongolia. Indeed, before [the beneficiary's] groundbreaking work, no scholar had identified, 
much less sought to explain, the persistence of the nomadic myth in shaping both internal 
politics and international development efforts in Mongolia. Most academic and policy 
makers had simply assumed the myth to be true. [The beneticiary] has transfornled the way 
Mongolia must be viewed and her work should reshape academic and policy-maker debate 
over development in Mongolia. As a result, [the beneticiary's] influential work on Mongolia 
resonates well beyond the boundaries of that country and should be picked up by scholars 
working across Asia more broadly and across the field of Geography more specifically. 
There is no doubt that her work will be groundbreaking in more than just the area of 
Mongolian and Asian Studies. 
concludes by stating that the beneficiary "is simply unparalleled in her knowledge of 
Mongolia among scholars working in the same area and is rightly viewed as a star." 
_states that Ihe beneficiary "has a fresh and unique voice in the scholarship not only of Mongolia, but 
also of development and property rights." She further states: 
She has emerged in short order as brilliant and distinctive voice on development, focused 
particularly on the subtle and complex fonns of property rights in modern Mongolian society 
and on lands used for agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry. Having written on the 
political ecologies of such lands in Africa, I have found [the beneficiary's] work a major 
contribution to our larger understanding of the existing relationships to land and resources 
which do not tit easily into Western property rights regimes .. 
_ states Ihat she places the beneticiary "among the most exciting scholars on development and 
property rights to emerge in years." 
_ states that he attended the beneficiary's presentation al the Central Eurasian Society's Annual 
Conference in September 2008. _ states that her presentation was "remarkable" and that her 
dissertation and \i>rthcoming book "demonstrate that [the beneficiary 1 has made and is making a significant 
contribution to the field of politics and cultural geography." _ indicates that he intends to use the 
beneficiary'S work in his seminar on the "Geography of thc Silk Road." He describes the beneficiary's work 
as unique and states that "she has already become a leading expert both in understanding nomadic myth, 
identity and discourse and how they impact present day development in Mongolia. He concludes by stating 
that the beneficiary'S "contribution to the cultural geography ofeentral Asia is important." 
Finally describes the beneficiary as "a rising scholar among a very select group who 
cultural and political geography of Mango Ii a." _ further states: 
While [the beneficiary] is at an early stage in her career she already has an international 
reputation: her life experience, academic qualifications and penetrating intellect qualif'y her as 
a member of a select group of experts who can help to deconstruct the nomadic stereotype of 
Page 15 
Mongolian Isic] that penneates the Western consciousness and foster deeper understanding of 
the politics and cultural geography of Mongolia .... 
Based on this testimonial evidence, counsel asserted that "numerous experts who know [the beneficiary] 
through her work attest to the contributions of major significance that she has made in her field," which 
counsel claims is "a significant contribution to academic understandings of post-Soviet Mongolia." 
(h) Analvsis 
In compliance with Kazarian, the AAO must focus on the plain language of the regulatory criteria. 596 FJd 
at 1121. Here. the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of "original scientific, 
scholarly, or business-related contributions of major significance III the field." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(S). 
The director determined that the evidence submitted did not meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(oX3)(iii)(13)(5). The director found that the beneficiary "has yet to make original scholarly 
contributions of major significance to the field." Rather. the director concluded that the evidence suggested 
that the beneficiary has the ability to make such a contribution in the future. In addition, the director observed 
that the testimonials. speaking primarily to the beneficiary's talent and abilities, are largely from individuals 
with whom the beneficiary has worked. The director also noted that the letters make broad assertions to the 
importance of the beneficiary's work, but fail to detail any changes the beneficiary's work has made to the 
field as a whole. 
In her brief, counsel asserts that the director misidentified the letters as coming primarily from prior 
colleagues or supervisors and mischaracterized the content of the letters. Counsel asserts that, while many 
experts did indicate expect that the beneficiary will continue to make contributions to her field, "they also 
unequivocally stated that she has already made significant contributions." Counsel contends that the director 
reached an incorrect conclusion and supported it by taking selective quotes from the testimonial letters out of 
context. Counsel asserts that the beneficiary is described as "having transfonned her field," and meets the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. & 214.2(oX3Xiii)(B)(5). 
Upon review, the AAO agrees with the director. However. as a preliminary matter. the AAO will withdraw 
the director's ohscrvation that the letters are largely from individuals with whom the beneficiary has worked. 
While the AAO cannot tell with absolute certainty, the record appears to include five letters from individuals 
that clearly worked with the beneficiary. The remaining authors do not appear to have worked with the 
beneficiary and know her through her publications. 
The AAO will first address counsel's assertion that the director deliberately mischaracterizcd the opinions of 
experts providing testimonial letters by taking selective quotes out of context to support USCIS' position. For 
the purposes of applying the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(BX5) to the testimony 
presented, the director was reasonably seeking confinnation that the beneficiary'S existing body of work is 
both original and of major significance, such that her original contributions have already made a substantial 
and recognizable national or international impact in the field. In viewing the letters from this point of view, 
Page 16 
the director reasonably concluded that the opinion of experts in the field is that the beneficiary has great talent 
and ability, possesses an unusual combination of research interests and experience not commonly found in the 
lield, and has the potential to contribute to the social sciences in several fields. The director did not merely 
dismiss portions of the letters which did not support her conclusion, but rather, concluded that "the 
testimonials also make broad assertions to the importance of the beneficiary's work, but fail to detail any 
changes the bencficiaris work has made to the tield as a whole," 
The AAO agrees that the testimonial letters do not adequately describe with specificity any original 
contribution of major significance in the field. While the beneficiary has published results of her research, the 
record docs not show how her research is considered of "major significance" in the lield, or that it has been 
widely recognized as such. Any Ph.D. dissertation or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication. presentation, or funding, must offcr new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. See Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook on 
"Postsecondary Teacher," available at http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos066.htm (copy incorporated into the 
record). It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool 
of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of major significance in the lield. 
The petitioner asserts that there are very few researchers performing work on nomadism, law and cultural 
geography in post-Soviet Mongolia, and even fewer who are fluent in English. _opines that the 
beneficiary has "already risen to the top of her field" because "[tlhere are at Illost ~ scholars doing 
this kind of law and social science research on Mongolia." The fact that relatively few scholars focus their 
research on modem Mongolian legal, cultural and political issues does not necessarily render published 
rescarch in this arca an original contribution of major signilicance. The letters also stress the geopolitical 
signilieance of Mongolia, both within Central Asia and as a matter of U.S. foreign policy. Arguments about 
the importance of a given field of endeavor, or the urgency of an issue facing the United States, will not by 
themselves establish that the beneficiary's scholarship in these areas is of "major significance." 
While thc beneficiary's work has been characterized as making "a substantial contribution to our 
under:stand:ng of modern Mongolian society," there. is insufficient evidence to S~g that the 
benchcJary s work has already made a major contnbutlOn to the field. For example,_states that 
the heneficiary "has transfonned the way Mongolia must be vic\\,'ed" and speculates that her work "should 
reshape academic and policy-maker debate over development in Mongolia," and "should be picked up by 
scholars working across Asia more broadly and across the field of Geography more specifically." _ 
states that she has found the beneficiary's work to be "3 major contribution to our larger understanding of the 
existing relationships to land and resources which do not fit easily into Western property rights regimes," but 
she has not explained or illustrated how the beneficiary's work has impacted the field. _states that 
the beneficiary's "contribution to the cultural geography of Central Asia is important," but does not describe 
the scope and nature of the contribution or indicate that the beneticiary's contribution has been recognized as 
inlluential in thc tield. Merely repeating the language of the statllte or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Fcdin Bros. Co .. Ltd v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), uff'd, 
905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Page 17 
While those familiar with her work may generally describe the beneficiary's work as "groundbreaking," there 
is no indication that the beneficiary's work is of major significance. If, the 
beneficialY has "transformed the way Mongolia must be viewed," then it is see that 
transformation rellccted in some tangible way in the ficld at large. The lack of supporting evidence and 
repeated speculation about the future impact of the beneficiary's work gives the AAO no basis to gauge the 
significance of the beneficiary's present contrihution and undermines the claim that the beneficiary has 
already made a contribution of major significance. 
As noted by the director, many of the letters proffered do in fact discuss far more persuasively the future 
promise of the benc1iciary's research and the impact that may result from her work, rather than how her past 
research already qualifies as a contribution of major signi1icance in the 1ield. A petitioner cannot file a 
petition under this classilication based on the expectation of future eligibility. See Matter of Kat;gbak, 14 
I&N Dec. at 45, 49. The assertion that the beneficiary's research results are likely to be inlluential is not 
adequate to establish that her findings are already recognized or acclaimed as major contributions in the field. 
While the experts who have rcad the beneficiary's dissertation deem the beneficiary's research findings to be 
both novel and of great potential interest and import within several social science fields, the fact remains that 
any measurable impact that results from the beneficiary's research will likely occur in the future. 
The phrase "major signilicance" is not defined in the statute or regulations. We must presume that the phrase 
"major significance" is not superJluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Looking to the applicable 
dictionary definition. the word "major" is defined as "greater in importance or rank." Webster's New World 
College Dil,tionary 867 (4th Ed. 2008). The word "significance" is defined as "importance, consequence, 
moment." ld. at 1334. While these letters discuss the value of the beneficiary's relatively small body of 
existing work, there is no evidence that it constitutes an original contribution of "major significance" in her 
field. 
In conclusion, thc most compelling letter submitted by the petitioner was authored 
Associate Professor of Geography at Pepperdine Univcrsity. _ identifies himself as a Mongolian 
studies expert and indicatcs that the bene1iciary "has already published several pieces that have inlluenced the 
field." _ states that the beneficiary's research "contributes to a growing field of study revolving 
around nomadic peoples and their adaptation to new globalized fields and politics." 
_ also notes that he is familiar with the beneficiary'S work on in Mongolia" 
(2006) and calls it important because few westem scholars have the language skills the data 
of the oftha! state. IIe also identif,cd her dissertation 
(2007) as a contribution to the growing field 
of sludy revolving around to new globalized fields of culture, 
economics, and politics. Finally, although he does not provide specifics, he noted that her work was 
"mentioned repeatedly" at a conference on nomadism and modem societies that had been spcnsored by the 
University of Halle in Gennany. 
Upon review, even the most compelling letter does not meet the plain language of the regulatory criteria. The 
lack of specifics in the letter prevents the AAO from finding the criteria to be satisfied. Although the 
heneficiary's work may have been mentioned repeatedly at a conference. there is no statement as to whether 
the work was discussed in a positive or negative light or otherwise deemed to be of major significance. Nor 
does the author explain how he has applied the beneficiary's research in his own work. And while the author 
identifies the research as contributions to his field, he fails to articulate how or why it should be seen as a 
contribution of m(~jor significance._ uncorroborated statements suggest that the beneficiary's work 
is important, timely, relevant, and a useful complement to comparahle research in the field, but not to the 
e>.lent that it would be considered of "major significance" within the field. 
USCIS may. in its discretion. use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert teslimony. See Matter 
of ('aroll 1111'1., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Camlll·r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility.' ld.: see also Matter of 
V-K-. 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (AlA 2008) (noting that e'peli opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence 
as to "fact"). lISCIS may even give less weight to all opinion that is not corroborated or is in any way 
questionable. !"faller oleal'Oll Jilt'/., 19 I&N Dec. at 795. Furthermore. merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the pctitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. 
Supp. at 1108. 
Without additional. specific evidence showing that the beneficiary's work has been influential, highly 
acclaimed throughout her field. or has otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, we 
cannot conclude that she meets this criterion. 
(6j Evidellce oj'the alien's authorship of schularlv articles in the field. in professional journals, or other 
major flIedia 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that, as of the date of filing, the beneficiary had published two 
articles and one book chapter. The articles were published in 1999 and 2003, respectively, and the book 
chapter was published in 2006. The petitioner also provided a list of the beneficiary'S selected conference 
presentations between the years 1997 and 2009. The petitioner indicated that the beneficiary has a book 
forthcoming. as well as an additional joumal article to be published in the Asian Pacific Law & Policy 
Journal in 20 I O. 
Counsel also indicated that the beneficiary has received offers to publish her book manuscript,_ 
from two academic publishers and "has yet 
to settle on a linal publisher." Counsel riisscrl'"1 of the same title "has already been 
published by ProQuest and is available in digital and microform in libraries across the United States." 
2 The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "selfscrving." See. e.g .. Maller ofS-A-. 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (B1A 2000) (citing cases). The 
Board also held, however: "We not only encourage. but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial 
and documentary evidence. where available." Jd.; see also Maller of Y-B-. 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (B1A 1998) . . 
(noting: that there is a greater need for corrobative evidence when the testimony lacks specificity, detail, or 
credibility). 
Page 19 
The director determined that the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. In reaching this conclusion, the 
director noted that the regulations clearly require evidence of authorship of articles in the field in professional 
joumals or other major media. The director did not consider the beneliciary's anticipated book and joumal 
publications. noting that the petitioner must establish eligibility for this criterion at the time of tiling. 
Moreover. the director emphasized that the beneliciary's presentations at conferences are not considered 
published articles in professional journals. The director acknowledged that the petitioner submitted reviews 
for the book to which the beneliciary contributed a chapter: however, the director noted that "the book 
revicVvs fail to mention the beneficiary'S work in particular or its significance," The director further 
emphasized that the petitioner failed to provide the number of times the beneficiary'S articles have been cited. 
The director concluded that "it has not been established that her articles have significantly influenced other 
individuals in the field in a manner consistent with sustained national or international acclaim.
11 
Upon review. the AAO finds that the evidence submitted satisfies the plain language of the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( 0)(3)(iii)(8)(6) based on the beneficiary's publication of two scholarly articles 
and one book chapter. The weight to be given to the beneficiary'S hody of published work will be considered 
bek'w in our final merits determination. 
However. the AAO notes that the director properly excluded from consideration the two publications that 
have been identitied as "forthcoming." The petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the 
nonimmigrant visa petition. A visa petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or 
heneficiary hecomes eligible under a new set of facts. Malter olMichelill Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. 
Comm. 1978). The puhlication of the beneficiary's doctorate dissertation on ProQuest. a web site repository 
that has published two million other theses and dissertations, with no apparent selection process for 
publication. does not amount to the publication of a scholarly article in a professional journal or other major 
media. The tact that the beneficiary will eventually publish the dissertation in book fonnat is irrelevant for 
the purposes of meeting the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(8)( 6) as of the date of filing. 
('ZJ Evidence thaL the alien ha'i heen emp/o.ved in a critical or essenlia/ capacity/or orgcmi:;ations and 
estahlishmel1!s fhal hare a distinguished reputation 
At the time of tiling. counsel stated that the beneliciary has been employed in an esscntial capacity with the 
petitioner as the lIniversity's only expert on the politics, law and cultural geography of post-Soviet Mongolia. 
Counsel emphasized that the petitioner's is among the top 20 Ph.D. 
granting Departments of Geography in the of award-winning teachers." 
Counsel stated that the beneficiary "is an exceptional professor within an exceptional college of a top-ranked 
University, where she serves in an essential capacity as the University!s only expert on the politics, law and 
cultural geography of post-Socialist Mongolia." 
In the RFE. th~ director acknowledged the petitioner's claim. but noted that "as an Assistant Professor, the 
beneliciary' plays a supporting role for the university as a whole, rather than a critical or e"ential role as required 
Page 20 
by this criterion." 1 The director advised that "the fact that an individual is the only individual with knowledge in a 
certain subject or field is not sufficient to establish a critical or essential role." 
In response, counsel stated: 
The RFE seems to suggest that although the petitioner has established that [the beneficiary] is the 
University'S only expert on the politics of contemporary Mongolia, the petitioner has not shown 
that it is critical or essential for the University to have a scholar with [the beneficiary's] cxpertise. 
The petitioner submitted abundant evidence, however. of the critical nature of [the beneficiary'S] 
work and of Mongolia's geopolitical signiJicance. 
Counsel asserted that "the critical importance of the beneticiary's work was confirmed by a 
experts," and by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a letter dated November 30, 2009 ITom 
••• ,director of the petitioner's School of Geography and Development. that, while the 
school has taculty members with expertise in Europe, Latin America. South Asia. Russia, and the Middle East, it 
was without a specialist in Mongolia and East Asia for several years until the beneficiary joined the school as a 
post-doctoral researcher. the beneficiary "has thus filled a critical role on the faculty that would 
otherwise be lell unfilled." that the beneficiary'S "suhstantive work on the politics of land 
privati/lltion. development. security in post-Soviet states complements others in the School 
who work on similar issues in other parts of the world." 
_ further stated that the beneficiary'S appointment to the position of assistant professor will "permanently 
fill our need for an East Asia specialist." and Utili critical course needs and supervisory responsibilities over 
graduate students that we were unable to fill prior to her arrival." In addition, he emphasized that the beneficiary'S 
work is critically important to the United States "given Mongolia's geopolitical significance." 
The director determined that the petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy the criterion at 8 
('FR. § 214.2(0)(3 )(iii)(8)( 7). The director acknowledged that the petitioning university has a distinguished 
reputation. !Iowever, the director found that_letter focused primarily on the beneficiary'S future role as 
an Assistant Professor, and failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the beneficiary'S role as a post 
doctoral researcher was critical or essential to the university as a whole. 
The director also acknowledged that the record reflects that the beneficiary has served as a consultant to the 
Mongolian Office of Administration of Land Aflairs. Geodesy and Cartography. The director found that the 
petitioner had not established that the beneficiary'S role as a consultant w"s in a critical or essential capacity. 
Tn her briet: counsel for the petitioner asserts that _ letter, when properly read, establishes that [the 
beneficiary] has already heen employed in a critical or essential capacity at [the petitioning university]," Counsel 
further disputes the director's finding that the petitioner tailed to estahlish that the beneficiary's role as a post­
doc1oral researcher \-vas in a critical or essential capacity. sfating: 
.1 The AAO nntes that the beneficiary has not been employed by the petitioner as an Assistant Professor. Her 
prior '''perienoe with the petitioning university is as a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow. 
Page 21 
rhis statement is difficult to comprehend as depatimcnts in universities do not exist in vacuums. 
Rather, a signiticant contribution to any department of a university is by definition important to 
the university as a whole. This is particular [sic ] true in the case of the School of Geography and 
Development. which - as one of the largest graduate programs in the countty - is one of the 
flagship departments at [the petitioning university]. 
Counsel states that the petitioner provided evidence in the form of testimonial letters "explaining the critical 
importance of [the beneficiary's] work on post-Soviet Mongolia beyond the University of Arizona to the nation as 
a whole." 
Counsel further asserts that the director erred hy finding that the henefieiary's role as a consultant to the 
Mongolian govemrnent was not in a critical or essential capacity. Counsel notes that, according to _ 
the beneficiary has been "invaluable in helping Mongolia attempt to avoid some of the policy courses that have all 
but destroyed pastoralism in other parts oflnner Asia." 
Upon review, the AAO concurs with the director that the evidence submitted does not meet this criterion. At 
issue for this criterion are the position the beneficiary was selected to fill and tile reputation of the entity that 
selected her. 
The AAO docs not question that the University of Arizona and its School of Geography and Development enjoy 
a distinguished reputation. Employment with the petitioning univc",itv is evidcnce of a degree of recognition. 
However, while the heneficiary has clearly been able to provide expertise ill an academic area in which there may 
be a paucity of qualified researchers, there is no evidence that her role as a post-doctoral researcher was essential 
or critical for the university. This suhardinate role is designed to provide research training for a future 
protCssional career in the field of endeavor. The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how the beneficiary'S 
post-doctoral role differentiated her from the other post-doctoral researchers/fellows at the university, let alone 
fwm its tenured faculty. The documentation submitted by the petitioner docs not establish that the beneficiary 
was responsible for the success or standing of the petitioner's School of Geography and Development to a degree 
consistent with the meaning of "essential or critical capacity," 
While counsel, the petitioner, and the expert testimonials have attested to both the critical role the beneficiary fills 
within the petitioner's School of Geography as its only Mongolia expert. atld the critical nature of the beneficiary's 
research from a national interest and geopolitical standpoint, these considerations go beyond the scope of this 
evidentiary criterion, which must focus on the beneficiary and the relative imporlatlce of her position within the 
scope of the organizations that have employed her. The fact that the beneficiary'S placement among its faculty 
allows the university to offer coursework which it would not otherwise be able to offer does not elevate her role 
to one that would he considered critical or essential. 
We concur with the director that the beneficiary'S employment as a post-doctoral researcher, while of great value 
to the petitioning university for a variety of rea<.;ons, is not considered employment in a "critical or essential 
capacity" as would be the position of a department head or lead researcher on major projects within the 
university. 
With respect to the beneficiary's position as a consultant to the Mongolian government, the AAO notes fhat fhe 
petitioner has not previously claimed that the beneficiary meets this criterion based on this role. The record 
contains little information regarding the nature and extent of her responsibilities and fhe circumstances in which 
she has served as a cOIl>l,ltant. The beneficiary does not mention the consulting position in her detailed resume, 
and no dates have been provided for her period of employment. Given the lack of information in fhe record, fhe 
AAO finds_letter alone to be insufficient to establish that the beneficiary's unspecified period of 
employment as a consultant rises to the level of employment in a critical Of essential capacity. 
Based on the t()reguing discussion, the petitioner ha~ not :;ubmittcd cyidence that satisfic~ the plain language of 
the criterion at 8 c.r.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8)(7). 
8. Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other 
rernuneraliol1 for services. evidenced hy cOlltracts or other reliahle evidence. 
The petitioner has lATered the beneficiary an annual salary of $60,000. The plain language of this regulatory 
criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidence of a high salary "in relation to others in the field." The 
pet:tioner offers no ha."is for comparison showing that her compensatiun was significantly high in relation to 
others in her field and does not claim that the beneficimy meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8)(8). 
B. Final Mt!rils DC'fermillutioll 
Ka::ariml sets fDnh a two-pan approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the context of 
a final merits dctcnllination. flowever, as discussed ab,we, the petitioner established eligibility for only two of 
the criteria, of which three are required under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8). 
Notv.ithstanding the above, a final merits determination considers all oft"e evidence in the context ofwhefher or 
no! the petitioner has demonstrated: (I) that the beneficiary has achievd a level of expertise indicating that she is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the vel)' top of the IIdd of endeavor pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 
214 .2( 0)(3 )( ii); mill (2) that the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and fhat her 
achicvcll10uts Irave been recognized in the field of expertise, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). See 
Ka::arian, 2010 WL 725317 at *3. 
In tt,is cast, we concur with the director's finding that the petitioner "as lIot established that the beneficiary 
has "extraordinary ability" in the social sciences or education, which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim, and whose achievements have been recognized in the field fhrough 
extcnsive documentation. Section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act. The petitioner has not demonstrated fhat the 
bcncticial)' received a major internationally recognized award or that she meets at least three of the criteria 
that must be satisfied to establish the national or international acel?,m necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 8 ('.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii). 
The specific deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have already been addressed in our 
preceding discussion or the regulatory criteria at 8 C'.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8). The petitioner submitted 
documentation relating to the beneficiary'S achievements. Although the petitioner's evidence meets two of the 
eight criteria, the suhmitted evidence is not indicative of the beneticiary's national or international acclaim and 
there is no indication that her individual achievements have been so recognized in the field or that she meets the 
overall criteria lor eligibility at the time her petition was filed. 
With regard to the evidence submitted for 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(iii)(8)(3), the evidence submitted has met the 
plain language of the regulation. The beneficiary's published works to date include the completion of her 
dissertation, and publication of two articles and one book chapter. There is no evidence that any other 
researchers have cited to her work as of the date the petition was filed. The petitioner has not established that 
this small body of published work demonstrates a level of expertise and recognition indicating that she is 
among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(0)(3)(ii). 
We do not find that publication of scholarly articles is presumptive evidence of sustained national or 
international acclaim; we must also consider the greater academic community's reaction to those articles. 
When judging the influence and impact that the petitioner's work has had, the very act of publication is not as 
reliable a gauge as is the citation history of the published works. If a given article attracts the attention of 
other researchers, those researchers will cite the source article in their own published work, in much the same 
way that the benellciary herself has cited sources in her own publications. Numerous independent citations 
would provide solid evidence that other researchers have heen influenced by the petitioner's work and are 
famtliar with it. If, on the other hand, there are fe\\! or no citations of an alien's work, suggesting that that 
work has gone largely unnoticed by the greater Held, then it is reasonable to conclude that the alien's work is 
not nationally or internationally acclaimed. The petitioner has not provided evidence of any citations to the 
beneficiary'S artdes. book chapter, or dissertation. 
The AAO acknowledges counsel's assertion that the beneficiary'S Held is quite small, thus rendering the 
numbers of citations irrelevant. The AAO finds this assertion misleading at best, given other assertions in the 
record that the beneHciary's work marks a major contribution to the fields of cultural geography, Mongolian 
studies, Central Asian studies, property law and land privatization. political science, environmental policy, 
urbanization, development, and even the social sciences in general. The petitioner cannot persuasively claim 
that the beneficiary's work has far-reaching inlluence in the social sciences. while simultaneously suggesting 
that I1n other scholars have cited to her published \vork because her rc:.;earch is so narrowly focused on a sub­
field that includes few researchers. 
While a number of experts in geography, law, cultural studies, political science, Central Asian studies and 
other lields h~ve attested to the value of the beneficiary's research and findings, such testimonials are not 
tantamount to citations to the beneficiary's published works. When viewed as a whole. the claim that the 
beneficiary's current published body of work has garnered notice in the field is not persuasive. None of the 
experts who provided recommendation letters have stated how or whether the beneficiary's published works 
have influenced their own research activities, or attested to the level r,f interest in the beneficiary's published 
Page 24 
work in the field in general. Each expert offers glo" ing praise of the beneficiary's dissertation but speaks 
only or its potential impact within his or her rcspecti\'c area of spcciali71ltion. 
Finally, the AAO emphasizes that it is expected that researchers publish the results of their research in peer­
reviewcdjoumals or other publications, Publication of two such articles and one book chapter does not constitute 
extensive d()cumentation of sustained acclaim through publication of scholarly articles. 
With respect to the criterion at 8 CF.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4), the heneficiary has served as a periodic peer 
reviewer for The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs and discussant at a single international 
conterence of the Central Eurasian Studies Society. The AAO cannot conclude that these appointments 
esttlhlish the heneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim. 
First the AAO notes that peer review of manuscripts or articles is a routine element of the process by which 
articles arc selected for publication in scholarly joumals. Normally, an editorial board will enlist the assistance of 
numerous professionals in the field who agree to review a suhmitted paper. It is common to ask several reviewers 
to review a manuscript and to ofIer comments. Reviewers' comments may be accepted or rejected. Without 
evidence that sets the beneficiary apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has peer reviewed an 
unusually large nllmber of manuscripts for publication or presentation, received multiple independent requests for 
her services from a substantial number of joumals, or served in an editcrial position for a distinguished journal, 
we cannot ceTlclude that the beneficiary's role as a periodic peer reviewer for the ~Mongu/ian Journal of 
lnIemalional Affairs is indicative of her sustain international recognition and acclaim in the field. 
Similarly, the beneficiary's participation as a discussant at a single contCrcnce in her area of expertise is not 
indicative of sustained national or intemational acclaim in the field, While it may be true that the role of 
discussant is not assigned to "junior scholars," there is no evidence to suggest that such roles are typically 
assib'11ed to persons who have reached the top of their respective academic fields, TIle beneficiary's judgment of 
the papers and presentations of three junior scholars at one Central Eurasian Studies Society conference is 
likcwi~t.' insufficient to establish the requisite sustained national or international acch1im. 
As discussed above. the petitioner has not established that the beneticiary's employment as a post-doctoral 
research fellow satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. ~ 214.2(oX3XiiiXH)(7). The AAO cannot conclude that 
appointment to a post-doctoral fellowship, even within a university and program with as distinguished a 
reputation as the petitioner's, is an academic role reserved for profcssinnills who are at the very top of their field. 
Th" AAO acknowledges that the petitioner's rationale for seeking to employ the beneficiary is readily 
appown!. However, unlike recruiting and hiring decisions, eligibility for this visa classi'lcation is not based 
on a beneficiary's having specific professional competencies, however superb, unusual or in-demand they 
may be, but rather hinges on the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in 
the actual field. The context is much broader than an evaluation for suitability for a particular position. 
Notwithstanding the numerous opinions in the record, the fact remains that the evidence consists almost 
entirely of testimonial evidence. In order to establish eligihility for extraorclinar}' ahility classification, the 
statute requires evidence of the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim!1 and evidence that the alien's 
Page 25 
achievements have been recognized 111 the field of endeavor through "extensive documentation." Section 
10 I(a)( 15)(OXi) of the Act. 
Furlhermore, it must be emphasized that the favorable opinions of experts in the ficieL while not without 
evidentiary weight, are not a solid basis for a successful extraordinary ability claim, Unusual in its specificity, 
section IOl(a~ 15XO)(i) of the Act clearly requires "exttllsive documentation" of the alien's achievements, 
Again, USCIS may. in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submittt:d as expert testimony. See 
Maller of Caron Iliternatiollal, 19 I&N Dec, at 795. Hmvever. USC1S is ultimately responsible for making 
the final detcrmination regarding an alien's eligibility te)r the benefit sought. Jd. The submission of letters 
frolll experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibililY See id at 795-796; see also Maller of 
V-K-. 24 I&N Dec. at 500, n.2. Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the 
beneficiary's reputation are important considerations. Here, many of the experts are personally acquainted with 
the beneficiary, and some have worked with her as colleagues or ,upervisnrs. Even when written by 
independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of a nonimmigrant petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance that one would expect of a 
social '>cience rc';carchcr who has sustained national or international acdaim. 
The conclusion we rt:ach by considering each evidenhary criterion sr:-parateiy is consistent with a review of 
the evidence in the aggregate. Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the beneficiary as one 
orthc small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii). The 
bcnc!iciary, a postdoctoral research fellow who received her Ph.D. in 2007, relies primarily on her limited 
publication record, her forthcoming book, and the praise of her colleague" and other experts in the field. While 
this Illay distinguish her from other postdoctoral researchers and research associates, we cannot narrow her field 
to others with her level of training and experience without nullifying the plain language of the statute. 
On their own, the beneficiary's reference letters represent a sampling of ;ndividuals who may have risen to the 
the field of endeavor." _ one of the beneficiary'S references, has served as a 
at the University of Hawa~fthe -
the has becn conducting research in the beneficiary" field for over 25 years 
East Europe and Central Asia at the University of 
Wisl.:onsill. in Northeast and 
Central Asia. _ is the managing editor of and the 
deputy director of the Mongolian Institute of appears of the 
benf'ticiary's lield ;s substantially above the level she has attained as a student and JX,,;tdodoral research fellow, 
Rev;"w of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has disti"guished herself to such an extent that 
she llIay be said to htlve achieved sustained national or intemational acclaim or to be within the small 
percentage at the very lop of her field. The evidence is nut persuasive that tlce netitioner's achievements set 
her si:mificanHy above almost all others in her field at a nalional or inlemmional level. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section IO](aXI5XO)(il of the Act and rhe petition Illay not 
be approved. 
II!. Conclusion 
Nothing in the decision of the AAO should be seen as an attempt to minimize the accomplishments of the 
beneficiary. particularly since they have been achieved so early in her career, or as a comment on the criteria 
used by the University of Arizona to select persons for positions. Indeed, as many of the testimonial letters 
make clear, the beneficiary shows great promise and potential in the tiled of education. The AAO recognizes 
that the hendiciarv's nonimmigrant status as a J-I exchange alien effectively restricts her options to 
petitioning for the 0-1 classification, despite the fact that she has not risen to the very top of her profession. 
Unlike other nonimmigrant visa classifications that are available to students and professionals, the 1-1 
exr;lumge visitor visa requires the alien to leave the United States for a minimum of two years upon expiration 
of the visa. Originating in 1948 with the United States Infonnation and Educational Exchange Act, Pub. L. 
80-402, the long-standing goal of the exchange visitor visa has been to promote an understanding of 
American cultllre and policies abroad. See S. Rep. No. 80-57J, at I (1947); see also Naomi Schorr & Stephen 
Yak-Loehr, "The Odyssey of the .1-2: Forty-Three Years of TryinV Not to Go Home Again," 18 GEO. 
IMMIGR. L.J. 221, 224 (2004). This objective was affirmed by the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
Exchange Act of 1961. Pub. L. 87-256, which remains the basis of the .1- \ visa program to this day. 
As enacted, scction 212(e) of the Act bars an alien in J-I nonimmigrant status from applying for an immigrant 
visa. permanent residence, or nonimmigrant H or L status, until the alien ha..o;;; resided in his or her country of 
nationality for at least two years after leaving the United ~t"tes. In addition. section 248(3)(3) ofthe Act bars 
exchange visitor aliens from changing nonimmigrant classification to anythin,g other than A Of G diplomatic 
visa status. See also Maller of Kim, 13 I&N Dec. 316 (Reg. Cnmm. 196R). Section 212(e) concludes by 
providing for a discretionary waiver of the tv.-o-year foreign resjdenc~ :'equirement if, among other grounds, 
the departure from the United States would impcse exceptional hardship upon the alien's U.S. citizen spouse 
or child. 
There is no evidence that the heneficiary in this matter has received a waiver of the two-year foreign 
residellce requirement. Accordingly, it appears that her one option lor remnining employed in the United 
States upon completion of her post-doctoral research was to file 311 0-1 extraordil11ry ability visa petition, 
with notificatio-n sent to her home consulate abroad so tl-)at she may obtain a visa and be admitted without 
fulfillmg the foreign residence requirement. See generaliv, Letter hom Jacquely~ A. Bednarz, Chief, 
Nonimmigrant Branch, Office of Adjudications. Immigration and Naturali"tion Service, reported in 71 No. 
391NTERRFL 1360 (October 7, 1994). 
The AAO notes that but for the statutory prohibition, the H-I B nun immigrant visa classification would 
normally cover professors and scholars as a specialty, occupation and allow the petitioner to employ the 
beneficiary on a temporary basis. See Ii 214(i)(I) of the Act (listing educatIOn and social sciences, among 
other specialty oCCllpation professions). 
This denlal does not preclude the petitioner from filing a new ImmIgrant or nonimtn'grant visa petItIOn, 
suppt'rteci by the required evidence, after the hcneticiary obtains a waiver of the two-year foreign residence 
P<lge 27 
requirement. As always, the burden remains with the petitioner to establish eligibility for the requested visa 
c lassi ficatiol1. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 use. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that hurden. Accordingly, the director's decision will be 
afTinnt:d and the petition will be denied. 
ORDER: The decision orthe director is affinncd. The petition is denied.