Nebraska Service Center (NSC) -- LIN-06-257-52736

At the time of filing, the petitioner was a Postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Anesthesia at Stanford University. The case was originally denied by NSC. The appeal was dismissed.

Interesting points: AAO notes that the letters of support submitted by the petitioner’s professional contacts and their discussion of his contributions are insufficient to constitute “evidence of the alien’s original scientific contributions of major significance in the field,” in particular because “many of them discuss what may, might, or could one day result from the petitioner’s work, rather than how his past research already qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field.” AAO declares that “a petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of future eligibility.” Further, to meet the standard under this criteria, an alien’s contributions must be not only original but of major significance. AAO finds no supporting evidence showing that the published research resulting from the petitioner’s work was frequently cited, and concludes that the petitioner failed to prove his eligibility under this criterion.

Texas Service Center (TSC) – SRC-06-183-51546

The case was denied by TSC. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner was working as a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Pathology at the USUHS in Bethesda, Maryland.

Interesting points: AAO declares that "the academic honors, graduate assistant stipend awards, and recognition for achievement as a student merely reflect institutional recognition in an educational setting, and do not constitute the petitioner’s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field." AAO also notes that the petitioner’s full membership of Sigma Xi fails to qualify him under the "membership" criterion, as Sigma Xi "does not take a particularly strict view of noteworthy achievements." AAO continues to state: "the Committee on Qualifications and Membership interpreted this qualification to include primary authorship of two papers, and that an earned doctorate degree may be substituted for one paper. We cannot conclude that primary authorship of one or two papers is indicative of outstanding achievement."

Nebraska Service Center (NSC) – LIN-06-043-53578

AAO upholds NSC's original denial and dismisses the appeal. At the time of filing, the petitioner was a Vice President for Research and Technology for an information technology company in New Jersey.

Interesting points: the petitioner has at least two O-1 visa petitions approved by USCIS. AAO declares: “while CIS has approved at least two O-1 nonimmigrant visa petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner, the prior approvals do not preclude CIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased standard. It must be noted that many I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after CIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. The AAO is not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. It would be absurd to suggest that CIS or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent."

Nebraska Service Center (NSC) – LIN-07-027-50148

At the time of filing, the petitioner was working for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology. NSC's denial was reversed by AAO on appeal.

Interesting points: AAO concludes that the petitioner’s evidence meets three of the regulatory criteria. AAO notes that the letters of support submitted by the petitioner’s professional contacts and their discussion of his contributions, viewed together with documentation showing dozens of independent cites to the petitioner's findings, are sufficient to constitute 'evidence of the alien’s original scientific contributions of major significance in the field." This pattern of finding is consistent with the above-mentioned NSC case (LIN-06-25752736).

Nebraska Service Center (NSC) – EAC-05-256-50817

AAO upholds NSC's original denial and dismisses the appeal. The petitioner had worked briefly after obtaining his first Ph.D. and, at the time of filing, was studying for his second Ph.D.

Interesting points: to meet the criterion under "published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media," the petitioner submitted a letter from a satellite television station stating that he spoke about his biography and researcher in a telephone interview. AAO is not persuaded by this evidence: "the petitioner appears to have been selected because he is a skilled professional from Bashkortostan who is working overseas. While he discussed his research, his research does not appear to have formed the basis of his selection for the interview. In other words, the broadcast does not constitute journalistic coverage of the petitioner's research based on the significance of that research. Ultimately, this broadcast does not appear to have derived from or contributed to the petitioner's notoriety in the field."

Nebraska Service Center (NSC) -- LIN-06-108-52129

AAO upholds NSC’s original denial and dismisses the appeal.

AAO also provides guidance on how they look at citations: "we find it more useful to look at the number of citations for each article. The reasons for examining the citations in this way are that the same article may cite more than one of the petitioner's articles, and would be counted multiple times in an aggregate evaluation, and an ordinary scientist in the field for many years may publish many minimally cited articles that do not set him apart from others in the field but accumulate in the aggregate."

Texas Service Center (TSC) – SRC-07-056-52186

AAO upholds TSC's original denial and dismisses the appeal.

The petitioner attempted to satisfy the "leading or critical role" requirement by contending that her position as a principal investigator at GreenBridge Technology serves to meet this criterion. However, the petitioner failed to submit a letter from the employer confirming this position. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit an organizational chart or other evidence regarding the significance of a principal investigator position beyond the obvious need for a research and development company to employ competent investigators.

Nebraska Service Center (NSC) --LIN-07-013-52164

AAO upholds NSC's original denial and dismisses the appeal.

Interesting points: AAO holds that "in order to establish that the petitioner performed a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation, he must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization and the reputation of the organization." The record included no evidence showing that the petitioner's most current employer, a Houston-based engineering company, has a distinguished reputation. AAO further declares that there is no evidence showing that the petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the company to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role."

Nebraska Service Center (NSC) – LIN-06-125-52958

AAO upholds NSC's original denial. Appeal dismissed.

Interesting points: the petitioner submitted numerous letters in support of his claim of "original scientific and scholarly contributions of major significance." AAO concludes that some letters focus on the petitioner's published and presented work, which is far more relevant to the "authorship of scholarly articles" criterion: "it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another…the two are not interchangeable." AAO also criticized the petitioner for submitting letters that contain identical passage, duplicate text, and the same grammatical errors: "it is not clear who is the actual author of the duplicative text in their letters of support, but it is highly improbable that these two individuals independently formulated the exact same wording…As such, we find the duplicative statements to be of limited probative value."

Nebraska Service Center (NSC) – LIN-07-051-54227

AAO affirms NSC's original holding and dismisses the appeal.

Interesting points: the petitioner directed a film that won the Grand Prix for Best film at the Moscow International Film Festival (MIFF). Among the issues discussed, one is whether or not the winning constitutes the "one-time achievement" requirement. AAO notes that "the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized as one of the top awards in that field." The petitioner submitted various newspaper articles to prove the prestige and recognition of the MIFF. However, the same media coverage of the MIFF partially formed the basis of AAO's holding that the MIFF fails to qualify a major, internationally recognized award. One articles contained negative commentaries such as: "the 28th MIFF was an event that had been criticized for its lack of international stars." Another newspaper article stated: "overall, results had critics repeating that the event had again failed to find a convincing image for itself… Many top Russian directors and producers did not bother to attend."

Nebraska Service Center (NSC) – LIN-06-241-51523

The petitioner performs a traditional form of Chinese comedy known as "cross-talk" or "xing sheng (相声)." AAO affirms NSC's original holding and dismisses the appeal.

Interesting points: the petitioner submitted several certificates of recognition from China. AAO notes that the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that his awards commanded national or international acclaim. There is no evidence establishing the significance and magnitude of the competitions. Nor is there general information about the competitions such as the eligibility criteria, the number of entrants, or the percentage of entrants who earned some type of recognition. The petitioner has provided no evidence of the official comprehensive results for the contests in which he received awards. Nor is there evidence that the honor recipients were announced in major media or in some other manner consistent with national or international acclaim.

Nebraska Service Center (NSC) – LIN-07-003-52327

AAO reverses NSC and sustains the appeal.

AAO acknowledges the nexus between competing and coaching, and formulates a balancing standard of adjudication: "in a case where an alien has clearly achieved national or international acclaim as an athlete and has sustained that acclaim in the field of coaching at a national level, we can consider the totality of the evidence as establishing an overall pattern of sustained acclaim and extraordinary ability such that we can conclude that coaching is within the petitioner's area of expertise. Specifically, in such a case we will consider the level at which the alien acts as a coach. A coach who has established successful history of coaching athletes who compete regularly as the national level as a credible claim; a coach of novices does not."

Nebraska Service Center (NSC) – LIN-07-003-52327

TSC denied a petition filed by the petitioner, a competitive swimmer who won an Olympic bronze medal in 2000. AAO reversed TSC and approved the I-140.

Interesting points: AAO found that the petitioner's Olympic bronze medal in 2000 satisfied the one-time achievement necessary to establish the required national or international acclaim as an athlete. The issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that he will substantially benefit prospectively the United States, when he is currently training for a foreign national team. The petitioner submitted a letter expressing his intention to swim for the United States in the future. AAO concluded that the petitioner's declaration to swim for the United States upon becoming a resident and citizen demonstrate that he meets the statutory requirements.

Vermont Service Center (VSC) – EAC-05-147-52616

AAO agrees with VSC and upholds the denial.

Interesting points: subsequent to the filing date, the petitioner started his employment for a New York based company as operational manager. He submitted a letter from the employer as evidence of his performance in a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. AAO holds that this evidence cannot be considered, as the petitioner had to possess the necessary qualifications as of the filing date of the petition. The petitioner stated that he meets the "high salary" requirement. AAO declares that there is no evidence that the petitioner's $60,000 salary is significantly higher in relation to others in the banking field.