Law Offices of Chris M. Ingram

310-496-4292

EB1 Law Review AAO January 4th 2010 First Authored Articles, Co Authored Articles and Expert Letters, et. al

EB1 Law Review by Law Offices of Chris M. Ingram 

Contribution of Major Significance
 First Authored Articles, Co Authored Articles and Expert Letters

 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(v)

(v) Evidence of the alien’s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field;

In our pursuit of EB1 Green Card and O1 Visa legal excellence we are systematically reviewing every Administrative Appeal Office decision that has been appealed. These cases are not our cases but any and all cases that have been appealed nationally. In continuously reviewing these decisions and learning from them we will continue to be the recognized leaders in EB1 Green Card and O1 Visa legal field as we continue preparing successful cases for aliens of extraordinary ability. 

January 4th 2010 –  First Authored Articles, Co Authored Articles and Expert Letters, et .al (p3-5)

Home

Source Case

First Authored Articles, Co Authored Articles and Expert Letters – (AAO – January 4th 2010 – P3-5)

Context

Scientist: In this case the Petitioner sought a designation as an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of nanomaterial science and nanotechnology. At the time of application the Petitioner was a employed as a Device engineer. The Petitioner sought to satisfy the following categories: –

Judging – accepted with no difficulty

Contribution of Major Significance

Scholarly Articles – accepted with no difficulty

The AAO also considered criteria for establishing that the Alien was coming to the US to continue work in his field of extraordinary ability.

The main area of discussion related to Contribution of Major Significance in the Field.

AAO Discussion / Establishing Contributions of Major Significance

AAO began its analysis by first taking a close look at the various letters of support from academics who testified as to the significance and impact of the Petitioners work and publications.  Here are some extracts from various letters cited: –

Stanford University

 “Although I do not know [the petitioner] personally, I am aware of his work through his publications on nanomaterial fabrication, especially carbon nanotube electronics….[The Petitioner] invented a nano-sphere lithography (NSL) method combined with photolithography to grow dense aligned single walled carbon nanotubes for integrated circuits…….[The petitioner’s] method broke new grounds to produce carbon nanotube arrays with simultaneous control over the nanotube orientation, position, density, diameter, and even chirality, making these structures viable building blocks for future nanoelectronics and ultrahigh-speed electronics….”

There are several elements to be aware of here.

1: The distinguished standing of the author of the letter. In this case Stanford University. 

2: The author and Petitioner did not know each other personally. The author clearly articulated in great detail the significance of the groundbreaking work the Petitioner has achieved. 

3: The author’s knowledge of the Petitioner’s work came from articles in distinguished magazines for example Nano Letters and the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

AAO further cited a letter from: – 

The Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles

Eloret Corporation Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center

Each letter more or less followed the three points above.

In addition AAO commented that the Petitioner’s work had been cited in hundreds of independent publications. The numerical number of citations / cites is highly persuasive of the Petitioner’s acclaim within this field – ‘solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by his work and are familiar with it.’

First Authored Articles vs. Coauthored Articles

The AAO rejected the original adjudicating officer’s decision to only consider cites to articles where the Petitioner was identified as the “first author.”  AAO stated: –

“As modern scientific research endeavors routinely involve collaborative efforts, we find no statutory, regulatory, precedential, or evidential basis to conclude that USCIS should not assign weight to collaborative scientific such as the petitioner’s”.

In other words, citation of articles where the Petitioner is one of several authors must be considered as evidence towards applicable category e.g., Contributions of Major Significance and Scholarly articles.

One further observation that in this case the Petitioner appears to have had one article published that was very popular and was cited over one hundred times. This article AAO concluded show influence and impact in the field. It is worth considering the evidentiary implications where a petitioner may have had many articles published but none of them cited a hundred times. It appears that the AAO are open to persuasion if any claim is equally supported with eminent practitioners writing with particularity in support of any claim made.

AAO Decision

The appeal was sustained and the petition approved

Cases Cited

AAO cited no cases.