I-140

www.eb2niw.
com
Version: 5.0
Updated 6/2020
Copyright © 2020 Veronika Vaneckova. All rights reserved

License Agreement
Copyright © 2013 Veronika Vaneckova. All rights reserved
These documents are protected by copyright and are provided to the licensee for the sole purpose of
aiding the licensee in preparing his or her application for Permanent Residency in the United States by
offering access to potentially useful example application materials and references. Unauthorized
distribution or reselling either in part or in whole of any of the licensed materials is prohibited without
the prior written consent of Veronika Vaneckova. Alteration or modification in any form of any of the
licensed materials supplied in “PDF” format is prohibited. The licensee is granted permission to make up
to three printed copies of any of the licensed “PDF” files for the licensee’s personal use only. Any such
copies may not be further reproduced or distributed to others beyond the individuals who may be
included in the application for Permanent Residency being prepared by the licensee for himself or
herself. Any editable files supplied to the licensee under this agreement may be altered and/or modified
only to the extent necessary for use directly connected with the preparation of the permanent residency
application of the licensee and any immediate family co-applicants.
Liability disclaimer
These documents are licensed, “as is” without any warranty for any particular use. They are not to be
considered legal advice nor do they establish any relationship with respect to legal representation
between licensee and licensor. There is no representation that the content of these documents
comport with the laws of the United States or of the laws of any individual state. Veronika Vaneckova
disclaims any responsibility or liability for any usage of these documents that the licensee may make.
Veronika Vaneckova does not represent that the use of these documents to aid in the preparation of
any Permanent Residency application will in any manner lead to or improve the likelihood of success on
any such application. Use at your own risk.
Petitioner/Beneficiary: Dr. Jan Novak
Petition: I-140, EB-2 National Interest Waiver - INA §203(b)(2)(B)

List of Documents
A. Forms and Fee

A.1 Filing Fee per Form I-140 - $700
A.2 Form I-140
A.3 Form ETA-9089 (in duplicate)
B. Petition Cover Letter

1. Advanced Degree Professional
2. Substantial Merit and National Importance
3. I am Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
4. It Would Be Beneficial to the USA to Waive the Labor Certification
5. Nonimmigrant Status of me and my Dependent
6. Summary
List of Recommendation Letters
Exhibit 1: Letter of Recommendation – John A. Doe, Aerospace Engineer / Software Lead, Top
National Agency (TNA)
Exhibit 1.1: John A. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
Exhibit 2: Letter of Recommendation – Jane A. Doe, Lead Systems Engineering & Integration, Top
National Agency (TNA)
Exhibit 2.1: Jane A. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
Exhibit 3: Letter of Recommendation – Dr. John B. Doe, Professor and Chairperson of Physics
Department, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2
Exhibit 3.1: Dr. John B. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
Exhibit 4: Letter of Recommendation – John C. Doe, Technical Fellow, Top U.S. Aerospace
Company
Exhibit 4.1: John C. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
Exhibit 5: Letter of Recommendation – Dr. John D. Doe, Senior Physicist / Professor of Space
Research (European University #2), Top European Agency (TEA)
Exhibit 5.1: Dr. John D. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
Exhibit 6: Letter of Recommendation – Dr. John E. Doe, Principal Research Physicist, Top U.S.
University #1
Exhibit 6.1: Dr. John E. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
Exhibit 7: Letter of Recommendation – John F. Doe, Program Director, Small State-of-the-art

Company
Exhibit 7.1: John F. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
Exhibit 8: Letter of Recommendation – Dr. John G. Doe, Senior Research Scientist, Top European
University
Exhibit 8.1: Dr. John G. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
Exhibit 9: Advanced Degrees

Exhibit 9.1: PhD Degree from Average European Technical University in European City,
European Country #2
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – List of Documents

Exhibit 9.2: Credential Evaluation Report of PhD Degree (Credential Evaluation Company)
Exhibit 9.3: Master’s Degree from Average European Technical University in European City,
European Country #2
Exhibit 9.4: Credential Evaluation Report of Master’s Degree (Credential Evaluation Company)
Exhibit 9.5: QS World University Rankings - Average European Technical University in European
City
(http://www.topuniversities.com/ranking-details/world-university-rankings/2012)
Exhibit 10: Curriculum Vitae
Exhibit 11: Letter Confirming Work Experience at the Physics Laboratory (PL) – Jane B. Doe
Exhibit 12: Letter Requesting Publication about Radimage Detectors – Dr. John I. Doe, Editor in
Elsevier Publisher
Exhibit 12.1: About book Advances in Imaging & Electron Physics
(http://elsevier.com/Advances-in-Imaging-and-Electron-Physics)
Exhibit 13: Documents Regarding Top European Agency (TEA) – Principal Investigator of Two
Projects
Exhibit 13.1: Project Proposal “Calibration Source” – price at page 1, Dr. Novak’s position at
pages 3, 13, 19
Exhibit 13.2: Final Report of Project “Calibration Source” – written by Dr. Jan Novak
Exhibit 13.3: Part of European Country #2 Space Agency Annual Report – Factsheet about
Project “Calibration Source”
Exhibit 13.4: Project Contract “Portable Calibration Source” – price at page 6, Dr. Novak’s
position at page 12
Exhibit 13.5: About TEA (http://www.tea.eu/about)
Exhibit 14: Documents Regarding Reviewing of Scientific Articles for the Proceedings of the
International Summer School Nuclear Physics Methods and Accelerators in Biology and Medicine
Exhibit 14.1: Letter Confirming Reviewing of Scientific Articles – Dr. John K. Doe, Physical
Laboratory
Exhibit 14.2: American Institute of Physics - AIP Conference Proceedings Series No. 1204
(http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/1204)
Exhibit 14.3: About International Summer School Nuclear Physics Methods and Accelerators in
Biology and Medicine
(http://www.ieee.org/organizations/npss/SummerSchool.html)
Exhibit 15: Documents Regarding IEEE NSS-MIC Award (Trainee Grant)

Exhibit 15.1: Letter Confirming Receiving of Trainee Grant – Dr. John N. Doe, General Chair of
2010 IEEE NSS-MIC
Exhibit 15.2: About 2010 IEEE NSS-MIC – Dr. John N. Doe
Exhibit 16: Documents Regarding Work Experience at GFA (German Federal Agency) and CERN,
GFA Scholarship Award
Exhibit 16.1: Letter Confirming Work Experience at GFA and CERN (on Alice TPC Detector) –
Dr. John L. Doe, Scientific Director, GFA
Exhibit 16.2: Evaluation Letter about Work Experience at GFA and CERN – Dr. John H. Doe,
Senior Scientist, GFA
Exhibit 16.3: Letter Confirming Receiving of GFA Scholarship Award – John M. Doe and Jane
C. Doe, GFA
Exhibit 16.4: About GFA (http://www.gfa.de/about)
Exhibit 16.5: About CERN – general data, Large Hadron Collider (LHC), ALICE (www.cern.ch)
Exhibit 17: Letter Confirming Requested Advising for Filming Documentary for PBS TV Channel
Exhibit 18: Member of Organizing Committee – Conference on Radiation Detectors (CRD) 2009
Exhibit 19: Citations

Exhibit 19.1: Citations – Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com)
Exhibit 19.2: Citations – Scopus (http://www.scopus.com)
Exhibit 19.3: Citations – Web of Knowledge (http://wokinfo.com)
Exhibit 20: Publications

Exhibit 20.1: Peer-reviewed Publications
Exhibit 20.2: Conference Proceedings Publications
Exhibit 20.3: Abstract of PhD Thesis “Development of new methods”
Exhibit 20.4: Abstract of Master’s Thesis “Master’s Thesis about Detectors”
Exhibit 20.5: Peer-reviewed Journal Rankings - SCImago
(http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=3100&category=3105&country=all&yea)
Exhibit 21: Detimage Collaboration – Member Institutions
Exhibit 22: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - Reducing Radiation from Medical X-rays
(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/UCM185316.pdf)
Exhibit 23: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) - Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Should Improve Planning to Better Address Gaps and Vulnerabilities
(http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/285334.pdf)
Exhibit 24: Documents Regarding Employment at Physics Department, U.S. Regionally Accredited
University #2
Exhibit 24.1: Current Employment Contract – Research Associate 2 (Valid from 01/02/2013)
Exhibit 24.2: All Paychecks – Period 02/2012 – 05/2013
Exhibit 25: Documents Regarding Nonimmigrant Status H-1B

Exhibit 25.1: Passport
Exhibit 25.2: Current I-797A Approval Notice H-1B and I-94 – Valid 01/02/2013 – 01/01/2016
Exhibit 25.3: Previous I-797B Approval Notice H-1B – Valid 01/02/2012 – 01/01/2013
Exhibit 25.4: Previous I-94 – Valid 01/21/2012 – 01/01/2013
Exhibit 25.5: Previous Visa Sticker H-1B – Valid 01/11/2012 – 01/01/2013
Exhibit 26: Documents Regarding Dependent’s Nonimmigrant Status H-4 (Spouse Jana Novakova)
and Marriage Certificate
Exhibit 26.2: Current I-797A Approval Notice H-4 and I-94 – Valid 01/02/2013 – 01/01/2016
Exhibit 26.4: Previous Visa Sticker H-4 – Valid 01/11/2012 – 01/01/2013
Exhibit 26.5: Marriage Certificate

A. Forms and Fee

A.2 Form I-140
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Forms and Fee

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Filing Fee per Form I-140
A.1 Form I-140
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Form I-140

Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers USCIS
Form I-140
Department of Homeland Security OMB No. 1615-0015
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Expires 05/31/2020
Fee Stamp Priority Date Consulate Action Block

For
USCIS
Use
Only
Classification Certification
203(b)(1)(A) Alien of 203(b)(2) Member of Professions with
Extraordinary Ability Advanced Degree/Exceptional Ability National Interest Waiver (NIW)
203(b)(1)(B) Outstanding 203(b)(3)(A)(i) Skilled Worker Schedule A, Group I
Professor or Researcher Schedule A, Group II
203(b)(3)(A)(ii) Professional
203(b)(1)(C) Multinational
Executive or Manager 203(b)(3)(A)(iii) Other Worker Remarks
To be completed Select this box if Attorney State Bar Number Attorney or Accredited Representative
by an Attorney Form G-28 or (if applicable) USCIS Online Account Number (if any)
or Accredited Form G-28I is
Representative (if any). attached.
START HERE - Type or print in black ink.
Part 1. Information About the Person or Other Information
Organization Filing This Petition
4. IRS Employer Identification Number (EIN)
If an individual is filing this petition, answer Item Numbers
1.a. - 1.c. If a company or organization is filing this petition,
answer Item Number 2. 5. U.S. Social Security Number (SSN) (if any)
1.a. Family Name Novak 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1
(Last Name)
6. USCIS Online Account Number (if any)
1.b. Given Name Jan
(First Name)
1.c. Middle Name
2. Company or Organization Name Part 2. Petition Type

This petition is being filed for (select only one box):
1.a. An alien of extraordinary ability.
Mailing Address
1.b. An outstanding professor or researcher.
3.a. In Care Of Name
1.c. A multinational executive or manager.
Jan Novak
1.d. A member of the professions holding an advanced
3.b. Street Number 6598 American Street degree or an alien of exceptional ability (who is
and Name NOT seeking a National Interest Waiver (NIW)).
3.c. Apt. Ste. Flr. 821 1.e. A professional (at a minimum, possessing a
bachelor's degree or a foreign degree equivalent
3.d. City or Town American City to a U.S. bachelor's degree).
3.e. State CA 3.f. ZIP Code 83582 1.f. A skilled worker (requiring at least two years of
specialized training or experience).
3.g. Province 1.g. Any other worker (requiring less than two years of
training or experience).
3.h. Postal Code
1.h. An alien applying for an NIW (who IS a member of
3.i. Country the professions holding an advanced degree or an
USA alien of exceptional ability).
Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 1 of 9

Part 2. Petition Type (continued) 6. Country of Birth
European Country #2
This petition is being filed (select only one box):
7. Country of Citizenship or Nationality
2.a. To amend a previously filed petition.
European Country #2
Previous Petition Receipt Number
8. Alien Registration Number (A-Number) (if any)
A-
2.b. For the Schedule A, Group I or II designation.
9. U.S. SSN (if any) 1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1
Part 3. Information About the Person for Whom
You Are Filing Information About His or Her Last Arrival in the
1.a. Family Name Novak United States
(Last Name)
1.b. Given Name Jan If the person for whom you are filing is in the United States,
(First Name) provide the following information.
1.c. Middle Name 10. Date of Last Arrival (mm/dd/yyyy) 01/21/2012

11.a. Form I-94 Arrival-Departure Record Number
Mailing Address 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
2.a. In Care Of Name 11.b. Expiration Date of Authorized Stay Shown on Form I-94
Jan Novak (mm/dd/yyyy) 01/01/2016
2.b. Street Number 6598 American Street
and Name 11.c. Status on Form I-94 (for example, class of admission, or
paroled, if paroled)
2.c. Apt. Ste. Flr. 821
H1B
2.d. City or Town American City 12. Passport Number
12345678
2.e. State CA 2.f. ZIP Code 83582
13. Travel Document Number
2.g. Province
2.h. Postal Code 14. Country of Issuance for Passport or Travel Document
2.i. Country European Country #2
USA 15. Expiration Date for Passport or Travel Document
(mm/dd/yyyy) 10/10/2020
Other Information
3. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) 01/01/1983
Part 4. Processing Information
4. City/Town/Village of Birth Provide the following information for the person named in
Part 3. (select only one box):
Janbirth City
1.a. Alien will apply for a visa abroad at a U.S. Embassy
5. State or Province of Birth or U.S. Consulate at:
1.b. City or Town
1.c. Country
2.a. Alien is in the United States and will apply for

adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent
resident.
Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 2 of 9

Part 4. Processing Information (continued) 6.b. If you answered “Yes” to Item Number 6.a., select all
applicable boxes:
2.b. Alien's current country of residence or, if now in the
United States, last country of permanent residence abroad. Form I-485
Form I-131
Form I-765
If you provided a United States address in Part 3., provide the
person's foreign address in Item Numbers 3.a. - 3.f.: Other (Provide an explanation in Part 11. Additional
Information.)
3.a. Street Number 999 Janstreet
and Name 7. Is the person for whom you are filing in removal
3.b. Apt. Ste. Flr. proceedings? Yes No
8. Has any immigrant visa petition ever been filed by or on
3.c. City or Town Janbirth City behalf of this person? Yes No
3.d. Province 9. Are you filing this petition without an original labor
certification because the original labor certification was
3.e. Postal Code 99999 previously submitted in support of another Form I-140?
Yes No
3.f. Country
10. If you are filing this petition without an original labor
European Country #2 certification, are you requesting that U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) request a duplicate labor
If the person's native alphabet is other than Roman letters, type certification from the Department of Labor (DOL)?
or print the person's foreign name and address in the native
Yes No
alphabet in Item Numbers 4.a. - 4.c.:
4.a. Family Name Part 5. Additional Information About the
(Last Name)
Petitioner
4.b. Given Name
(First Name) Type of petitioner (select only one box):
4.c. Middle Name 1.a. Employer
1.b. Self
Mailing Address
1.c. Other (For example, Lawful Permanent Resident,
5.a. In Care Of Name U.S. citizen or any other person filing on behalf of
Jan Novak the alien)
5.b. Street Number 6598 American Street

and Name If a company or an organization is filing this petition, provide
5.c. Apt. Ste. Flr. 821 the following information:
2. Type of Business
5.d. City or Town American City
5.e. Province CA
3. Date Established (mm/dd/yyyy)
5.f. Postal Code 83582
4. Current Number of U.S. Employees
5.g. Country
5. Gross Annual Income $
USA
If you answer "Yes" to Item Numbers 6.a. - 10., provide the 6. Net Annual Income $
case number, office location, date of decision, and disposition
of the decision in the space provided in Part 11. Additional 7. NAICS Code
Information.
8. Labor Certification DOL Case Number
6.a. Are you filing any other petitions or applications with this
Form I-140? Yes No
Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 3 of 9

Part 5. Additional Information About the Part 7. Information About the Spouse and All
Petitioner (continued) Children of the Person for Whom You Are Filing
9. Labor Certification DOL Filing Date (mm/dd/yyyy) For Part 7., provide information on the spouse and all children
related to the individual for whom you are filing this petition.
Also, note if the individual will apply for a visa abroad or
10. Labor Certification Expiration Date (mm/dd/yyyy) adjustment of status as the dependent of the individual for
whom the petition is filed. If you need extra space to provide
information about additional family members, use the space
If an individual is filing this petition, provide the following provided in Part 11. Additional Information.
information.
Person 1
11. Occupation 1.a. Family Name Novakova
Physical Scientist (Last Name)
1.b. Given Name Jana
12. Annual Income $ 52,800 (First Name)
1.c. Middle Name
Part 6. Basic Information About the Proposed
Employment 2. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) 11/11/1981
1. Job Title 3. Country of Birth

n/a European Country #2
2. SOC Code - 4. Relationship spouse
3. Nontechnical Job Description 5. Is he or she applying for adjustment of status?

Yes No
6. Is he or she applying for a visa abroad?
Yes No
Person 2
7.a. Family Name Novak
4. Is this a full-time position? Yes No (Last Name)
5. If the answer to Item Number 4. is "No," how many 7.b. Given Name Jana
hours per week for the position? (First Name)
7.c. Middle Name
6. Is this a permanent position? Yes No 8. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) 04/04/2013

7. Is this a new position? Yes No 9. Country of Birth
8. Wages (Specify hour, week, month, or year): USA
$ per
10. Relationship daughter
Worksite Location 11. Is he or she applying for adjustment of status?
Yes No
For Item Numbers 9.a. - 9.e., provide the address where the
person will work if different from the address provided in Part 1. 12. Is he or she applying for a visa abroad?
9.a. Street Number 730 Research Street Yes No
and Name
9.b. Apt. Ste. Flr.
9.c. City or Town American City
9.d. State CA 9.e. ZIP Code 83700
Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 4 of 9

Part 7. Information About Spouse and All Person 5
Children of the Person for Whom You Are Filing 25.a. Family Name
(Last Name)
(continued)
25.b. Given Name
Person 3 (First Name)
13.a. Family Name 25.c. Middle Name
(Last Name)
13.b. Given Name 26. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)
(First Name)
27. Country of Birth
13.c. Middle Name
14. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

28. Relationship
29. Is he or she applying for adjustment of status?
Yes No
16. Relationship 30. Is he or she applying for a visa abroad?

Yes No
Yes No Person 6
18. Is he or she applying for a visa abroad? 31.a. Family Name
Yes No (Last Name)
31.b. Given Name
Person 4 (First Name)
19.a. Family Name 31.c. Middle Name
(Last Name)
19.b. Given Name 32. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)
(First Name)
19.c. Middle Name
20. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

34. Relationship
Yes No
22. Relationship 36. Is he or she applying for a visa abroad?

Yes No
Yes No
24. Is he or she applying for a visa abroad?
Yes No
Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 5 of 9

Part 8. Statement, Contact Information, Petitioner's or Authorized Signatory's Declaration
Declaration, Certification, and Signature of the and Certification
Petitioner or Authorized Signatory and Signature Copies of any documents submitted are exact photocopies of
unaltered, original documents, and I understand that, as the
NOTE: Read the Penalties section of the Form I-140
petitioner, I may be required to submit original documents to
Instructions before completing this part.
USCIS at a later date.
Petitioner's or Authorized Signatory's Statement I authorize the release of any information from my records, or
from the petitioning organization's records, to USCIS or other
NOTE: Select the box for either Item Number 1.a. or 1.b. If entities and persons where necessary to determine eligibility for
applicable, select the box for Item Number 2. the immigration benefit sought or where authorized by law. I
I can read and understand English, and I have read and recognize the authority of USCIS to conduct audits of this
1.a.
understand every question and instruction on this petition using publicly available open source information. I also
petition and my answer to every question. recognize that any supporting evidence submitted in support of
this petition may be verified by USCIS through any means
1.b. The interpreter named in Part 9. has read to me every determined appropriate by USCIS, including but not limited to,
question and instruction on this petition and my answer on-site compliance reviews.
to every question in If filing this petition on behalf of an organization, I certify that I
, am authorized to do so by the organization.
a language in which I am fluent. I understood all of I certify, under penalty of perjury, that I have reviewed this
this information as interpreted. petition, I understand all of the information contained in, and
2. At my request, the preparer named in Part 10., submitted with, my petition, and all of this information is
, complete, true, and correct.
prepared this petition for me based only upon
information I provided or authorized. Petitioner's or Authorized Signatory's Signature
8.a. Petitioner's Signature
Authorized Signatory's Contact Information
3.a. Authorized Signatory's Family Name (Last Name)
8.b. Date of Signature (mm/dd/yyyy) 06/16/2013
3.b. Authorized Signatory's Given Name (First Name) NOTE TO ALL PETITIONERS AND AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORIES: If you do not completely fill out this petition
or fail to submit required documents listed in the Instructions,
4. Authorized Signatory's Title USCIS may delay a decision on or deny your petition.
5. Authorized Signatory's Daytime Telephone Number Part 9. Interpreter's Contact Information,

Certification, and Signature
Provide the following information about the interpreter.
6. Authorized Signatory's Mobile Telephone Number (if any)
Interpreter's Full Name

7. Authorized Signatory's Email Address (if any)
1.a. Interpreter's Family Name (Last Name)
1.b. Interpreter's Given Name (First Name)
2. Interpreter's Business or Organization Name (if any)
Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 6 of 9

Part 9. Interpreter's Contact Information, Part 10. Contact Information, Declaration, and
Certification, and Signature (continued) Signature of the Person Preparing this Petition,
if Other Than the Authorized Individual
Interpreter's Mailing Address
Provide the following information about the preparer.
3.a. Street Number
and Name
Preparer's Full Name
3.b. Apt. Ste. Flr.
1.a. Preparer's Family Name (Last Name)
3.c. City or Town
3.d. State 3.e. ZIP Code 1.b. Preparer's Given Name (First Name)
3.f. Province
2. Preparer's Business or Organization (if any)
3.g. Postal Code
3.h. Country
Preparer's Mailing Address
3.a. Street Number
and Name
Interpreter's Contact Information
3.b. Apt. Ste. Flr.
4. Interpreter's Daytime Telephone Number
3.c. City or Town
5. Interpreter's Mobile Telephone Number 3.d. State 3.e. ZIP Code
3.f. Province
6. Interpreter's Email Address (if any)
3.g. Postal Code
3.h. Country
Interpreter's Certification
I certify, under penalty of perjury, that:
I am fluent in English and ,

Preparer's Contact Information
which is the same language specified in Part 8., Item Number 4. Preparer's Daytime Telephone Number
1.b., and I have read to this petitioner or the authorized signatory
in the identified language every question and instruction on this
petition and his or her answer to every question. The petitioner 5. Preparer's Mobile Telephone Number (if any)
or authorized signatory informed me that he or she understands
every instruction, question, and answer on the petition, including
the Petitioner's or Authorized Signatory's Declaration and 6. Preparer's Email Address (if any)
Certification, and has verified the accuracy of every answer.
Interpreter's Signature
7.a. Interpreter's Signature
7.b. Date of Signature (mm/dd/yyyy)
Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 7 of 9

Part 10. Contact Information, Declaration, and
Signature of the Person Preparing this Petition,
if Other Than the Authorized Individual
(continued)
Preparer's Statement
7.a. I am not an attorney or accredited representative but
have prepared this petition on behalf of the petitioner
and with the petitioner's consent.
7.b. I am an attorney or accredited representative and my
representation of the petitioner in this case
extends does not extend beyond the
preparation of this application.
NOTE: If you are an attorney or accredited representative, you

may need to submit a completed Form G-28, Notice of Entry of
Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, or Form
G-28I, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney In Matters
Outside the Geographical Confines of the United States, with
this petition.
Preparer's Certification
By my signature, I certify, under penalty of perjury, that I
prepared this petition at the request of the petitioner or
authorized signatory. The petitioner has reviewed this
completed petition, including the Petitioner's or Authorized
Signatory's Declaration and Certification, and informed me
that all of this information in the form and in the supporting
documents is complete, true, and correct.
Preparer's Signature
8.a. Preparer's Signature
8.b. Date of Signature (mm/dd/yyyy)
Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 8 of 9

Part 11. Additional Information 5.a. Page Number 5.b. Part Number 5.c. Item Number
If you need extra space to provide any additional information

within this petition, use the space below. If you need more 5.d.
space than what is provided, you may make copies of this page
to complete and file with this petition or attach a separate sheet
of paper. Type or print your name and A-Number (if any) at the
top of each sheet; indicate the Page Number, Part Number,
and Item Number to which your answer refers; and sign and
date each sheet.
1.a Family Name
(Last Name)
1.b. Given Name
(First Name)
1.c. Middle Name
2. IRS EIN
3.a. Page Number 3.b. Part Number 3.c. Item Number 6.a. Page Number 6.b. Part Number 6.c. Item Number
3.d. 6.d.
4.a. Page Number 4.b. Part Number 4.c. Item Number 7.a. Page Number 7.b. Part Number 7.c. Item Number
4.d. 7.d.
Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 9 of 9

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Form ETA-9089

OMB Approval: 1205-0451 Application for Permanent Employment Certification
Expiration Date:
ETA Form 9089
U.S. Department of Labor
Please read and review the filing instructions before completing this form. A copy of the instructions
can be found at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/9089inst.pdf
Employing or continuing to employ an alien unauthorized to work in the United States is illegal and may
subject the employer to criminal prosecution, civil money penalties, or both.
A. Refiling Instructions
1. Are you seeking to utilize the filing date from a previously submitted
Application for Alien Employment Certification (ETA 750)? Yes
1-A. If Yes, enter the previous filing date
1-B. Indicate the previous SWA or local office case number OR if not available, specify state where case was
originally filed:
B. Schedule A or Sheepherder Information

1. Is this application in support of a Schedule A or Sheepherder Occupation?
Yes No
If Yes, do NOT send this application to the Department of Labor. All applications in support of Schedule A or
Sheepherder Occupations must be sent directly to the appropriate Department of Homeland Security office.
C. Employer Information (Headquarters or Main Office)

1. Employer’s name
N/A
2. Address 1
N/A
Address 2
3. City State/Province Country Postal code

N/A
4. Phone number Extension
N/A
5. Number of employees 6. Year commenced business
N/A N/A
7. FEIN( Federal Employer Identification Number) 8. NAICS Code
N/A N/A
9. Is the employer a closely held corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship in which
the alien has an ownership interest, or is there a familial relationship between the owners, Yes No
stockholders, corporate officers, incorporators, or partners, and the alien?
D. Employer Contact Information (This section must be filled out. This information must be different from the
agent or attorney information listed in Section E).
1. Contact’s last name N/A First name Middle initial
2. Address 1
N/A
Address 2

N/A
N/A
5. E-mail address
N/A
ETA Form 9089 This Certification is valid from to Page 1 of
ETA Case Number:

Expiration Date: 05/31/2021
ETA Form 9089
E. Agent or Attorney Information (If applicable)
1. Agent or attorney’s last name First name Middle initial

N/A
2. Firm name
N/A
3. Firm EIN 4. Phone number Extension
N/A
5. Address 1
N/A
Address 2

N/A
7. E-mail address
N/A
F. Prevailing Wage Information (as provided by the State Workforce Agency)
1. Prevailing wage tracking number (if applicable) 2. SOC/O*NET(OES) code

N/A
3. Occupation Title 4. Skill Level
N/A
5. Prevailing wage Per: (Choose only one)
$ N/A Hour Week Bi-Weekly Month Year
6. Prevailing wage source (Choose only one)
OES CBA Employer Conducted Survey DBA SCA Other
6-A. If Other is indicated in question 6, specify:
N/A
7. Determination date 8. Expiration date
N/A N/A
G. Wage Offer Information
1. Offered wage
From: To: (Optional) Per: (Choose only one)
$ $ Hour Week Bi-Weekly Month Year
H. Job Opportunity Information (Where work will be performed)

1. Primary worksite (where work is to be performed) address 1
N/A
Address 2
2. City State Postal code

N/A
3. Job title
N/A
4. Education: minimum level required:
None High School Associate’s Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate Other
4-A. If Other is indicated in question 4, specify the education required:
N/A
4-B. Major field of study
N/A
5. Is training required for the job opportunity? 5-A. If Yes, number of months of training required:
Yes No
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
H. Job Opportunity Information Continued
5-B. Indicate the field of training:
N/A
6. Is experience in the job offered required for the job? 6-A. If Yes, number of months experience required:
Yes No
7. Is there an alternate field of study that is acceptable?
Yes No
7-A. If Yes, specify the major field of study:

N/A
8. Is there an alternate combination of education and experience that is acceptable? Yes No
8- A. If Yes, specify the alternate level of education required:

8-B. If Other is indicated in question 8-A, indicate the alternate level of education required:
N/A
8-C. If applicable, indicate the number of years experience acceptable in question 8:
9. Is a foreign educational equivalent acceptable? Yes No

10. Is experience in an alternate occupation acceptable? 10-A. If Yes, number of months experience in alternate
occupation required:
Yes No N/A
10-B. Identify the job title of the acceptable alternate occupation:
N/A
11. Job duties – If submitting by mail, add attachment if necessary. Job duties description must begin in this space.
N/A
12. Are the job opportunity’s requirements normal for the occupation?
Yes No
If the answer to this question is No, the employer must be prepared to
provide documentation demonstrating that the job requirements are
supported by business necessity.
13. Is knowledge of a foreign language required to perform the job duties?
Yes No
If the answer to this question is Yes, the employer must be prepared to
provide documentation demonstrating that the language requirements
are supported by business necessity.
14. Specific skills or other requirements – If submitting by mail, add attachment if necessary. Skills description must
begin in this space.
N/A
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
15. Does this application involve a job opportunity that includes a combination of
Yes No
occupations?
16. Is the position identified in this application being offered to the alien identified
Yes No
in Section J?
17. Does the job require the alien to live on the employer’s premises?
Yes No
18. Is the application for a live-in household domestic service worker? Yes No
18-A. If Yes, have the employer and the alien executed the required employment Yes No NA
contract and has the employer provided a copy of the contract to the alien?
I. Recruitment Information
a. Occupation Type – All must complete this section.
1. Is this application for a professional occupation, other than a college or
university teacher? Professional occupations are those for which a bachelor’s Yes No
degree (or equivalent) is normally required.
2. Is this application for a college or university teacher?

If Yes, complete questions 2-A and 2-B below. Yes No
2-A. Did you select the candidate using a competitive recruitment and
Yes No
selection process?
2-B. Did you use the basic recruitment process for professional occupations?
Yes No
b. Special Recruitment and Documentation Procedures for College and University Teachers –
Complete only if the answer to question I.a.2-A is Yes.
3. Date alien selected:
N/A
4. Name and date of national professional journal in which advertisement was placed:
N/A
5. Specify additional recruitment information in this space. Add an attachment if necessary.
N/A
c. Professional/Non-Professional Information – Complete this section unless your answer to question B.1 or
I.a.2-A is YES.
6. Start date for the SWA job order 7. End date for the SWA job order
N/A N/A
8. Is there a Sunday edition of the newspaper in the area of intended employment? Yes No
9. Name of newspaper (of general circulation) in which the first advertisement was placed:
N/A
10. Date of first advertisement identified in question 9:
N/A
11. Name of newspaper or professional journal (if applicable) in which second advertisement was placed:
N/A Newspaper Journal
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
I. Recruitment Information Continued
12. Date of second newspaper advertisement or date of publication of journal identified in question 11:
N/A
d. Professional Recruitment Information – Complete if the answer to question I.a.1 is YES or if the answer to
I.a.2-B is YES. Complete at least 3 of the items.
13. Dates advertised at job fair 14. Dates of on-campus recruiting
From: N/A To: N/A From: N/A To: N/A
15. Dates posted on employer web site 16. Dates advertised with trade or professional organization
17. Dates listed with job search web site 18. Dates listed with private employment firm
19. Dates advertised with employee referral program 20. Dates advertised with campus placement office
21. Dates advertised with local or ethnic newspaper 22. Dates advertised with radio or TV ads
N/A
e. General Information – All must complete this section.
23. Has the employer received payment of any kind for the submission of this Yes No
application?
23-A. If Yes, describe details of the payment including the amount, date and purpose of the payment :
N/A
24. Has the bargaining representative for workers in the occupation in which the
Yes No NA
alien will be employed been provided with notice of this filing at least 30 days
but not more than 180 days before the date the application is filed?
25. If there is no bargaining representative, has a notice of this filing been posted
for 10 business days in a conspicuous location at the place of employment, Yes No NA
ending at least 30 days before but not more than 180 days before the date the
application is filed?
26. Has the employer had a layoff in the area of intended employment in the
occupation involved in this application or in a related occupation within the six Yes No
months immediately preceding the filing of this application?
26-A. If Yes, were the laid off U.S. workers notified and considered for the job
opportunity for which certification is sought? Yes No NA
J. Alien Information (This section must be filled out. This information must be different from the agent
or attorney information listed in Section E).
1. Alien’s last name First name Full middle name

Novak Jan
2. Current address 1
6598 American Street #821
Address 2

American City CA USA 83582
4. Phone number of current residence
555-555-0109
5. Country of citizenship 6. Country of birth
European Country #2 European Country #2
7. Alien’s date of birth 8. Class of admission
01/01/1983 H-1B
9. Alien registration number (A#) 10. Alien admission number (I-94)
N/A 01234567890
11. Education: highest level achieved as required by the requested job opportunity:
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
J. Alien Information Continued
11-A. If Other indicated in question 11, specify
12. Specify major field(s) of study

Nuclear Engineering
13. Year relevant education completed
2012
14. Institution where relevant education specified in question 11 was received
Average European Technical University in European City
15. Address 1 of conferring institution
Faculty of Nuclear Engineering, Department of Radiation
Address 2
EuropeanUni Street 123
European City European Country #2 54321
17. Did the alien complete the training required for the requested job opportunity,
as indicated in question H.5? Yes No NA
18. Does the alien have the experience as required for the requested job
opportunity indicated in question H.6? Yes No NA
19. Does the alien possess the alternate combination of education and experience
20. Does the alien have the experience in an alternate occupation specified in
question H.10? Yes No NA
21. Did the alien gain any of the qualifying experience with the employer in a
position substantially comparable to the job opportunity requested? Yes No NA
22. Did the employer pay for any of the alien’s education or training
necessary to satisfy any of the employer’s job requirements for this position? Yes No
23. Is the alien currently employed by the petitioning employer?
Yes No
K. Alien Work Experience
List all jobs the alien has held during the past 3 years. Also list any other experience that qualifies the alien for
the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking certification.
a. Job 1
1. Employer name
U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2
2. Address 1
730 Research Street
Address 2

4. Type of business 5. Job title
University Research Associate 2
6. Start date 7. End date 8. Number of hours worked per week
01/22/2012 40
Job 1 continued on next page
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
K. Alien Work Experience Continued
9. Job details (duties performed, use of tools, machines, equipment, skills, qualifications, certifications, licenses, etc.
Include the phone number of the employer and the name of the alien’s supervisor.)
Development and operation of Top National Agency approved calibration facility for
Radimage devices, space dosimetry, SW development for Top National Agency
Supervisor: John B. Doe (Phone: 555-0105)
b. Job 2
1. Employer name
Physics Laboratory, Average European Technical University in European City
2. Address 1
Physlab Street 666
Address 2

University Researcher
03/01/2008 01/01/2012 40
Development of calibration and imaging methods, principal investigator of two research

projects for Top European Agency
Supervisor: John X. Doe (Phone: 555-0114)
c. Job 3
1. Employer name
2. Address 1
Address 2
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
L. Alien Declaration
I declare under penalty of perjury that Sections J and K are true and correct. I understand that to knowingly furnish
false information in the preparation of this form and any supplement thereto or to aid, abet, or counsel another to do so is
a federal offense punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to five years or both under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1001. Other
penalties apply as well to fraud or misuse of ETA immigration documents and to perjury with respect to such documents
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546 and 1621.
In addition, I further declare under penalty of perjury that I intend to accept the position offered in Section H of this
application if a labor certification is approved and I am granted a visa or an adjustment of status based on this
application.
Novak Jan
2. Signature Date signed
06/16/2013
Note – The signature and date signed do not have to be filled out when electronically submitting to the Department of Labor for
processing, but must be complete when submitting by mail. If the application is submitted electronically, any resulting certification
MUST be signed immediately upon receipt from DOL before it can be submitted to USCIS for final processing.
M. Declaration of Preparer
1. Was the application completed by the employer?

If No, you must complete this section. Yes No
I hereby certify that I have prepared this application at the direct request of the employer listed in Section C and
that to the best of my knowledge the information contained herein is true and correct. I understand that to
knowingly furnish false information in the preparation of this form and any supplement thereto or to aid, abet, or counsel
another to do so is a federal offense punishable by a fine, imprisonment up to five years or both under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and
1001. Other penalties apply as well to fraud or misuse of ETA immigration documents and to perjury with respect to such
documents under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546 and 1621.
2. Preparer’s last name First name Middle initial
3. Title
4. E-mail address
processing, but must be complete when submitting by mail. If the application is submitted electronically, any resulting certification MUST
be signed immediately upon receipt from DOL before it can be submitted to USCIS for final processing.
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
N. Employer Declaration
By virtue of my signature below, I HEREBY CERTIFY the following conditions of employment:
1. The offered wage equals or exceeds the prevailing wage and I will pay at least the prevailing wage.
2. The wage is not based on commissions, bonuses or other incentives, unless I guarantees a wage paid on a
weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis that equals or exceeds the prevailing wage.
3. I have enough funds available to pay the wage or salary offered the alien.
4. I will be able to place the alien on the payroll on or before the date of the alien’s proposed entrance into the
United States.
5. The job opportunity does not involve unlawful discrimination by race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex,
religion, handicap, or citizenship.
6. The job opportunity is not:
a. Vacant because the former occupant is on strike or is being locked out in the course of a labor dispute
involving a work stoppage; or
b. At issue in a labor dispute involving a work stoppage.
7. The job opportunity’s terms, conditions, and occupational environment are not contrary to Federal, state or local
law.
8. The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any U.S. worker.
9. The U.S. workers who applied for the job opportunity were rejected for lawful job-related reasons.
10. The job opportunity is for full-time, permanent employment for an employer other than the alien.
I hereby designate the agent or attorney identified in section E (if any) to represent me for the purpose of labor
certification and, by virtue of my signature in Block 3 below, I take full responsibility for the accuracy of any
I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read and reviewed this application and that to the best of my knowledge
the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that to knowingly furnish false information in the
preparation of this form and any supplement thereto or to aid, abet, or counsel another to do so is a federal offense
punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to five years or both under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1001. Other penalties apply as
well to fraud or misuse of ETA immigration documents and to perjury with respect to such documents under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1546 and 1621.
1. Last name First name Middle initial
2. Title
Note – The signature and date signed do not have to be filled out when electronically submitting to the Department of
Labor for processing, but must be complete when submitting by mail. If the application is submitted electronically, any
resulting certification MUST be signed immediately upon receipt from DOL before it can be submitted to USCIS for
final processing.
O. U.S. Government Agency Use Only
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 212 (a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, I hereby certify
that there are not sufficient U.S. workers available and the employment of the above will not adversely affect the wages
and working conditions of workers in the U.S. similarly employed.
This Certification is valid from to
Signature of Certifying Officer Date Signed
Case Number Filing Date
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
P. OMB Information Paperwork Reduction Act Information Control Number 1205-0451
Persons are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
Respondent’s reply to these reporting requirements is required to obtain the benefits of permanent
employment certification (Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212(a)(5)). Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to the Office of
Foreign Labor Certification * U.S. Department of Labor * 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Box 12-200 *
Washington, DC * 20210. Do NOT send the completed application to this address.
Q. Privacy Statement Information
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), you are hereby notified
that the information provided herein is protected under the Privacy Act. The Department of Labor
(Department or DOL) maintains a System of Records titled Employer Application and Attestation
File for Permanent and Temporary Alien Workers (DOL/ETA-7) that includes this record.
Under routine uses for this system of records, case files developed in processing labor
certification applications, labor condition applications, or labor attestations may be released as
follows: in connection with appeals of denials before the DOL Office of Administrative Law
Judges and Federal courts, records may be released to the employers that filed such
applications, their representatives, to named alien beneficiaries or their representatives, and to
the DOL Office of Administrative Law Judges and Federal courts; and in connection with
administering and enforcing immigration laws and regulations, records may be released to such
agencies as the DOL Office of Inspector General, Employment Standards Administration, the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State.
Further relevant disclosures may be made in accordance with the Privacy Act and under the
following circumstances: in connection with federal litigation; for law enforcement purposes; to
authorized parent locator persons under Pub. L. 93-647; to an information source or public
authority in connection with personnel, security clearance, procurement, or benefit-related matters;
to a contractor or their employees, grantees or their employees, consultants, or volunteers who
have been engaged to assist the agency in the performance of Federal activities; for Federal debt
collection purposes; to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with its legislative
review, coordination, and clearance activities; to a Member of Congress or their staff in response
to an inquiry of the Congressional office made at the written request of the subject of the record; in
connection with records management; and to the news media and the public when a matter under
investigation becomes public knowledge, the Solicitor of Labor determines the disclosure is
necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of the Department, or the Solicitor of Labor
determines that a legitimate public interest exists in the disclosure of information, unless the
Solicitor of Labor determines that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
ETA Case Number:

Addendum
H. 11. Job duties
ETA Form 9089 This Certification is valid from to Page of
ETA Case Number:

Addendum
H. 14. Specific skills or other requirements
ETA Case Number:

Addendum
I. 5. Specify additional recruitment information in this space
ETA Case Number:

Addendum
K. 9. Job - Job Details
ETA Case Number:

Addendum
1. Employer name
2. Address 1
Address 2
1. Employer name
2. Address 1
Address 2
ETA Case Number:

Expiration Date:
ETA Form 9089
Please read and review the filing instructions before completing this form. A copy of the instructions
can be found at http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/9089inst.pdf
Employing or continuing to employ an alien unauthorized to work in the United States is illegal and may
subject the employer to criminal prosecution, civil money penalties, or both.
A. Refiling Instructions
1. Are you seeking to utilize the filing date from a previously submitted
Application for Alien Employment Certification (ETA 750)? Yes
1-A. If Yes, enter the previous filing date
1-B. Indicate the previous SWA or local office case number OR if not available, specify state where case was
originally filed:
B. Schedule A or Sheepherder Information

1. Is this application in support of a Schedule A or Sheepherder Occupation?
Yes No
If Yes, do NOT send this application to the Department of Labor. All applications in support of Schedule A or
Sheepherder Occupations must be sent directly to the appropriate Department of Homeland Security office.
C. Employer Information (Headquarters or Main Office)

1. Employer’s name
N/A
2. Address 1
N/A
Address 2

N/A
N/A
5. Number of employees 6. Year commenced business
N/A N/A
7. FEIN( Federal Employer Identification Number) 8. NAICS Code
N/A N/A
9. Is the employer a closely held corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship in which
the alien has an ownership interest, or is there a familial relationship between the owners, Yes No
stockholders, corporate officers, incorporators, or partners, and the alien?
D. Employer Contact Information (This section must be filled out. This information must be different from the
agent or attorney information listed in Section E).
1. Contact’s last name N/A First name Middle initial
2. Address 1
N/A
Address 2

N/A
N/A
5. E-mail address
N/A
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
E. Agent or Attorney Information (If applicable)
1. Agent or attorney’s last name First name Middle initial

N/A
2. Firm name
N/A
3. Firm EIN 4. Phone number Extension
N/A
5. Address 1
N/A
Address 2

N/A
7. E-mail address
N/A
F. Prevailing Wage Information (as provided by the State Workforce Agency)
1. Prevailing wage tracking number (if applicable) 2. SOC/O*NET(OES) code

N/A
3. Occupation Title 4. Skill Level
N/A
5. Prevailing wage Per: (Choose only one)
$ N/A Hour Week Bi-Weekly Month Year
6. Prevailing wage source (Choose only one)
OES CBA Employer Conducted Survey DBA SCA Other
6-A. If Other is indicated in question 6, specify:
N/A
7. Determination date 8. Expiration date
N/A N/A
G. Wage Offer Information
1. Offered wage
From: To: (Optional) Per: (Choose only one)
$ $ Hour Week Bi-Weekly Month Year
H. Job Opportunity Information (Where work will be performed)

1. Primary worksite (where work is to be performed) address 1
N/A
Address 2
2. City State Postal code

N/A
3. Job title
N/A
4. Education: minimum level required:
4-A. If Other is indicated in question 4, specify the education required:
N/A
4-B. Major field of study
N/A
5. Is training required for the job opportunity? 5-A. If Yes, number of months of training required:
Yes No
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
5-B. Indicate the field of training:
N/A
6. Is experience in the job offered required for the job? 6-A. If Yes, number of months experience required:
Yes No
7. Is there an alternate field of study that is acceptable?
Yes No
7-A. If Yes, specify the major field of study:

N/A
8. Is there an alternate combination of education and experience that is acceptable? Yes No
8- A. If Yes, specify the alternate level of education required:

8-B. If Other is indicated in question 8-A, indicate the alternate level of education required:
N/A
8-C. If applicable, indicate the number of years experience acceptable in question 8:
9. Is a foreign educational equivalent acceptable? Yes No

10. Is experience in an alternate occupation acceptable? 10-A. If Yes, number of months experience in alternate
occupation required:
Yes No N/A
10-B. Identify the job title of the acceptable alternate occupation:
N/A
11. Job duties – If submitting by mail, add attachment if necessary. Job duties description must begin in this space.
N/A
12. Are the job opportunity’s requirements normal for the occupation?
Yes No
If the answer to this question is No, the employer must be prepared to
provide documentation demonstrating that the job requirements are
supported by business necessity.
13. Is knowledge of a foreign language required to perform the job duties?
Yes No
If the answer to this question is Yes, the employer must be prepared to
provide documentation demonstrating that the language requirements
are supported by business necessity.
14. Specific skills or other requirements – If submitting by mail, add attachment if necessary. Skills description must
begin in this space.
N/A
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
15. Does this application involve a job opportunity that includes a combination of
Yes No
occupations?
16. Is the position identified in this application being offered to the alien identified
Yes No
in Section J?
17. Does the job require the alien to live on the employer’s premises?
Yes No
18. Is the application for a live-in household domestic service worker? Yes No
18-A. If Yes, have the employer and the alien executed the required employment Yes No NA
contract and has the employer provided a copy of the contract to the alien?
I. Recruitment Information
a. Occupation Type – All must complete this section.
1. Is this application for a professional occupation, other than a college or
university teacher? Professional occupations are those for which a bachelor’s Yes No
degree (or equivalent) is normally required.
2. Is this application for a college or university teacher?

If Yes, complete questions 2-A and 2-B below. Yes No
2-A. Did you select the candidate using a competitive recruitment and
Yes No
selection process?
2-B. Did you use the basic recruitment process for professional occupations?
Yes No
b. Special Recruitment and Documentation Procedures for College and University Teachers –
Complete only if the answer to question I.a.2-A is Yes.
3. Date alien selected:
N/A
4. Name and date of national professional journal in which advertisement was placed:
N/A
5. Specify additional recruitment information in this space. Add an attachment if necessary.
N/A
c. Professional/Non-Professional Information – Complete this section unless your answer to question B.1 or
I.a.2-A is YES.
6. Start date for the SWA job order 7. End date for the SWA job order
N/A N/A
8. Is there a Sunday edition of the newspaper in the area of intended employment? Yes No
9. Name of newspaper (of general circulation) in which the first advertisement was placed:
N/A
10. Date of first advertisement identified in question 9:
N/A
11. Name of newspaper or professional journal (if applicable) in which second advertisement was placed:
N/A Newspaper Journal
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
I. Recruitment Information Continued
12. Date of second newspaper advertisement or date of publication of journal identified in question 11:
N/A
d. Professional Recruitment Information – Complete if the answer to question I.a.1 is YES or if the answer to
I.a.2-B is YES. Complete at least 3 of the items.
13. Dates advertised at job fair 14. Dates of on-campus recruiting
15. Dates posted on employer web site 16. Dates advertised with trade or professional organization
17. Dates listed with job search web site 18. Dates listed with private employment firm
19. Dates advertised with employee referral program 20. Dates advertised with campus placement office
21. Dates advertised with local or ethnic newspaper 22. Dates advertised with radio or TV ads
N/A
e. General Information – All must complete this section.
23. Has the employer received payment of any kind for the submission of this Yes No
application?
23-A. If Yes, describe details of the payment including the amount, date and purpose of the payment :
N/A
24. Has the bargaining representative for workers in the occupation in which the
Yes No NA
alien will be employed been provided with notice of this filing at least 30 days
but not more than 180 days before the date the application is filed?
25. If there is no bargaining representative, has a notice of this filing been posted
for 10 business days in a conspicuous location at the place of employment, Yes No NA
ending at least 30 days before but not more than 180 days before the date the
application is filed?
26. Has the employer had a layoff in the area of intended employment in the
occupation involved in this application or in a related occupation within the six Yes No
months immediately preceding the filing of this application?
26-A. If Yes, were the laid off U.S. workers notified and considered for the job
opportunity for which certification is sought? Yes No NA
J. Alien Information (This section must be filled out. This information must be different from the agent
or attorney information listed in Section E).

Novak Jan
2. Current address 1
6598 American Street #821
Address 2

4. Phone number of current residence
555-555-0109
5. Country of citizenship 6. Country of birth
European Country #2 European Country #2
7. Alien’s date of birth 8. Class of admission
01/01/1983 H-1B
9. Alien registration number (A#) 10. Alien admission number (I-94)
N/A 01234567890
11. Education: highest level achieved as required by the requested job opportunity:
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
J. Alien Information Continued
11-A. If Other indicated in question 11, specify
12. Specify major field(s) of study

Nuclear Engineering
13. Year relevant education completed
2012
14. Institution where relevant education specified in question 11 was received
15. Address 1 of conferring institution
Faculty of Nuclear Engineering, Department of Radiation
Address 2
EuropeanUni Street 123
17. Did the alien complete the training required for the requested job opportunity,
18. Does the alien have the experience as required for the requested job
opportunity indicated in question H.6? Yes No NA
19. Does the alien possess the alternate combination of education and experience
20. Does the alien have the experience in an alternate occupation specified in
question H.10? Yes No NA
21. Did the alien gain any of the qualifying experience with the employer in a
position substantially comparable to the job opportunity requested? Yes No NA
22. Did the employer pay for any of the alien’s education or training
necessary to satisfy any of the employer’s job requirements for this position? Yes No
23. Is the alien currently employed by the petitioning employer?
Yes No
K. Alien Work Experience
List all jobs the alien has held during the past 3 years. Also list any other experience that qualifies the alien for
the job opportunity for which the employer is seeking certification.
a. Job 1
1. Employer name
2. Address 1
730 Research Street
Address 2

University Research Associate 2
01/22/2012 40
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
Development and operation of Top National Agency approved calibration facility for
Radimage devices, space dosimetry, SW development for Top National Agency
Supervisor: John B. Doe (Phone: 555-0105)
b. Job 2
1. Employer name
Physics Laboratory, Average European Technical University in European City
2. Address 1
Physlab Street 666
Address 2

University Researcher
03/01/2008 01/01/2012 40
Development of calibration and imaging methods, principal investigator of two research

projects for Top European Agency
Supervisor: John X. Doe (Phone: 555-0114)
c. Job 3
1. Employer name
2. Address 1
Address 2
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
L. Alien Declaration
I declare under penalty of perjury that Sections J and K are true and correct. I understand that to knowingly furnish
false information in the preparation of this form and any supplement thereto or to aid, abet, or counsel another to do so is
a federal offense punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to five years or both under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1001. Other
penalties apply as well to fraud or misuse of ETA immigration documents and to perjury with respect to such documents
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546 and 1621.
In addition, I further declare under penalty of perjury that I intend to accept the position offered in Section H of this
application if a labor certification is approved and I am granted a visa or an adjustment of status based on this
application.
Novak Jan
06/16/2013
processing, but must be complete when submitting by mail. If the application is submitted electronically, any resulting certification
MUST be signed immediately upon receipt from DOL before it can be submitted to USCIS for final processing.
M. Declaration of Preparer
1. Was the application completed by the employer?

If No, you must complete this section. Yes No
I hereby certify that I have prepared this application at the direct request of the employer listed in Section C and
that to the best of my knowledge the information contained herein is true and correct. I understand that to
knowingly furnish false information in the preparation of this form and any supplement thereto or to aid, abet, or counsel
another to do so is a federal offense punishable by a fine, imprisonment up to five years or both under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and
1001. Other penalties apply as well to fraud or misuse of ETA immigration documents and to perjury with respect to such
documents under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546 and 1621.
2. Preparer’s last name First name Middle initial
3. Title
4. E-mail address
processing, but must be complete when submitting by mail. If the application is submitted electronically, any resulting certification MUST
be signed immediately upon receipt from DOL before it can be submitted to USCIS for final processing.
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
N. Employer Declaration
By virtue of my signature below, I HEREBY CERTIFY the following conditions of employment:
1. The offered wage equals or exceeds the prevailing wage and I will pay at least the prevailing wage.
2. The wage is not based on commissions, bonuses or other incentives, unless I guarantees a wage paid on a
weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis that equals or exceeds the prevailing wage.
3. I have enough funds available to pay the wage or salary offered the alien.
4. I will be able to place the alien on the payroll on or before the date of the alien’s proposed entrance into the
United States.
5. The job opportunity does not involve unlawful discrimination by race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex,
religion, handicap, or citizenship.
6. The job opportunity is not:
a. Vacant because the former occupant is on strike or is being locked out in the course of a labor dispute
involving a work stoppage; or
b. At issue in a labor dispute involving a work stoppage.
7. The job opportunity’s terms, conditions, and occupational environment are not contrary to Federal, state or local
law.
8. The job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any U.S. worker.
9. The U.S. workers who applied for the job opportunity were rejected for lawful job-related reasons.
10. The job opportunity is for full-time, permanent employment for an employer other than the alien.
I hereby designate the agent or attorney identified in section E (if any) to represent me for the purpose of labor
certification and, by virtue of my signature in Block 3 below, I take full responsibility for the accuracy of any
I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read and reviewed this application and that to the best of my knowledge
the information contained herein is true and accurate. I understand that to knowingly furnish false information in the
preparation of this form and any supplement thereto or to aid, abet, or counsel another to do so is a federal offense
punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to five years or both under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1001. Other penalties apply as
well to fraud or misuse of ETA immigration documents and to perjury with respect to such documents under 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1546 and 1621.
1. Last name First name Middle initial
2. Title
Note – The signature and date signed do not have to be filled out when electronically submitting to the Department of
Labor for processing, but must be complete when submitting by mail. If the application is submitted electronically, any
resulting certification MUST be signed immediately upon receipt from DOL before it can be submitted to USCIS for
final processing.
O. U.S. Government Agency Use Only
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 212 (a)(5)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, I hereby certify
that there are not sufficient U.S. workers available and the employment of the above will not adversely affect the wages
and working conditions of workers in the U.S. similarly employed.
This Certification is valid from to
Signature of Certifying Officer Date Signed
Case Number Filing Date
ETA Case Number:

ETA Form 9089
P. OMB Information Paperwork Reduction Act Information Control Number 1205-0451
Persons are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
Respondent’s reply to these reporting requirements is required to obtain the benefits of permanent
employment certification (Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212(a)(5)). Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to the Office of
Foreign Labor Certification * U.S. Department of Labor * 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Box 12-200 *
Washington, DC * 20210. Do NOT send the completed application to this address.
Q. Privacy Statement Information
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), you are hereby notified
that the information provided herein is protected under the Privacy Act. The Department of Labor
(Department or DOL) maintains a System of Records titled Employer Application and Attestation
File for Permanent and Temporary Alien Workers (DOL/ETA-7) that includes this record.
Under routine uses for this system of records, case files developed in processing labor
certification applications, labor condition applications, or labor attestations may be released as
follows: in connection with appeals of denials before the DOL Office of Administrative Law
Judges and Federal courts, records may be released to the employers that filed such
applications, their representatives, to named alien beneficiaries or their representatives, and to
the DOL Office of Administrative Law Judges and Federal courts; and in connection with
administering and enforcing immigration laws and regulations, records may be released to such
agencies as the DOL Office of Inspector General, Employment Standards Administration, the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State.
Further relevant disclosures may be made in accordance with the Privacy Act and under the
following circumstances: in connection with federal litigation; for law enforcement purposes; to
authorized parent locator persons under Pub. L. 93-647; to an information source or public
authority in connection with personnel, security clearance, procurement, or benefit-related matters;
to a contractor or their employees, grantees or their employees, consultants, or volunteers who
have been engaged to assist the agency in the performance of Federal activities; for Federal debt
collection purposes; to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with its legislative
review, coordination, and clearance activities; to a Member of Congress or their staff in response
to an inquiry of the Congressional office made at the written request of the subject of the record; in
connection with records management; and to the news media and the public when a matter under
investigation becomes public knowledge, the Solicitor of Labor determines the disclosure is
necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of the Department, or the Solicitor of Labor
determines that a legitimate public interest exists in the disclosure of information, unless the
Solicitor of Labor determines that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
ETA Case Number:

Addendum
H. 11. Job duties
ETA Case Number:

Addendum
H. 14. Specific skills or other requirements
ETA Case Number:

Addendum
I. 5. Specify additional recruitment information in this space
ETA Case Number:

Addendum
K. 9. Job - Job Details
ETA Case Number:

Addendum
1. Employer name
2. Address 1
Address 2
1. Employer name
2. Address 1
Address 2
ETA Case Number:

B. Petition Cover Letter

1. Advanced Degree Professional
2. Substantial Merit and National Importance
3. I am Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor
4. It Would Be Beneficial to the USA to Waive the Labor Certification
5. Nonimmigrant Status of me and my Dependent
6. Summary
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Petition Cover Letter

June 16, 2013
USCIS
Attn: I-140
P.O. Box 660128
Dallas, TX 75266
Re: EB-2 Immigrant Petition for Permanent Residency with request for a National Interest
Waiver

Nature of submission: ORIGINAL SUBMISSION
Type of Petition: I-140, EB-2 National Interest Waiver
Classification Sought: Immigration and Nationality Act 203(b)(2)(B)
Dear USCIS Officer:
This letter is respectfully submitted in support of my Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (I-
140) sent by me, Dr. Jan Novak, as a self-petitioner/beneficiary. I would like to demonstrate my
fulfillment of the following EB-2 National Interest Waiver requirements and provide supporting
evidence for it.
I am eligible for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree
pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1153(b)(2)
because I hold a Ph.D. and Master’s degree in Nuclear Engineering and I am employed as a
researcher by the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2 as a contractor of Top National
Agency (TNA). See chapter 1 (page 5).
I further submit evidence and documentation to demonstrate that a waiver of the labor
certification in my specific case is in the national interest pursuant to In re Matter of Dhanasar,
26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), Int. Dec. 3882.
1. My proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. Radiation
monitoring improves the National Security and helps to protect astronauts’ health. I have
developed a new radiation imaging modality which significantly reduces radiation doses
to patients. My research achievements are beneficial for the whole U.S. nation and satisfy
national goals given by government agencies. See chapter 2 (page 6).
2. I am well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. I have developed radiation
monitors which are used in space missions by TNA and Top European Agency (TEA). I
have established the first and only one calibration laboratory in USA necessary for those
radiation monitors. I have impacted the whole field of pixel detectors radiation physics by
serving as a requested advisor in several institutions including TNA. I have currently a
critical role as a researcher in TNA radiation monitoring projects. See chapter 3 (page
11).
1|Page EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Petition Cover Letter

3. On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor
certification requirements. TNA requires my expertise for a long time period because
their long-term projects would be seriously impaired without my contribution. See
chapter 4 (page 32).
This letter serves as a guide through all submitted evidence - I will provide references directly
from content of the letter. Evidence is placed beneath this letter in the following order:
 Recommendation letters written by outstanding experts (together with resumes of the

authors) from well recognized institutions such as government agencies (TNA, TEA),
universities (U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2, Top U.S. University #1), state-
of-the-art companies (Top U.S. Aerospace Company, Small State-of-the-art Company)
and a national laboratory (Top European University). See Exhibits 1 – 8.
 My Advanced Degrees with evaluation reports. See Exhibit 9.
 My Curriculum Vitae. See Exhibit 10.
 Evidence supporting my past track of achievements and impact on the field, including
awards, citations, publications. See Exhibits 11 – 21.
 Government articles explaining benefits of my research to U.S. nation. See Exhibits 22
– 23.
 My current employment – contract with the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2
and all paychecks. See Exhibit 24.
 Nonimmigrant status of me and my spouse – passports, approval notices, I-94, visas
and the marriage certificate. See Exhibits 25 – 26.

Content of this petition letter is divided into chapters to clearly address all required criteria.
1 Advanced Degree Professional ................................................................................................ 5
2 Substantial Merit and National Importance ............................................................................. 6
2.1 Introduction to Radiation Detectors ................................................................................. 6
2.2 Application ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Radiation Monitoring Improves National Security and Protects Health of

Astronauts ................................................................................................................................ 7
2.2.2 Calibration of Pixel Detectors Necessary for Establishing Radiation Monitors....... 9
2.2.3 Radiation Imaging Improves Health by Reducing Radiation Doses on Patients.... 10
2.3 Summary of Benefits to U.S. Nation.............................................................................. 11
3 I am Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor .................................................... 11
3.1 My Contribution to TNA................................................................................................ 12
3.1.1 My Expertise with Radiation Monitors is Crucial for Success of Space Missions
(Currently on ISS) ................................................................................................................. 12
3.1.2 I Set Up the Only Calibration Laboratory in USA, Calibrated and Evaluated All
Detectors and Developed Software ....................................................................................... 15
3.1.3 Me as a Critical Member of the Team Who Cannot Be Replaced and my Impact on
the Field 18
3.2 Top European Agency (TEA) – I was Principal Investigator of Two Grants Used for
Space Missions .......................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 PL – Original Research and New Methods in Radiation Imaging ................................. 23
3.4 GFA, CERN – Internship in World Leading Laboratories, Scholarship Award............ 26
3.5 My Impact on the Field of Pixel Detectors Research..................................................... 27
3.5.1 Requested Advisor for Filming Documentary for PBS TV Channel ..................... 30

3.5.2 Requested Publication ............................................................................................. 31
3.5.3 I Reviewed Scientific Articles of other Peers ......................................................... 31
3.5.4 I Was Awarded by IEEE NSS-MIC Trainee Grant ................................................ 31
3.5.5 Conferences, Publications and Citations................................................................. 32
3.5.6 Member of Organizing Committee of International Conference ............................ 32
4 It Would Be Beneficial to the USA to Waive the Labor Certification .................................. 32
4.1 Final Recommendations from Experts in the Field ........................................................ 35
5 Nonimmigrant Status of me and my Dependent ................................................................... 37
6 Summary................................................................................................................................ 37

1 Advanced Degree Professional
I earned my Ph.D. degree in Nuclear Engineering from the Average European Technical
University in European City, European Country #2, in 2012 (see Exhibit 9.1, page 2). I also
submitted the Credential Evaluation Report of this degree from Credential Evaluation Company
which confirms: “Jan Novak has the USA equivalent of Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Nuclear
Engineering awarded by regionally accredited colleges and universities in the United States.”
(see Exhibit 9.2, page 1).
I received my Master’s degree in Nuclear Engineering from the Average European Technical
University in European City, European Country #2, in 2008 (see Exhibit 9.3, page 2). I submitted
the Credential Evaluation Report and translation of this degree from Credential Evaluation
Company which states: “Jan Novak has the USA equivalent of Bachelor of Science Degree in
Nuclear Engineering and Master of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering awarded by
regionally accredited colleges and universities in the United States.” (see Exhibit 9.4, page 1).
The Average European Technical University in European City is the oldest non-military
university of technology in Europe, founded by the Austrian Emperor Joseph I in 1707.
Accredited by the European Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports with 24 000 enrolled
students (2011) it is the largest and the highest ranked Engineering & Technology University in
the European Country #2 and 156th best in the world according to the QS World University
Rankings (2012). (See Exhibit 9.2, page 2 and Exhibit 9.5)
Significant and original research achievements obtained during my PhD and Master studies are
further described in details in following chapters: 3.2 (page 21), 3.3 (page 23), 3.4 (page 26),
3.5.3 (page 31) and 3.5.4 (page 31).
My current occupation is a post-doctoral fellow (officially Research Associate 2) at the Physics

Department, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2 where I work on a development of new
radiation monitors for TNA (see Exhibit 24.1).
Based on the facts demonstrated above, I qualify for the EB-2 classification as a member of the
professions holding an advanced degree.

2 Substantial Merit and National Importance
I am an experimental physicist and my research includes a detector technology, especially
semiconductor pixel detectors. I am focusing on three important areas which are crucial for U.S.
nation - radiation monitoring, calibration of pixel detectors and radiation imaging.
2.1 Introduction to Radiation Detectors

When W.C. Roentgen made his famous picture in 1895, he probably did not realize the impact
which it would make in the future. More than hundred years after his work is radiography
standard part of the everyday life. It is used in the industry quality control, medicine or at the
security controls at the airports. Although the detectors and even radiation used for imaging
differ significantly from the ones used by Roentgen, the arrangement of the transmission
radiography remains the same. The subject is irradiated by suitable radiation while appropriate
detector measures the changes in the radiation beam. These changes correspond to some object
qualities which are then evaluated.
Evaluation process could be in some applications rather complex. Continuing progress is allowed
by the better availability of the computational power and by the improved quality of the
detectors. New detectors with a better performance and larger active areas which are being
developed, open possibilities for new imaging techniques and novel applications. Film detectors
are replaced by digital pixel detectors which become standard in imaging setups all over the
world. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency within the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments, clarifies
why: “Using digital imaging detectors instead of film further reduces radiation dose.” (see
Exhibit 22, page 2). The use of these detectors, however, is conditioned by a deep understanding
of detection processes and a detector response. Such condition can be met by highly specialized
well trained experts such as myself.
2.2 Application
The advantage of new detector technologies is utilized in many research areas such as health,
national security etc. New detectors allow obtaining a more detailed and precise information.
As with the classical cameras, the newer detectors allow better resolution, higher dynamic range
and better sensitivity.
It is common that cutting edge research areas require knowledge from many different fields.
Also my research area is interdisciplinary one. The understanding of the detection processes and
physics of the detectors is connected with the insight to electronics and software data analysis. In
order to fully utilize the potential of new detector technologies, new data processing techniques
need to be developed and used. The complex responses of the detectors need to be properly
evaluated. I have been developing such new techniques and evaluating detectors for past 5 years
– details in chapters: 3.1 (page 12), 3.2 (page 21) and 3.3 (page 23).
I focus my applied research on the radiation monitoring, calibration of pixel detectors and
radiation imaging, which are introduced in the immediately following chapters.
2.2.1 Radiation Monitoring Improves National Security and Protects Health of

Astronauts
The radiation monitoring is swiftly progressing area where semiconductor pixel detectors
become to be used and on which I focus. The advantage of radiation monitors based on pixel
detector Radimage, which I develop, is their low power demand and small size so they can be
used easily as portable devices. These new detectors also provide more information than
previous bigger detectors such as type of radiation and its direction. Monitors are used to
estimate radiation effects on a human and they also provide other data which may be used by the
U.S. government for radiological detection and radiation threat protection purposes.
The early warning of radiation threat became priority of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security. According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), an
independent agency working for the U.S. Congress: “Homeland Security’s Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office (DNDO) has made some progress in strengthening radiation detection
capabilities to address critical gaps and vulnerabilities in combating nuclear smuggling, which
include the land border area between ports of entry into the United States, aviation, and small
maritime vessels. However, DNDO is still in the early stages of program development, and has
not clearly developed long term plans, with costs and time frames, for achieving its goal of
closing these gaps by expanding radiological and nuclear detection capabilities.” (see Exhibit
23, page 2). Thus, the development of the new radiation monitors for early warnings and capable

providing also some information about type and magnitude of the threat are now one of the
priorities for the National Security.
As a researcher at the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2, a contractor of TNA, I have
been working on the research related to a development of such radiation monitors used for
radiation measurements in space by TNA for the last year (see chapter 3.1.1, page 12).
John F. Doe, an independent leading expert and the Program Director from Small State-of-the-art
Company, explains the importance of application of these detectors for the national interest:
“Space radiation dosimetry is a key element to space exploration. The features and capabilities
of pixel detectors make them ideal candidates for usage in long term space exploration. The fact
that TNA has baselined this technology for area monitoring on the Space Rocket spacecraft is a
testament to its capabilities. While keeping the US at the forefront of space exploration is of
great National Interest, the applications for these detectors go beyond space radiation
dosimetry. These applications include, but are not limited to, personal radiation monitoring for
workers in the nuclear power industry, radiation area monitoring for the nuclear power
industry, radiation survey instruments for first responders to nuclear accidents, and shipping
container monitoring for detection of radioactive material. It is easy to see how these
applications are of critical national interest.” (see Exhibit 7, page 1).
Radiation monitors I develop are used for the radiation detection in Space. The new models
which are now developed at TNA will be used for raising alarms when the ever changing
radiation in future missions will be too dangerous for astronauts.
Jane A. Doe, an expert serving as a Lead for Systems Engineering and Integration at the TNA,
explains: “It is clear today, that one of the biggest obstacles for all future manned missions will
be radiation environment in deep Space. Without protection of Earth’s magnetic field and
atmosphere the radiation represents huge threat to astronauts’ health. Moreover, the radiation
in Space is not constant in time. For example the so called Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) from
Sun that can significantly increase the radiation in interplanetary environment and can cause
death of astronauts on such missions. Thus fast and precise measurement of the radiation is one
of the priorities for all future missions. For these reasons, Radiation Protection has been

identified as the top risk for our agency, TNA. Consequently, TNA is investing heavily in the
development of mitigation strategies and materials for this problem.
Several of the ongoing TNA research projects are focused on development of new measuring
techniques and new devices which could be used to do precise estimation of the radiation fluxes
and risks as they affect astronauts. The novel technologies in the field of semiconductor
electronics open new possibilities in this area. One such technology is pixel detection. The
advantages of these pixel detectors are their compactness, low mass and low power
consumption. The projects which I supervise are using pixel detector called Radimage, which
represents one of the best pixel detectors on the market.” (see Exhibit 2, page 1).
Jane A. Doe from TNA describes further applicability of radiation monitors: “Applicability of
precise radiation monitors for border security is also huge. It can be also foreseen that such
radiation monitors could be used by law-enforcement forces in order to monitor radiation threat
and provide early warnings in the case of accident or attack.” (see Exhibit 2, page 2).
2.2.2 Calibration of Pixel Detectors Necessary for Establishing Radiation Monitors

Pixel detectors must be calibrated before they can be used. A calibration is necessary in order to
obtain correct energy data from detectors and enables radiation monitors to estimate radiation
effects on humans. Radimage detectors, which I am working with, have 65,536 pixels and each
pixel must be properly calibrated. This means that the calibration of such device is very complex
and sophisticated process and there are only few laboratories in the world which are able to
perform this calibration.
I established the first and the only calibration laboratory for pixel detectors Radimage in the
USA. Every detector used by TNA during space missions must be calibrated before a flight in
my laboratory. Also other institutions operating with Radimage detectors are planning to use this
laboratory to calibrate their devices. Dr. John E. Doe, an independent distinguished expert and a
Principal Research Physicist at the Top U.S. University #1 states this: “Dr. Novak established
such a calibration and evaluation laboratory for Radimage detectors at the U.S. Regionally

Accredited University #2, which we plan to take advantage of soon. It is worth mentioning that it
is the only laboratory of this kind in the USA.” (see Exhibit 6, page 2).
Of course, not only the calibration laboratory is needed in this process, but also extraordinary
skills and experience are necessary for a successful calibration. I have gained this expertise in
previous five years by developing proper and unique calibration techniques. Current and future
projects at TNA and other U.S. research projects that require calibration of pixel detectors are
fully dependent on calibrations performed by me. Testimonies and specific details regarding
detector calibration are provided in chapter 3.1.2 (page 15).
2.2.3 Radiation Imaging Improves Health by Reducing Radiation Doses on Patients

Health care is a particular area which has constant need on the detector quality improvement.
The radiation imaging have become an integral part of many medical procedures ranging from
simple X-ray screening of broken bones to highly advanced CT measurements, where a 3D
model of patient’s internal organs can be reconstructed. X-ray imaging is the most developed and
used medicine imaging modality in the USA. The quality of obtained images can often affect
lives of patients where, e.g., an early cancer detection can greatly improve the survivability of a
patient.
Moreover, the dose deposited during a screening can also affect a human health. The U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, describes significant increase of this effect: “In the early 1980s, medical X-rays made
up about 11 percent of all the radiation exposure to the U.S. population. Current estimates
attribute nearly 35 percent of all radiation exposure to medical X-rays.” (see Exhibit 22, page 2).
Thus, the medical imaging is never ending battle between sharp contrast high quality pictures
and a low dose deposited to a patient.
One of the newly emerging imaging modalities, which have a great potential in medicine and
which I am working on, is the phase contrast imaging. While during the standard X-ray
absorption imaging some photons, potentially harmful to humans, has to be stopped inside an
examined object in order to create an image, the phase contrast imaging uses a different
approach. It measures a change of the phase of X-rays and does not require any radiation
absorption in the sample to obtain the picture. This technique significantly reduces the
10 | P a g e EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Petition Cover Letter
radiation dose absorbed by a human body. Moreover, compared to other proposed methods,
this technique enables also to obtain a phase contrast video of fast developing processes. This
modality can be used for a more precise and safer breast cancer recognition. Details of this
method are explained in chapter 3.3, page 23.
Benefits mentioned in this chapter, such as improving of radiological detection, national security
and early cancer recognition, clearly serve to the whole U.S. nation and not only to limited
regional area. To prove this I already quoted priorities of government agencies FDA (pages 6 and
10) and GAO (page 7).
summarizes: “It is also clear that these [TNA] projects are not regional, but will give benefit to
the whole nation, not only by supporting the future manned flights, but also by transferring these
technologies “back to Earth”.” (see Exhibit 2, page 2).
2.3 Summary of Benefits to U.S. Nation

Radiation monitors developed by myself improves radiation monitoring and thus enhance
protection of astronauts’ health. Another important benefit would be improving the national
security by early warning of radiation threat, monitoring of radioactive materials at the borders
and using devices for a survey during nuclear accidents or attacks. Same devices may be used in
the nuclear power industry. Finally, this technology is crucial to keep USA at the uppermost
level in the space exploration. Hence, my research has both substantial merit and national
importance.
3 I am Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor

This chapter:
 describes my past track of achievements at Top National Agency (TNA), Top European
Agency (TEA), European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), German Federal
Agency (GFA) and Physics Laboratory (PL)
 shows how my particular contributions are important for U.S. national interest
 presents myself as a critical member of a team working on space projects

 presents how I impacted the field of endeavor as a whole
 and shows my skills and expertise that set me apart from ordinary peers.
3.1 My Contribution to TNA

After defending my Ph.D. I applied for the position at the U.S. Regionally Accredited University
#2. Being successfully selected, I currently work under the supervision of Prof. John B. Doe at
the Department of Physics. Our group is closely cooperating with TNA and I spent last year by
working on cutting edge TNA projects through the contract with my current employer – the U.S.
Regionally Accredited University #2. I significantly contributed in the areas of radiation
monitoring, calibration and evaluation of detectors which are used in space missions. I have
become a crucial researcher in current TNA projects and therefore TNA requires my exceptional
knowledge and expertise in their future projects as well. Please, see the details in following
chapters.
3.1.1 My Expertise with Radiation Monitors is Crucial for Success of Space Missions
(Currently on ISS)
Space Investigation Department (SID) based at the TNA is responsible for ensuring that the
radiation exposure received by astronauts remains below established safety limits. In order to
fulfill this requirement SID is investigating the use of the pixel detectors in the Radiation
Monitoring Detector Project (RMDP). Three parallel projects which are based on the
Detimage/Radimage1 pixel detector technology are running now. The undergoing Advanced
Monitor Experiment (AME) serves as the demonstration of technology readiness and is prepared
in collaboration of the TNA, the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2 and the Physics
Laboratory, European City, European Country #2. Five radiation monitors were set up at the
International Space Station (ISS) and are measuring the radiation at the ISS from September
2012.
I am responsible for detector evaluation and data analysis software development in the AME
project. I am developing the software in the close cooperation with our colleagues from the
TNA’s SID. The results show very good agreement between our data and the data from other ISS
radiation monitors. Compared to other monitors AME offers many advantages. Based on the
1
Radimage is a newer type of Detimage technology
Detimage technology it operates with low power consumption (< 5 W) being of a low size and
a weight. With the dimension comparable to a standard USB flash stick it represents future of
the portable radiation monitors. Although we collect the data from ISS only since September
2012, the project shows a great success and comparable results with older, much larger and
heavier devices.
Dr. John D. Doe, a Senior Physicist at TEA and a honorary Professor of Space Research at the
European University #2, summarizes: “Using the experience gained on TEA programmes and in
cooperation with colleagues from European City and TNA he has developed a new generation of
radiation monitor which is currently being used on the International Space Station for astronaut
safety. The monitor is based on semiconductor pixel technology and shows great promise, both
in radiation physics and medical applications.” (see Exhibit 5, page 2).
Moreover, because of the pixel detector technology, our newly developed algorithms are able to
estimate the type of the radiation and the direction of it - the information the older monitors
cannot supply. This extra information provides another input to estimation of the radiation
effects on humans in space. They will also provide additional information in the assessment of
the radiation threat in the U.S. Homeland Security. As with many technologies which were
used in the space industry before, the wide spreading of this technology back to the civil sector
can be expected in the years to follow.
Dr. John B. Doe, a Professor and a Chairperson of the Physics Department at the U.S. Regionally
Accredited University #2, explains my crucial contribution in this project: “Dr. Novak’s unique
expertise has been invaluable in preparing the Radiation Monitoring Detector Project (RMDP)
Detimage-based devices for their current deployment on the International Space Station (ISS) as
part of an Advanced Monitor Experiment (AME). Detimage is the product of a European
Laboratory for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland-based Collaboration, of which
the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2 is one of only two U.S. institutions that are
members. The other member is the Space Exploration Institute at Top U.S. University #1, but
their interests are in imaging rather than space radiation dosimetry, meaning that expertise with
this particular technology is currently lacking in the U.S. Dr. Novak has been working closely
with our TNA colleagues over the last 6 months [12 months now] on this AME, and they have

expressed their crucial dependence upon his expertise to enable the success of this current
test.” (see Exhibit 3, page 1).
John C. Doe, an independent outstanding expert, a Technical Fellow in Top U.S. Aerospace
Company, describes benefits of using radiation monitors and confirms my significant
contribution in this field: “I am aware of Dr. Novak’s outstanding work in the field of space
radiation monitoring. Dr. Novak and I recently met at Conference on Space Radiation on the
International Space Station (ISS) conference in Nice City, CA last year where he gave a talk on
advanced radiation dosimetry measurements and data analysis using tracking information from
pixel radiation detectors. This was a very important contribution and is an example of the basic
requirement of monitoring human (astronaut) space radiation exposures and providing
radiation health protection, which again is in the national interest.”
John C. Doe further explains research benefits of radiation detectors technology: “There are
several benefits of the using of pixel radiation detector technology and especially the Radimage
detector, in radiation monitoring by providing more information about the very complex
radiation environment, the directionality of the space radiation, and its particle composition.
This technology has proven to be extremely useful to complement the existing space radiation
detectors on the ISS. The results of this project are so promising that two addition projects using
same technology are currently underway at TNA and TEA.” (see Exhibit 4, page 2).
I am also responsible for data analysis of the data collected at ISS and for the development of the
automatic analysis software. This software is used for routine data analysis which is done on
daily bases. The reports from this analysis then serve as an input for further TNA studies.
Following AME two other projects based on same technology are now under progress at TNA -
the Radiation Monitoring Detector Project (RMDP) and the Hybrid Radiation Detector Project
(HRDP). I am the critical member of both projects. The RMDP project is the technology
demonstration of the stand-alone radiation monitor based on the Detimage pixel detector
technology and is fully developed by TNA. The Space Rocket Project (SRP) will be the first
flight of the newly developed TNA’s Space Rocket and will provide an opportunity to fly a
RMDP unit in a radiation environment. The mission will go beyond low earth orbit, leaving the
radiation protection of the geomagnetic field and transit the Van Allen belts with increased
radiation. Measuring the actual radiation environment in the SRP will provide important data to
support a future operational radiation system development for SRP as well as designs for future
spacecraft and ground-based testbeds. The data collection will enable evaluation of the radiation
field inside the SRP to validate radiation modeling being conducted by the TNA Space
Investigation Department (SID). The output of these projects will be small stand-alone monitor
which is able to measure the radiation environment and make real time analysis of it. It is
easy to imagine that such portable device could be used as a radiation monitor by State officers
as well as land borders and ports.
3.1.2 I Set Up the Only Calibration Laboratory in USA, Calibrated and Evaluated All
Detectors and Developed Software
My tasks as the Detimage/Radimage detector technology expert at TNA are detector evaluation,
calibration and development of the Earth Support Device (ESD) software which will be used in a
pre-flight process. I made temperature studies which provided necessary input in the future
development and proved that the Detimage technology could be used even in a harsh
environment.
I also set up the detector calibration laboratory at the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2.
This laboratory is the only one of a few laboratories in the world which are capable to calibrate
Radimage devices and none of them was in the USA. My laboratory is used for the calibration of
all devices used in the above mentioned TNA projects as well as for the evaluation of the newly
developed read-out hardware used in these projects. It is worth to note that without proper
calibration the Radimage devices cannot provide data necessary for radiation environment and
dosimetry measurements. The calibration itself is a very complex and challenging process and
only few experts in the world are able to perform it. I provide such skills and calibration could
not be done without me as confirmed by distinguished experts in the following quotations.
I also evaluated new read-out hardware for the RMDP project and suggested improvements
which were implemented. Evaluation of detectors is required to find out if a device works
properly and it is necessary to choose the best device for the mission.
John A. Doe, an Aerospace Engineer serving as a Software Lead for the RMDP/HRDP projects
at the TNA, explains calibration and evaluation and my exceptional role in TNA’s projects: “Dr.
Novak works on the TNA RMDP/HRDP project via U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2
contract. Specifically, Dr. Novak is a member of my software team applying his extensive
scientific knowledge and research expertise to calibrate and evaluate the Radimage particle
pixel detectors used in both the RMDP and HRDP radiation detection systems. As you may
surmise, the Radimage detector is a derivative of Detimage pixel detection technology and will
enable us to deploy light-weight, low-power, dependable radiation detection systems on
spacecraft, spacesuits, and other crewed vehicles. Warning the astronauts of increased radiation
levels so they may take appropriate measures to remain safe is of paramount importance to
mission success. Hence crew safety depends on a properly calibrated Radimage device to
accurately characterize any radiation threat.
The complexity associated with Radimage calibration demands an exceptional amount of

knowledge in a field of which only a few experts in the world and only one expert in the United
States, Dr. Novak, possess. Dr. Novak spent four years in European City calibrating detectors,
attaining a level of expertise well beyond his peers. As such no other individual in the United
States would be qualified to prepare a Radimage device for human spaceflight. Dr. Novak’s
establishment of the Radimage calibration laboratory provides the only resource in the world
recognized by TNA to calibrate and certify the Radimage detectors that will be used on RMDP
and HRDP radiation monitoring systems.” (see Exhibit 1, page 1 and 2).
confirms: “We were very glad when we were successful to add him[Dr. Novak] to our team because
he is considered to be an expert on the Radimage detectors. His skill with the detectors represents
four year of experience in the evaluation and calibration of these complex devices. He has brought
great insight into the understanding of Radimage operation and made many recommendations
which have been implemented in the development upgrades of these devices. He also has built a
calibration facility which is now used for the calibration for all Radimage devices that are and will
be sent into space. The calibration is indispensable for proper operation of the radiation monitor
and for precise radiation threat estimates. The facility is also used for the evaluation and selection
of those devices which exhibit optimal performance. The state-of-the-art nature of the device means
that the manufacturing yield is around 40%. When using the more stringent screening criteria
required for flying Space hardware, the yield is even lower. Not having Dr. Novak as a part of the
project would cause significant delay and jeopardize the success of these projects. There are no
experts on Radimage detectors in the USA nor are there any other calibration facilities similar to
the one operated by Dr. Novak.” (see Exhibit 2, page 2).
Dr. John B. Doe, a Professor and a Chairperson of Physics Department at the U.S. Regionally
Accredited University #2, states the following: “In addition he has assembled by himself the
required calibration facility for this spaceflight hardware here on the U.S. Regionally Accredited
University #2 campus and he has been a crucial member of the team that is preparing the
software for analysis of the data that has just started to arrive from those units. It is fair to say
that we would not be in the position we are to support this project were he not available.” (see
Exhibit 3, page 2).
John C. Doe, an independent outstanding expert with more than 40 years of experience, a
Technical Fellow in Top U.S. Aerospace Company, demonstrates groundbreaking importance of
my calibration laboratory: “There are a number of challenges connected with using pixel
detectors in that they require sophisticated energy calibration; there are only few laboratories
able to calibrate Radimage detectors and he established one of them! It is first and only
calibration laboratory of this type in the US.
Dr. Novak is considered a world expert on the Radimage detectors, and his contribution was
vital to preparation and successful application of the ISS detectors previously mentioned. He
built the calibration station used for pre-flight calibration of every Radimage detector used by
TNA. Because of the severity of the calibration process; the success of these projects would be
jeopardized if he didn’t build it and didn’t perform the calibrations. He evaluated all of the
detectors and it is important to select perfect detectors for flight due to the state-of-the-art nature
of the detectors.
His expertise and development of the new radiation detector calibration techniques and detector
evaluation serves the TNA space program and the US national interest in general, since it
improves the understanding of the detectors and their applicability for other US research
groups. This particular work by Dr. Novak is important for the safety of astronauts and will aid
future US space missions. But it may have much more wide impact. For example, in national
safety it can be used for monitoring of radiation and for more sensitive security threat detection.
These particular detectors are also used for radiation imaging where the energy sensitivity is
used for so called “color” imaging, which opens up new possible applications.” (see Exhibit 4,
page 2 and 3).
Dr. John E. Doe, an independent distinguished expert and the Principal Research Physicist at the
Top U.S. University #1, further explains significance of calibration and my extraordinary
contributions: “One of the biggest advantages of the Radimage detector which distinguishes it
from other devices is the possibility to measure deposited energy in each pixel. In order to be
able to obtain a precise measurement, the energy calibration of each pixel has to be performed.
The Radimage detector has more than 65,000 pixels, hence the calibration procedure is very
complex and there are only few laboratories around the world that are capable to perform this
task. Dr. Novak established such a calibration and evaluation laboratory for Radimage detectors
at the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2, which we plan to take advantage of soon. It is
worth mentioning that it is the only laboratory of this kind in the USA. Such demonstrated
contributions sets Dr. Novak apart from his peers with similar general qualifications.
Dr. Novak’s calibration procedure is very important because it opens up possibilities for yet
more types of applications. Radiation monitoring serves as an example of one of these
applications. Calibrated devices can be used as precise radiation monitors measuring the energy
of interacting particles and allowing calculations of the radiation effects (dose) on humans.”
(see Exhibit 6, page 2).
The ESD software which I programed provides the USB communication between RMDP and the
PC. As the RMDP is a stand-alone system running on the embedded Digital Signal Processor
(DSP) the ESD was used in the development of the RMDP flight software, RMDP calibration
and will be used in pre-flight setting and evaluation of the system. The quality of my software
could be judged by the fact that TNA decided to use this software also for the following HRDP
project.
3.1.3 Me as a Critical Member of the Team Who Cannot Be Replaced and my Impact on
the Field
My extensive skills, experience and significant contributions in TNA projects made me an
irreplaceable part of their team and mentioned projects would be seriously impaired without
me as already shown in previous chapter 3.1.2. As another proof I provide more testimonies
from outstanding experts from this field of endeavor, including statements from leading experts
from TNA.
at the TNA, confirms: “Dr. Novak’s scientific expertise and advice on the RMDP/HRDP project
is crucial to our continued success. With the first SRP launch slated as early as the fall of 2014,
it is imperative that Dr. Novak remain engaged with the team in order to advance the science
and technology associated with radiation detection and monitoring for human spaceflight. The
space environment is exceedingly harsh and unforgiving. In order to explore beyond low earth
orbit, advanced technologies based on Detimage will be required to understand the radiation
environment and counter radiation affects. The RMDP and HRDP radiation detection systems
are merely the first steps towards advancing those technologies.
With the development of the RMDP detector successfully coming to completion, we look forward
to the development of the more sophisticated HRDP radiation detection system. I sincerely hope
Dr. Novak will continue his outstanding work as a member of our team. His attaining
permanent residency would most definitely benefit RMDP project initiatives, ensure team
success, and contribute to human spaceflight missions well into the future.
I recommend approval of Dr. Novak’s application for Permanent Residency, as he is a key

member of the RMDP/HRDP project.” (see Exhibit 1, page 2).
clarifies: “The research being conducted by Dr. Novak is definitely in the national interest,
because he is crucial member of the TNA’s projects… It has to be also pointed out that Dr.
Novak cannot be easily replaced by other peers from his area.” (see Exhibit 2, page 2).
Accredited University #2, confirms my invaluable contribution and advising: “Beyond the
current deployment of this technology on the ISS, Dr. Novak has become a critical person
advising our TNA colleagues on the design and development of the next generation of
operational radiation monitoring devices that are to be deployed on the new U.S. manned

spacecraft, the Space Rocket. It is clear that the project would be seriously challenged to
remain on schedule without his inputs and guidance.
For the foreseeable future, it is clear that TNA will continue to have a critical need for his skills
and especially his familiarity with this technology. They have been impressed enough to indicate
to me their interest in hiring him permanently should he attain Permanent Residency status.
While that prospect by itself argues strongly for the approval of his petition, there are other
potential uses for this technology in the area of medical imaging that are just beginning to be
developed here in the U.S. The Detimage technology provides the prospect of delivering the
capability to produce what are effectively “color” x-ray images. A number of U.S. companies
are investigating basing next generation devices on this technology, making Dr. Novak’s value
to them potentially very great. The newest generation of the technology is just becoming
available now, and bringing it to bear to improve a number of issues with respect to the current
medical imaging technology is going to become increasingly important in the coming years.”
John F. Doe, an independent leading expert and the Program Director from Small State-of-the-art
Company, explains how my research impacted his work: “I first met Dr. Novak in the summer of
2012 in the course of my work on the personal dosimeter for TNA. I have known of Dr. Novak
since 2011 having read several of his papers on pixel detectors. While I do not know Dr. Novak
very well personally, I am very familiar with his knowledge of pixel detectors, specifically the
Detimage/Radimage family of detectors. Having worked with these detectors extensively and
participating in the development of hardware and software for interfacing to the detectors, Dr.
Novak has proven himself to be an expert on the usage of the devices. This level of experience
with these pixel detectors in the United States is very limited outside of Dr. Novak. Having an
expert such Dr. Novak available to consult with has been crucial to the success of my projects
and will be a key to the success of any future project that uses these detectors.” (see Exhibit 7,
page 1).
Top U.S. University #1, states: “The national importance of the development of these new
radiation monitors can be seen by the strong interest of many government laboratories,

including TNA. Dr. Novak is now working in the leading laboratory in this area where he plays a
significant role in ongoing TNA projects for space radiation monitoring. The goal of these
projects is to improve and simplify the radiation monitoring in space where bulky, older
monitors will soon be replaced by small portable devices based on pixel detectors. It can be
expected that these new radiation monitors will also be used in other areas, e.g. national safety
for borders protection or in the event of disaster.” (see Exhibit 6, page 2).
Based on the past success in the above mentioned projects, the requested advising for other
research groups and testimonies from distinguished experts I am truly convinced that my
contributions already have great value for this field of endeavor and it will also bring
additional big impact on the radiation safety in U.S. and protecting human health.
3.2 Top European Agency (TEA) – I was Principal Investigator of Two Grants
Used for Space Missions
During my PhD studies I already became the Principal Investigator of two grants financed by
Top European Agency (TEA) with a total budget over 212,000 Euro (270,000 USD) (see Exhibit
13.1, pages 1, 3 and Exhibit 13.4, pages 6, 12) and contributed in preparation of many others.
TEA is an international organization with 20 Member States and its job is to draw up the
European space program, i.e., find out more about Earth, its immediate space environment, our
Solar System and the Universe, as well as to develop satellite-based technologies and services.
TEA also works closely with space organizations outside Europe (see Exhibit 13.5).
European University #2, states: “I have known Dr. Novak personally for more than five years
through his work, for, and on behalf of the Top European Agency. As well as consulting work, he has
been the Principal Investigator of two activities (projects) funded by TEA for which I was the TEA
Technical Officer.” (see Exhibit 5, page 2).
The first grant (project) “Calibration Source” had a goal to build a radioactive calibration source
for gamma-ray equipment used in TEA’s space missions. The focus was made on calibration
of novel LaBr3 scintillation detectors. The source which I built in European City has been used
for calibration of equipment for Eternity and Perpetuity TEA missions (see Exhibit 13.2). The
equipment can be used, for example, in elemental analysis of planet surface, or to identify the
presence of hydrogen which is one of the indicators of presence of water as a carrier of life and
potentially make groundbreaking discoveries (Exhibit 13.3, page 3).
Dr. John D. Doe further explains benefits of this project and my original contribution: The first
contract entitled “Calibration Source” was awarded in 2010 and its goal was to develop and
produce a wide dynamic range gamma-ray source for the calibration of remote sensing
spectrometers for use on present and future planetary missions (both TEA and TNA).
The measurement of gamma rays emanating from a planets surface, allows us to determine
surface composition as well as search for evidence of life. Consequently, the ability to
accurately calibrate these extremely complex sensors cannot be overstated. The broad energy
range required cannot be covered by a conventional technique and combinations of techniques
merely prolongs the calibration procedure and increases costs. Moreover, the accumulated
systematic errors degrade the quality of the results. Dr. Novak arrived at an original solution
and designed and built a calibration station (source) which covers the whole energy range and
significantly reduces the calibration time whilst simultaneously significantly increasing the
precision or quality of the measurements. In addition, the source was delivered on time (18
months), within budget (150,000 euro) and specification.” (see Exhibit 5, page 2).
I presented the results of the first project on the press conference organized by the European
Country #2 Space Agency (ECSA). The summary of the project was also part of the Annual
Report of ECSA (see Exhibit 13.3).
Based on the successfully accomplished first project, TEA awarded me by another grant. The
following project “Portable Calibration Source” was designed to produce the portable version
of the calibration source which could be used at the TEA’s preflight calibration center or at the
equipment manufacturer site. The sources were certified by TEA and can be now used by wide
community.
European University #2, explains benefits of the second project: “Based on this work, he was
awarded an additional contract (68,000 euro) to produce a portable source to calibrate the
remote sensing geochemistry package on-board the Eternity spacecraft, - TEA’s

interdisciplinary mission to the planet Venus scheduled for launch in 2016. Again the activity
was concluded within specification, schedule and budget. The spacecraft is currently undergoing
integration and test, both at TEA’s test facilities and at the spacecraft’s prime contractors test
facilities. The test source has now been certified by TEA and is available to the wider space
community.” (see Exhibit 5, page 2).
Dr. John D. Doe demonstrates my further impact on the field: “Based on his expertise in
radiation detection and measurement, Dr. Novak was subsequently invited to take part in one of
TEA’s measurement campaigns at the SYNC synchrotron research facility in Other City,
European Country #7. The purpose was to demonstrate by detailed photon metrology, the
effectiveness of a new radiation monitor, prior to the Agencies commitment to build a flight
model. The tests were highly successful and a flight device was built. It is scheduled to be
launched on TEA’s Planet-X spacecraft in August 2014.” (see Exhibit 5, page 2).
3.3 PL – Original Research and New Methods in Radiation Imaging

I spent my whole PhD studies (4 years) doing research at the Physics Laboratory (PL), the
Average European Technical University in European City (see Exhibit 11), where I worked full-
time as a researcher. The PL is heavily involved in state-of-the-art semiconductor detector
technology. As a member of the Detimage collaboration, it greatly contributes to development of
new pixel detectors. The Detimage collaboration inherits more than 20 institutions from all over
the world including institutions from USA (U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2, Top U.S.
University #1), Europe and New Zealand (see Exhibit 21). All Detimage based devices are
manufactured by Top U.S. Technology Corporation.
A novel hybrid technology which is used to manufacture Detimage detectors represents one of
the most promising futures of the semiconductor pixel detectors. The PL is responsible for
hardware and software used with these detectors and I significantly contributed in both areas. I
implemented the USB communication protocol for read-out device called Det-PC, which
provides connection between the detector and the PC. This is the most used read-out device in
the whole Detimage collaboration. I am also a coauthor of the Detsoft software, which became
the sole software used for detector control and data acquisition of Detimage type detectors. My

software add-ons allowed for more sophisticated and automated measurements results of which
were used in many scientific publications.
I introduced new radiation imaging techniques based on Detimage technology such as X-ray
fluorescence, laminography, phase contrast imaging, electron imaging and others (see Exhibit
20).
Especially phase contrast imaging has a great potential in medicine. The principle of the phase
contrast imaging is quite different to the traditional one used in standard absorption X-ray
imaging. The absorption imaging measures the “shadow” of the object. Some photons have to be
stopped inside the examined object (affecting human negatively) in order to obtain the picture.
The phase contrast imaging uses another approach, less harmful. It focuses on the wave
behavior of the X-rays. When the X-ray wave comes through the object the phase of X-rays is
changed. The change of the phase corresponds to the density of the sample. This phase change
can be observed in all photons which come through the object. Hence in order to obtain the
picture it is not needed to make any radiation absorption in the sample. Such an approach would
significantly reduce the radiation dose deposited to the patients.
The disadvantage of the phase contrast imaging is that contrary to standard absorption imaging
the measurement and the interpretation of the signal is not straightforward. A lot of effort is put
today on the development of measuring techniques which would allow for an easy measurement
of the phase contrast. As with the most new imaging techniques, state-of-the-art detectors are the
fundamental part of all these efforts.
I introduced and published a new unique method how to obtain the phase contrast. My approach
utilizes state-of-the-art characteristics of the modern pixel detectors. Contrary to other proposed
methods my technique allows to obtain image of fast evolving processes and/or obtain video of
them. The future possible applications of this modality include, for example, more precise and
safer breast cancer recognition.
Top U.S. University #1, explains my original research and new radiation imaging techniques:
“Dr. Novak’s research is very original and shows his excellent knowledge of detector and

imaging techniques. One of his significant and original contributions was development of new
phase contrast imaging technique. This proposed modality uses state-of-the-art X-ray detectors
called “Radimage” which allow imaging techniques no other detector can. Their unlimited
dynamic range and noiseless readout operation is beneficial especially for low energy X-ray
imaging of low absorbing materials such as soft tissues in human body and other animal models.
The advantage of this technique is reduction of the X-ray dose necessary to obtain a quality
picture and thus suppressing negative effects on the patient.
He also developed other original radiation imaging techniques based on the state-of-the-art
pixel detectors such as laminography, X-ray fluorescence, electron imaging etc. Dr. Novak has
successfully published these new radiation techniques in several peer reviewed journals.” (see
Exhibit 6, page 1 and 2).
I developed new detector evaluation procedures. These brought better understanding of the
Radimage detectors where I found optimal internal settings of the detector for different
applications. As those applications have different requirements such optimization greatly
improves the obtained results.
Dr. John G. Doe, a Senior Research Scientist at the Top European University, states: “Physics
Laboratory, Average European Technical University in European City, where Dr. Novak was
employed for four years, is one of the leading international institutes in this new field of
semiconductor detector technology. Dr. Novak has contributed significantly towards a better
understanding of this detector technology and actively developed new imaging methodologies.
As a member of the scientific committee of one international conference (Conference on
Radiation Detectors – held annually), which Dr. Novak has regularly attended, I know that his
work and results are accepted in the wider scientific community.” (see Exhibit 8, page 2).
I also developed a new calibration procedure which is much faster than the one used before.
During 4-years of calibrating and improving these techniques I became an expert in this field
with very deep knowledge, experience and skills. This was finally main reason why TNA chose
me as an expert and advisor for their projects with Detimage/Radimage detectors where such
experience is crucial (details in chapter 3.1.2, page 15).

The summary of my research work which I have done at PL was used in my Doctoral Thesis
“Development of new methods” which I successfully defended at the Average European
Technical University in European City in 2012 (see Exhibit 20.3).
3.4 GFA, CERN – Internship in World Leading Laboratories, Scholarship Award

My major during undergraduate studies was experimental nuclear physics with focus on heavy
ion physics. As an undergraduate I managed to be selected for Erasmus international internship
at the European University #3, Germany. During this internship I successfully applied for the
GFA-scholarship (see Exhibit 16.3) and worked 11 months as a researcher at the GFA (see
Exhibit 16.1) and partly at CERN in Switzerland.
GFA (German Federal Agency), one of the world leading laboratories in heavy ion physics, is
funded by the Federal Government of Germany. GFA operates a worldwide unique large-scale
accelerator facility for heavy ions. The best-known results are the discovery of six new chemical
elements and the development of a new type of a tumor therapy using ion beams (see Exhibit
16.3 and Exhibit 16.4).
As a member of the Physics Department I participated on the commissioning of the project

ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment) TPC (Time Projection Chamber), which is located at
CERN, near Geneva on the Franco–Swiss border. The CERN (French abbreviation for European
Organization for Nuclear Research established in 1954), the world's largest particle physics
laboratory, has 20 European member states, employs about 2,400 full-time employees and hosts
more than 10,000 visiting scientists and engineers representing 629 universities and research
facilities. CERN operates The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world's largest and highest-
energy particle accelerator, which lies in a tunnel 17 miles in circumference, as deep as 500 ft.
beneath the surface. The ALICE (detector 52 ft. high and 85 ft. long), which I was working on, is
one of the four huge detectors at accelerator LHC and it tries to bring the answers to the
fundamental questions of physics (see Exhibit 16.5).
I was responsible for the control system for one of the power supplies used at the experiment
ALICE TPC. This task was very complex because the system had over half a million electronic
channels. I successfully implemented that and was picked for commissioning of the detector
ALICE which took place at CERN. After commissioning ALICE I made tests (noise and
temperature studies) of the completed detector in active state with cosmic-rays. The results I
acquired during this stage were used for my Master’s degree thesis “Master’s Thesis about
Detectors” (see Exhibit 20.4), which I successfully defended at the Average European Technical
University in European City in 2008.
It is worth to mention that having an opportunity to work on a top level research project at
CERN and GFA already as an undergraduate student was very challenging and rewarding
me by an invaluable experience. This kind of an experience is not ordinary for an average
undergraduate student and it belongs to my past track of research achievements.
Dr. John H. Doe, my supervisor and Senior Scientist at Research Department, GFA, evaluated
my research at GFA and CERN: “In a very short time Jan had understood the requirements of
his tasks and the relevance it had for the [ALICE] TPC project. … His diligent and reliable work
led to the final choice of the HV power supply used for the TPC gating grid. … This [TPC
commissioning] has given him the opportunity to work in a challenging environment, where all
the system components were active….
Jan was not only a very reliable contributor to the project, he also has shown very good
collaborative and social skills, necessary attributes in such a large-scale project as the ALICE
TPC. He had adapted very well in the groups, both at GFA and at CERN, and had contributed to
the atmosphere by sharing his personal interests and opinions.
… I rate the stay of Jan Novak at GFA and CERN as highly productive and efficient.” (see
Exhibit 16.2).
3.5 My Impact on the Field of Pixel Detectors Research

I have already demonstrated in details how I impacted the field of radiation detector physics.
Here I provide just a brief summary of short testimonial quotations from distinguished experts
and professors which were already listed in previous chapters with detailed explanations.
I served as requested advisor for several projects at TNA and other companies:
 Ms. Jane A. Doe (TNA): “He has brought great insight into the understanding of
Radimage operation and made many recommendations which have been implemented in

the development upgrades of these devices. ... Dr. Novak is the expert who provides TNA
expertize which is not available anywhere else in the US. ... Dr. Novak cannot be easily
replaced by other peers from his area ” (see Exhibit 2, page 2).
 Mr. John A. Doe (TNA): “Dr. Novak is a member of my software team applying his
extensive scientific knowledge and research expertise to calibrate and evaluate the
Radimage particle pixel detectors used in both the RMDP and HRDP radiation detection
systems.” (see Exhibit 1, page 1).
 Dr. John B. Doe (U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2): “Dr. Novak has become a
critical person advising our TNA colleagues…” (see Exhibit 3, page 2).
 Mr. John F. Doe (Small State-of-the-art Company): “Having an expert such Dr. Novak
available to consult with has been crucial to the success of my projects…” (see Exhibit 7,
page 1).
My experience and skills already were and also will be crucial for a success of these nationally
important projects:
 Mr. John A. Doe (TNA): “Dr. Novak’s scientific expertise and advice on the
RMDP/HRDP project is crucial to our continued success. … I recommend approval of
Dr. Novak’s application for Permanent Residency, as he is a key member of the
RMDP/HRDP project. … it is imperative that Dr. Novak remain engaged with the team…
I sincerely hope Dr. Novak will continue his outstanding work as a member of our team.
His attaining permanent residency would most definitely benefit RMDP project
initiatives, ensure team success, and contribute to human spaceflight missions well into
the future.” (see Exhibit 1, page 2).
 Ms. Jane A. Doe (TNA): “Not having Dr. Novak as a part of the project would cause
significant delay and jeopardize the success of these projects. … The research being
conducted by Dr. Novak is definitely in the national interest, because he is crucial
member of the TNA’s projects. … With more new future projects based on Radimage
technology, his knowledge will be required for a long.” (see Exhibit 2, page 2).
 Dr. John B. Doe (U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2): “Dr. Novak has been
working closely with our TNA colleagues over the last 6 months [12 months now] on this

AME, and they have expressed their crucial dependence upon his expertise to enable the
success of this current test. … he has been a crucial member of the team … It is fair to
say that we would not be in the position we are to support this project were he not
available. … project would be seriously challenged to remain on schedule without his
inputs and guidance. For the foreseeable future, it is clear that TNA will continue to have
a critical need for his skills and especially his familiarity with this technology.” (see
Exhibit 3, page 2).
 Mr. John F. Doe (Small State-of-the-art Company): “Having an expert such Dr. Novak
available to consult with has been crucial to the success of my projects and will be a key
to the success of any future project that uses these detectors.” (see Exhibit 7, page 1).
 Mr. John C. Doe (Top U.S. Aerospace Company): “… the success of these projects would
be jeopardized if he didn’t build it and didn’t perform the calibrations. … This particular
work by Dr. Novak is important for the safety of astronauts and will aid future US space
missions.” (see Exhibit 4, page 3).
Devices which I have developed (radiation monitors and calibration facilities) are used by
government agencies TNA and TEA (Top European Agency) in space missions and other U.S.
research groups show interest in them:
 Mr. John A. Doe (TNA): “Dr. Novak’s establishment of the Radimage calibration
laboratory provides the only resource in the world recognized by TNA to calibrate and
certify the Radimage detectors that will be used on RMDP and HRDP radiation
monitoring systems.” (see Exhibit 1, page 2). … As such no other individual [than Dr.
Novak] in the United States would be qualified to prepare a Radimage device for human
spaceflight.” (see Exhibit 1, page 1).
 Ms. Jane A. Doe (TNA): “He also has built a calibration facility which is now used for
the calibration for all Radimage devices that are and will be sent into space.” (see
Exhibit 2, page 2).
 Mr. John C. Doe (Top U.S. Aerospace Company): “His expertise and development of the
new radiation detector calibration techniques and detector evaluation serves the TNA
space program and the US national interest in general, since it improves the

understanding of the detectors and their applicability for other US research groups.”
 Dr. John B. Doe (U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2): “Dr. Novak’s unique
expertise has been invaluable in preparing the Radiation Monitoring Detector Project
(RMDP) Detimage-based devices for their current deployment on the International Space
Station (ISS).” (see Exhibit 3, page 1).
 Dr. John E. Doe (Top U.S. University #1): “Dr. Novak established such a calibration
and evaluation laboratory for Radimage detectors at the U.S. Regionally Accredited
University #2, which we plan to take advantage of soon.” (see Exhibit 6, page 2).
 Dr. John D. Doe (TEA/ European University #2): “…its goal was to develop and produce
a wide dynamic range gamma-ray source for the calibration of remote sensing
spectrometers for use on present and future planetary missions (both TEA and TNA).” (see
Exhibit 5, page 2).
My research results are accepted by scientific community:
 Dr. John G. Doe (Top European University): “As a member of the scientific committee of
one international conference (Conference on Radiation Detectors – held annually)
which Dr. Novak has regularly attended, I know that his work and results are accepted
in the wider scientific community.” (see Exhibit 8, page 2).
Several experts also explained why my work is outstanding and that I am considered as an
expert in pixel detectors field – quotations are summarized later in chapter 4 at page 32.
Apart from above mentioned experts’ testimonies, I submit more evidence in the following
chapters to show my impact on the field of radiation physics.
3.5.1 Requested Advisor for Filming Documentary for PBS TV Channel

I was requested as an advising expert during filming a documentary for PBS TV about the
challenges surrounding the human colonization of Mars. I was asked to share my experience in
the field of the space radiation and space radiation measurements and to show measurements in
praxis with radiation monitors which are currently used also at International Space Station (ISS).
Filming took place at the National Space Research Organization (American City, CA) in January

2013. Video is currently in preparation process and it is planned to be published in October 2013
(see Exhibit 17).
3.5.2 Requested Publication

Dr. John I. Doe, an editor in Elsevier publisher, wrote me: “I have read with considerable
interest your work on coincidence imaging using the Radimage detector.” and based on that he
asked me to write an extensive summary article (40 – 80 pages) about Radimage detector and
its application for the book Advances in Imaging & Electron Physics (see Exhibit 12). This book,
published by Elsevier, features cutting-edge articles on the physics of electron devices
(especially semiconductor devices), particle optics, image science etc. from leading authorities,
informs and updates on all the latest developments in the fields (see Exhibit 12.1).
I accepted this request and I am currently preparing this article.
3.5.3 I Reviewed Scientific Articles of other Peers

I reviewed the articles at the International Summer School Nuclear Physics Methods and
Accelerators in Biology and Medicine held in Bratislava, Slovakia in 2009 (see Exhibit 14.1).
Conference was supported by recognized institutions, e.g. IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences
Society (IEEE NPSS), Ministry of Education of Slovakia, Slovak Physical Society etc. The list
of speakers included several leading experts in their fields from IEEE, CERN etc. (see Exhibit
14.3). The reviewed articles were published at the American Institute of Physics - AIP
Conference Proceedings Series No. 1204 (Exhibit 14.2).
3.5.4 I Was Awarded by IEEE NSS-MIC Trainee Grant

I received a Trainee Grant on the major international conference IEEE Nuclear Science
Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference 2010 (see Exhibit 15.1). This Trainee Grant is
given to promising young scientists (Ph.D. students or postdocs). It consists of direct payment of
500 USD which can be used to cover the conference fee.
IEEE (IEEE, pronounced "Eye-triple-E", stands for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers) is the world’s largest professional association dedicated to advancing technological
innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity. According to Dr. John N. Doe, the
General Chair of IEEE NSS-MIC: “The 2010 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium, Medical

Imaging Conference, and 17th International Workshop on Room-Temperature Semiconductor X-
ray and Gamma-ray Detectors were held at the Knoxville Convention Center in Knoxville,
Tennessee from October 30 to November 6, 2010. There were 1985 registered attendees from 47
countries and more than 1600 papers submitted. During the meeting there were 6 Short Courses
and 3 specialized workshops which ranged from Alternative Neutron Detectors to advances in
PET-MR. This attendance is the largest ever US [IEEE NSS] conference and second only to the
2008 [IEEE NSS] conference.” (see Exhibit 15.2).
3.5.5 Conferences, Publications and Citations

I have presented the results of my scientific work on international conferences and published in
peer-reviewed journals (see Exhibit 20.1 and Exhibit 20.5) and conference proceedings (see
Exhibit 20.2).
I also submit lists of citations from most recognized sources (Google Scholar - Exhibit 19.1,
Scopus - Exhibit 19.2 and Web of Knowledge - Exhibit 19.3). According to Scopus my papers
were cited 68 times (53 times without self-citations) (see Exhibit 19.2, page 2).
3.5.6 Member of Organizing Committee of International Conference

I was selected as a member of the organizing committee of the international Conference on
Radiation Detectors (CRD) 2009, European City, European Country #2 (see Exhibit 18, page 3).
4 It Would Be Beneficial to the USA to Waive the Labor

Certification
explains: “As a federal agency, TNA is hesitant to provide sponsorship for Permanent Residency.
However, should Dr. Novak obtain his Permanent Residency he will be a strong candidate for a
position at TNA.” (see Exhibit 2, page 2).
Radimage detection technology is the whole new direction in radiation monitoring and will be used
for more than just one future project. It means that permanent residency would be necessary to keep
expert such as myself in USA for a long time period as Jane A. Doe confirms: “With more new

future projects based on Radimage technology, his knowledge will be required for a long.” (see
Exhibit 2, page 2).
Moreover, the labor certification takes into account only minimum requirements but not
exceptional abilities or outstanding past track of individual. My professional skills, expertise and
knowledge are extraordinary and set me above level of ordinary peers in the field of pixel
detectors and radiation physics.
Jane A. Doe, leading expert from TNA, further explains why labor certification would be
inappropriate in my case: “As I stated before, Dr. Novak is the expert who provides TNA expertize
which is not available anywhere else in the US. Thus requiring labor certification will definitely
not articulate all his skills and experience.” (see Exhibit 2, page 2).
My special abilities were already demonstrated in previous chapters and supported by detailed
testimonies. Here is a summary of shortened testimonial quotations written by distinguished
experts from this field:
 Mr. John A. Doe (TNA): “The complexity associated with Radimage calibration
demands an exceptional amount of knowledge in a field of which only a few experts in
the world and only one expert in the United States, Dr. Novak, possess. Dr. Novak spent
four years in European City calibrating detectors, attaining a level of expertise well
beyond his peers. As such no other individual in the United States would be qualified to
prepare a Radimage device for human spaceflight.” (see Exhibit 1, page 1).
 Ms. Jane A. Doe (TNA): “We were very glad when we were successful to add him to our
team because he is considered to be an expert on the Radimage detectors… He has
brought great insight into the understanding of Radimage operation and made many
recommendations which have been implemented in the development upgrades of these
devices.” (see Exhibit 2, page 2).
 Mr. John C. Doe (Top U.S. Aerospace Company): “Dr Novak is considered a world
expert on the Radimage detectors, and his contribution was vital to preparation and
successful application of the ISS detectors.” (see Exhibit 4, page 2).

 Mr. John F. Doe (Small State-of-the-art Company): “… Dr. Novak has proven himself to
be an expert on the usage of the devices. This level of experience with these pixel
detectors in the United States is very limited outside of Dr. Novak.” (see Exhibit 7, page
1).
 Dr. John B. Doe (U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2): “Dr. Novak’s unique
expertise has been invaluable in preparing the Radiation Monitoring Detector Project.”
 Dr. John E. Doe (Top U.S. University #1): “Such demonstrated contributions sets Dr.
Novak apart from his peers with similar general qualifications.” (see Exhibit 6, page 2).
John C. Doe, an independent outstanding expert, Technical Fellow in Top U.S. Aerospace
Company, summarizes it: “Dr. Novak’s technical skills, work ethic and experience are
extraordinary, and he has worked on several highly important scientific projects in many world-
recognized laboratories, institutions, and organizations all over the world - TNA, TEA, CERN,
GFA. This impressive past track record of achievements and significant contribution in TNA
projects makes me believe that he will continue to be a tremendous asset and his technical
capabilities will continue to benefit greatly to our US nation now and in the future. Our
national interest would be adversely affected if his Permanent Residency application is not
approved, e.g. it would be a serious loss to the country if he cannot continue to contribute in this
significant and important research, which is in national interest and it would compromise
ongoing projects.” (see Exhibit 4, page 3).
My extraordinary skills and impressive past track record of achievements cannot be articulated in
a labor certification process. Considering only minimum qualification given by labor
certification it would lead to choosing a person with weaker skills and experience than I have.
TNA would be probably able to find some ordinary peer with PhD in physics but certainly not
someone who has built calibration laboratory because I am the only one who has done it in USA.
Such skill is beyond the scope of a labor certification process.
at the TNA, confirms: Dr. Novak’s establishment of the Radimage calibration laboratory
provides the only resource in the world recognized by TNA to calibrate and certify the

Radimage detectors that will be used on RMDP and HRDP radiation monitoring systems.” (see
Exhibit 1, page 2).
also affirms: “There are no experts on Radimage detectors in the USA nor are there any other
calibration facilities similar to the one operated by Dr. Novak.” (see Exhibit 2, page 2).
My outstanding knowledge and skills are crucial for the future success of research projects in
radiation physics (in TNA and other US research groups) but they would not be considered if
labor certification is required and thus many of these projects which are in a national interest
would be seriously impaired without my contribution. Therefore labor certification process
should not be used in my special case. On balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to
waive the job offer and labor certification requirements.
4.1 Final Recommendations from Experts in the Field

In conclusion, I provide final recommendations from outstanding experts and professors in the
radiation pixel detectors field.
at the TNA, recommends: “I recommend approval of Dr. Novak’s application for Permanent
Residency, as he is a key member of the RMDP/HRDP project.” (see Exhibit 1, page 2).
states: ”Following all arguments have I presented above, I fully support Dr. Novak’s application
for Permanent Residency.” (see Exhibit 2, page 2).
Accredited University #2, expresses his opinion: “Dr. Novak has shown himself to be an
innovative and resourceful researcher and a highly competent individual in the area of
electronic pixel detectors. He is also a very congenial fellow and a diligent worker. I dread
losing him in the future, but I recognize that person’s of this caliber will be highly sought after.
In short, I strongly recommend for the benefit of the nation in that he will continue to be an
important player in the field both for TNA in the immediately foreseeable future, but also in

allied fields of great importance to humanity, that Dr. Novak’s petition for Permanent Residency
be approved.” (see Exhibit 3, page 2).
John C. Doe, an independent outstanding expert, a Technical Fellow in Top U.S. Aerospace
Company, recommends: “In conclusion, I very strongly recommend that Dr. Novak be granted
Permanent Residency approval.” (see Exhibit 4, page 3).
European University #2, states following: “In my opinion, he has demonstrated unique expertise in
producing novel radiation sensors for space and medical applications. Consequently, I believe that
the application of his knowledge will bring tangible benefits to the United States and already serves
its national interest. For this reason, I would like to express my strongest recommendation and full
support for granting Dr. Novak Permanent Residency in the USA.” (see Exhibit 5, page 3).
Top U.S. University #1, recommends: “I truly believe that Dr. Novak’s past major achievements
in detector calibration, radiation imaging and radiation monitoring have already demonstrated
his great benefit to the United States. In order to sustain the highest level of technical progress
in the USA, it is extremely important to retain experts like Dr. Novak. In this aspect, I fully
support and recommend approval of Dr. Novak’s petition for Permanent Residency.” (see
Exhibit 6, page 2).
John F. Doe, an independent leading expert and Program Director from Small State-of-the-art
Company, states: “To ensure the success of the development of any products using pixel
detectors, the availability of experts such as Dr. Novak is critical. In fact, Dr. Novak’s
continued availability for consultation, evaluation of hardware, software and test data is critical
to the success of my FFR project as well as several projects currently on-going at TNA. I
strongly recommend, in the national interest of the United States, that Dr. Jan Novak’s
application for Permanent Residency in category EB-2 National Interest Waiver be approved.”
Dr. John G. Doe, a Senior Research Scientist, Top European University, expresses his opinion:
“Considering his unique expertise and ability it would be in the national interest of the United

States of America to allow him to continue his promising career in the US.” (see Exhibit 8, pages
2).
5 Nonimmigrant Status of me and my Dependent

I submit evidence proving my nonimmigrant status H-1B: the passport page with biometric data
(Exhibit 25.1), the current approval notice I-797A together with I-94 (Exhibit 25.2), the previous
approval notice I-797B (Exhibit 25.3), the previous I-94 (Exhibit 25.4), the previous visa sticker
(Exhibit 25.5) and all paychecks from my employer the U.S. Regionally Accredited University
#2 (Exhibit 24.2).
I also provide evidence regarding nonimmigrant status H-4 of my dependent (spouse Jana
Novakova): the passport page with the biometric data (Exhibit 26.1), the current approval notice
I-797A together with I-94 (Exhibit 26.2), the previous I-94 (Exhibit 26.3) and the previous visa
sticker (Exhibit 26.4).
Exhibit 26.5 shows our marriage certificate translated by a certified interpreter and verified by
Apostille.
6 Summary
I provided the evidence to demonstrate my extraordinary skills and unique experience in
calibration of detectors, radiation monitoring and imaging which are in the national interest. This
research field brings valuable benefits to whole U.S. nation in the form of improved national
security (warning of radiation threat, monitors for border security, nuclear power industry),
improved health (reducing radiation dose to patients, protecting astronauts against increased
radiation) and sustained top level in the space exploration.
My past track of achievements includes work in world leading laboratories and government
funded institutions (TNA, TEA, CERN, GFA, PL). I significantly contributed to TNA where I
have developed radiation monitors which currently measure radiation at the International Space
Station (ISS). These monitors, compared to old ones, have a great advantage of small size, low
weight and power demand, and they can estimate radiation effects on a human and assess a

radiation threat. I also set up the only calibration laboratory in the USA which must be used
before every radiation monitor can perform proper measurements and can be sent to the Space.
TNA and other independent experts confirmed that my expertise and contribution were crucial to
enable the success of these current projects. I also provided testimonies stating that future
nationally important projects at TNA and other U.S. research groups will be seriously impaired
without me.
As a Principal Investigator of two projects with total budget 270,000 USD at the Top European
Agency (TEA) I brought an original solution and built calibration devices used during TEA's
space missions. These devices serve to determine planets' surface composition as well as search
for evidence of life.
At PL I developed new original methods for state-of-the-art radiation imaging which

significantly reduce radiation doses on patients and can be used for more precise and safer breast
cancer detection.
I was awarded by a GFA-scholarship during my undergraduate internship at the world leading

laboratories CERN and GFA where I worked in challenging environment on detector ALICE, a
part of the largest particle accelerator in the world.
I am considered to be a world expert in Radimage detectors and I already had significant impact
on this field as I stated above. I was also requested by several institutions to be their expert
advisor in radiation pixel detectors field (TNA, Small State-of-the-art Company, PBS TV
channel). The Elsevier publisher asked me to write an article for book about detector technology.
I reviewed articles of other scientists. The IEEE organization awarded me by a Trainee Grant for
promising young scientists.
I believe that my impressive past track of research achievements justify projected future benefits
in the national interest. My exceptional abilities are significantly above ordinary peers and
cannot be articulated by labor certification process which considers only minimum requirements.
Therefore, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor
certification requirements. Without my contribution TNA‘s current and future projects based on

Radimage detectors would be significantly imperiled and TNA strongly indicated its wish to
keep me participating on those projects for long time.
I respectfully request that you consider this petition and the evidence submitted herewith. Your
attention to my case will be deeply appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration of
my request.
Very truly yours,
Jan Novak, Ph.D.
Research Associate 2
Physics Department

List of Recommendation Letters
Letter #1:
John A. Doe
Aerospace Engineer / Software Lead
Top National Agency (TNA)
Spacecraft Software Department
36845 Creek Rd
American City
CA 83728
Phone: (555) 0100
Fax: (555) 0100
E-mail: john.a.doe@tna.gov
Letter #2:
Jane A. Doe
Lead Systems Engineering & Integration
Radiation Detectors Management
36845 Creek Rd
American City
CA 83728
Phone: (555) 0102
Fax: (555) 0102
E-mail: jane.a.doe@tna.gov
Letter #3:
Dr. John B. Doe
Professor and Chairperson of Physics Department
730 Research Street
American City
CA 83700
Phone: (555) 0105
Fax: (555) 0105
E-mail: john.b.doe@usuniversity2.edu
Letter #4:
John C. Doe
Technical Fellow
Top U.S. Aerospace Company
Radiation Physics Department
7834 Main Street
American City
CA 83735
Phone: (555) 0106
Email: john.c.doe@aerospace.com
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – List of Recommendation Letters

Letter #5:
Dr. John D. Doe
Senior Physicist and Professor of Space Research (European University #2)
Central Technology Department
Top European Agency (TEA)
Some Street 768
78325 Some City
European Country #1
Email: John.D.Doe@tea.eu
Letter #6:
Dr. John E. Doe
Principal Research Physicist
Astrophysics Department, Space Exploration Institute
Top U.S. University #1
Sky City
MN, 45022
Phone: (555) 0107
Fax: (555) 0107
Email: john.e.doe@topuniversity1.edu
Letter #7:
John F. Doe
Program Director
Small State-of-the-art Company
258 Left Avenue
Left City
CA 83209
Phone: (555) 0104
Email: doe@smallcompany.com
Letter #8:
Dr. John G. Doe
Senior Research Scientist
Top European University
Top Street 873
Other City in Europe
European Country #8
Phone: (555) 0108
Fax: (555) 0108
Email: doe@european.uni
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – List of Recommendation Letters

Exhibit 1: Letter of Recommendation – John A. Doe, Aerospace Engineer / Software

Lead, Top National Agency (TNA)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter of Recommendation from John A. Doe (TNA)
Email: john.a.doe@tna.gov Top National Agency
Tel: 555.0100 Spacecraft Software Department
Fax: 555.0100 36845 Creek Rd
American City, CA 83728
June 7, 2013
USCIS
Attn: I-140
P.O.Box 660128
Dallas, TX 75266
Re: Recommendation Letter for Dr. Jan Novak

EB-2 National Interest Waiver
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please consider this letter in support of Dr. Jan Novak’s application for Permanent Residency
in the category EB2, National Interest Waiver.
I am currently employed at Top National Agency (TNA) with the job title of Aerospace
Engineer. With over 30 years of experience in the field of software engineering, I have
developed and deployed complex software systems for space-based, including the nation’s
Space Shuttle. I have a Master’s Degree in Astronautical Engineering from the U.S.
Regionally Accredited University #1 which I’ve applied to a number of projects here at TNA.
Most recently these projects have included the Space Rocket Project (SRP) flight software
and advanced Spacesuits project systems. My current assignment as Software Lead for the
Radiation Monitoring Detector Project / Hybrid Radiation Detector Project (RMDP/ HRDP)
fortunately brings me in contact with Dr. Novak.
Dr. Novak works on the TNA RMDP/HRDP project via U.S. Regionally Accredited University
#2 contract. Specifically, Dr. Novak is a member of my software team applying his extensive
scientific knowledge and research expertise to calibrate and evaluate the Radimage particle
pixel detectors used in both the RMDP and HRDP radiation detection systems. As you may
surmise, the Radimage detector is a derivative of Detimage pixel detection technology and
will enable us to deploy light-weight, low-power, dependable radiation detection systems on
spacecraft, spacesuits, and other crewed vehicles. Warning the astronauts of increased
radiation levels so they may take appropriate measures to remain safe is of paramount
importance to mission success. Hence crew safety depends on a properly calibrated
Radimage device to accurately characterize any radiation threat.
The complexity associated with Radimage calibration demands an exceptional amount of

knowledge in a field of which only a few experts in the world and only one expert in the
United States, Dr. Novak, possess. Dr. Novak spent four years in European City calibrating
detectors, attaining a level of expertise well beyond his peers. As such no other individual in
the United States would be qualified to prepare a Radimage device for human spaceflight.
Dr. Novak’s establishment of the Radimage calibration laboratory provides the only resource
1
in the world recognized by TNA to calibrate and certify the Radimage detectors that will be
used on RMDP and HRDP radiation monitoring systems.
Dr. Novak’s scientific expertise and advice on the RMDP/ HRDP project is crucial to our
continued success. With the first SRP launch slated as early as the fall of 2014, it is
imperative that Dr. Novak remain engaged with the team in order to advance the science and
technology associated with radiation detection and monitoring for human spaceflight. The
space environment is exceedingly harsh and unforgiving. In order to explore beyond low
earth orbit, advanced technologies based on Detimage will be required to understand the
radiation environment and counter radiation affects. The RMDP and HRDP radiation
detection systems are merely the first steps towards advancing those technologies.
With the development of the RMDP detector successfully coming to completion, we look
forward to the development of the more sophisticated HRDP radiation detection system. I
sincerely hope Dr. Novak will continue his outstanding work as a member of our team. His
attaining permanent residency would most definitely benefit RMDP project initiatives, ensure
team success, and contribute to human spaceflight missions well into the future.
I recommend approval of Dr. Novak’s application for Permanent Residency, as he is a key

member of the RMDP/ HRDP project.
Please feel free to contact me at any time if you require further information.
Respectfully,
John A. Doe
Software Lead, RMDP/HRDP projects

Spacecraft Software Department
Top National Agency
2
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – John A. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae

JOHN A. DOE
376 Redwood Park ▪ American City, California 83775
Work: (555) 0100 ▪ Home: (555) 0101
john.a.doe@gmail.com
SUMMARY
Senior Systems Engineer experienced in research and development of space-based systems. Over 20
years of software systems problem solving in the aerospace industry. MS in Astronautical Engineering.
EXPERIENCE
TOP NATIONAL AGENCY, American City, California 2008-present
Aerospace Engineer, Spacecraft Software Department

Performed various project lead roles including, Deputy Systems Manager for Space Rocket Systems
Management, Deputy Systems Manager for Space Rocket Flight Software, System Manager for Space
Rocket Data Management, Deputy Project Manager and Software Lead for Other Project.
Top U.S. Aerospace Company #2, American City, California 2007-2008
Systems Engineer, Spacecraft Software Department

Completed software systems engineering analysis for the Space Exploration Machine primary and back-up
avionics flight systems. Defined system requirements and identified operational constraints.
ADVANCED S-8 SYSTEMS, American City, California 2001-2007
Systems Engineering Technical Staff, Some System Research (2005 to 2007)

Initiated an independent, applied research & development project to study Some systems for long-term human
space flight missions, with the objective of building on-board flight support software.
Project Manager, Parts of Space Shuttle Development (PSSD) (2001 to 2005)

Established the role of American City Site Manager to support the TNA Parts of Space Shuttle Development
(PSSD) program, plan site workload, meet all contractual commitments, and achieve program objectives.
ENT DEVELOPMENT, Great City, California 2000-2001
Professional Services Project Manager, eCommerce Professional Services

Conceived, defined and managed a Project that provided program development, program management,
engineering insight, and systems engineering guidance to a matrixed organization of over 60 software, network,
and computer systems engineers.
TNT ENTERPRISE, Great City, California 1997-2000
Senior Systems Integrator, Software Solutions

Defined and executed the release management process to ensure systems-level solution configuration
management, version control, and quality control of an advanced, competitive suite of IT asset and problem
management software systems. The Solution Set included client-server, web server, network management,
database, and help desk software systems.
TECH SYSTEMS & SPACE, River City, Ohio 1995-1997
Principal Software Engineer, Software Engineering (SE)

Led and performed software engineering services activities associated with continuous process improvement,
software engineering and software verification and validation.
TXD and RFG SYSTEMS, American City, California 1982-1995
Development Software Engineer, Space Shuttle Software, American City, CA (1988 to 1995)
Led the LD, GS/RD, and KRP department delivering safety-critical Space Shuttle Software to TNA, while
motivating up to 23 software engineers to achieve increasing levels of quality, productivity, and safety.
Staff Software Engineer, Software Systems, American City, California (1986 to 1988)
Designed and developed a 20,000+ SLOC embedded real-time data handler application and a system user
interface, resulting in only one defect report (DR).
Senior Programmer, Electronic Card Assembly Automation, Lake City, Florida (1982 to 1986)
Designed, developed, tested, installed, and enhanced an automated electronic card assembly manufacturing
software system. Promoted to project lead.
EDUCATION
M.S. Astronautical Engineering U.S. REGIONALLY ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY #1 May 2006
B.S. Mathematics/Computer Science U.S. REGIONALLY ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY #3 May 1982
CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Manager (CM). Professional Managers Department, on the campus of U.S. Regionally
Accredited University #4, Navajo City, Utah. December 1996
Exhibit 2: Letter of Recommendation – Jane A. Doe, Lead Systems Engineering &

Integration, Top National Agency (TNA)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter of Recommendation from Jane A. Doe (TNA)
Top National Agency
Radiation Detectors Management
36845 Creek Rd
Email: jane.a.doe@tna.gov
Tel: 555-0102
Fax: 555-0102
May 31, 2013
USCIS
Attn: I-140
P.O. Box 660128
Dallas, TX 75266
RE: Permanent Residency - EB2 National Interest Waiver (Dr. Jan Novak)
Dear Immigration Officer:
Please accept this letter as a support evidence for Dr. Novak’s EB2 National Interest Waiver application for
Permanent Residency.
My name is Jane A. Doe. I am a Systems Engineer with the Top National Agency (TNA), where I have
been employed for 23 years. I currently serve in the Radiation Detectors Project of the Integration Systems
Program, where I have served as the Lead for Systems Engineering and Integration for 2 years. In this two
year period, we have defined and delivered prototype hardware for radiation protection. We just completed
our Preliminary Design Review of the instrument which will provide real-time radiation monitoring for
travel outside of Low Earth Orbit. This instrument will fly on the Space Rocket, slated to fly in 2014.
Prior to my position in the Radiation Detectors Project, I served as the Integration Lead for all Project
Interfaces in the Star Program. While serving in that role, my team of 20 engineers was successful in
defining the 13 hardware interfaces which where the building blocks of the Star Design. During my 23
years of service, I have also lead teams to conduct systems analysis of various propulsion systems for deep
space travel, as well as serve as project manager for several types of alternative propulsion systems.
It is clear today, that one of the biggest obstacles for all future manned missions will be radiation
environment in deep Space. Without protection of Earth’s magnetic field and atmosphere the radiation
represents huge threat to astronauts’ health. Moreover, the radiation in Space is not constant in time. For
example the so called Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) from Sun that can significantly increase the radiation
in interplanetary environment and can cause death of astronauts on such missions. Thus fast and precise
measurement of the radiation is one of the priorities for all future missions. For these reasons, Radiation
Protection has been identified as the top risk for our agency, TNA. Consequently, TNA is investing
heavily in the development of mitigation strategies and materials for this problem.
Several of the ongoing TNA research projects are focused on development of new measuring techniques
and new devices which could be used to do precise estimation of the radiation fluxes and risks as they
affect astronauts. The novel technologies in the field of semiconductor electronics open new possibilities in
this area. One such technology is pixel detection. The advantages of these pixel detectors are their
compactness, low mass and low power consumption. The projects which I supervise are using pixel
detector called Radimage, which represents one of the best pixel detectors on the market.
I know Dr. Novak from his work on those projects where he has been a member for the past year. We were
very glad when we were successful to add him to our team because he is considered to be an expert on the
Radimage detectors. His skill with the detectors represents four year of experience in the evaluation and
calibration of these complex devices. He has brought great insight into the understanding of Radimage
operation and made many recommendations which have been implemented in the development upgrades of
these devices. He also has built a calibration facility which is now used for the calibration for all Radimage
devices that are and will be sent into space. The calibration is indispensable for proper operation of the
radiation monitor and for precise radiation threat estimates. The facility is also used for the evaluation and
selection of those devices which exhibit optimal performance. The state-of-the-art nature of the device
means that the manufacturing yield is around 40%. When using the more stringent screening criteria
required for flying Space hardware, the yield is even lower. Not having Dr. Novak as a part of the project
would cause significant delay and jeopardize the success of these projects. There are no experts on
Radimage detectors in the USA nor are there any other calibration facilities similar to the one operated by
Dr. Novak.
The research being conducted by Dr. Novak is definitely in the national interest, because he is crucial
member of the TNA’s projects. It is also clear that these projects are not regional, but will give benefit to
the whole nation, not only by supporting the future manned flights, but also by transferring these
technologies “back to Earth”. Applicability of precise radiation monitors for border security is also huge. It
can be also foreseen that such radiation monitors could be used by law-enforcement forces in order to
monitor radiation threat and provide early warnings in the case of accident or attack. It has to be also
pointed out that Dr. Novak cannot be easily replaced by other peers from his area. As I stated before, Dr.
Novak is the expert who provides TNA expertize which is not available anywhere else in the US. Thus
requiring labor certification will definitely not articulate all his skills and experience.
As a federal agency, TNA is hesitant to provide sponsorship for Permanent Residency. However, should
Dr. Novak obtain his Permanent Residency he will be a strong candidate for a position at TNA. With more
new future projects based on Radimage technology, his knowledge will be required for a long.
Following all arguments have I presented above, I fully support Dr. Novak’s application for Permanent
Residency.
Please, do not hesitate to contact me, if you should have any additional questions.
Kind Regards,
Jane A. Doe
Radiation Detectors Project/Lead Systems Engineering & Integration
Top National Agency
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Jane A. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae

Jane A. Doe
8226 Memorial Avenue
Beartown, CA 83418 US
Mobile: 555-0103
Day Phone: 555-0102
Email: Jane.A.Doe@tna.gov
WORK EXPERIENCE
American City, CA United States 09/2011 - Present
Radiation Detectors SE&I Lead
Set up and manage Systems Engineering and Design Integration office for Radiation Detectors project within the
Integration Systems Program. Within this office, we have implemented Settings and Data Management, Systems
Engineering, Risk Management and Safety and Quality Assurance. Manages a team of 10 systems engineers,
integration engineers, quality and safety engineers, as well as configuration management specialists to ensure all
functions are implemented successfully.
Have been responsible for planning and implementation of Radiation Monitoring Detector Project as a flight
payload on the DFG-3 flight of the Space Rocket Project (SRP). Requirements have been established, design
reviews (through the Critical Design Review) have been successfully completed. Requirements Verification and
Validation plans have been established. In addition, Hazards Analysis has been conducted. Currently planning a
2014 launch of the payload.
In addition, I am responsible for the SE&I with a project known as the Improved Particle Spectrometer (IPS) that is
being built by TNA. I also manage the Systems Engineering function for a Storm Protection project being
developed at TNA.
Our project was recently audited by an external ACR auditing firm and received no findings.
TNA 10/2006 - 09/2011

American City, CA United States
SE&I Requirements, Validation and Analysis Lead
While serving in the Star SE&I office, most recently has served as the lead for all 14 Star Interfaces. In this role,
managed the Interface Managers, their technical working groups and coordinated the maintenance and update of the
program's technical baseline through the Interface Control Unit, the DIT and the DERG. She led a team of 15
individuals in this effort,
Prior to that appointment; she served as the Team Leader. The responsibilities included management of the Star
Integrated Architecture (SIA) as well as management of the Architecture Requirement Agreement team.
TNA 02/2000 - 10/2006

Sugar City, AL United States
Deputy Project Manager & Technology Development
Project's objective was to work risk reduction activities for an integrated main and reaction control propulsion
system utilizing Environmental Fuels focused presently on Liquid Gas (LG) propellants, as well as advance state-of-
the art for handling and management of cryogenic fluids for long term storage applications.
Responsibilities include day-to-day project management responsibility:
- Managing budget, schedule, resource allocation, and reporting.
- Develop and maintain Project Management Plan, work resource issues within the center and across all other
center’s working the project.
- Work with Technology Experts in materials, propulsion, propellant, health management testing of technology
applications and the associated facility/test cell planning,
- Work with program to define resource requirements for project across multiple centers
-Work to support and enhance communication between project/program and center management.
- Provide data for input into the Program RTC cycles on a yearly basis. Additionally, keep FGT management posted
as Research Technology Development Program (RDTP) data arrives from Congressional committees and/or the
Enterprise.
- Present at Program Quarterly reviews to Center, Program and Headquarters (HQ) management and at Program
Leadership Reviews on an annual basis.
-Provide data for Project Department's Program Design (PDPD) efforts, including resource commitment,
obligations, and cost phasing plans.
TNA 08/1990 - 07/2000

Deer City, MI United States
Systems Engineer
Lead Systems Engineer for Space Vehicle Design:
-Developed Concept of Operations document for proposed vehicle. Proposed vehicle focused on smaller payload
capacity (<500 lbs) for Academic/Research oriented missions.
- Developed Preliminary System Requirements document for the proposed vehicle systems.
- Developed Payload Requirements document for a AB class Launch vehicle based upon solicitation of
needs/requirements of the Government Research and Science Society.
Systems Engineer for Air Driven Engine ADEC:
- Designed Systems Requirements Document for the engine system
Systems Engineering Lab Lead for Space Launch Vehicle:
- Wrote Project Requirements Document, led budget and schedule exercises to respond to Program and Agency
requests
- Supported Orbital Engine System project. Developed and implemented a "Requirements, Validation and
Agreement" database for the project which was delivered to the Airbiz Inc. at Systems Requirements Design
EDUCATION
U.S. Regionally Accredited University #5, CO United States
Master's Degree 03/1990
GPA: 4.0 of a maximum 4.0
Credits Earned: 150 Quarter hours
Major: Engineering Minor: Math Honors: Summa Cum Laude
Relevant Coursework, Licenses and Certifications:
Course work focused in Vibration/Dynamics/Acoustics.
U.S. Regionally Accredited University #5, CO United States
Bachelor's Degree 06/1982
GPA: 3.65 of a maximum 4.0
Credits Earned: 260 Quarter hours
Major: Math Minor: Chemistry/Biology Honors: Magna Cum Laude
AWARDS
Outstanding Service August 2012 – successful delivery of HQ milestones for Radiation Detectors Project.
Group Achievement Award, Sept 2003 - Successful FY03 Solicitation, KJ-03-TRP-IFG-08 for PR&T Project.
Group Achievement Award, Sept 2002 - Successful FY02 Implementation of PR&T Project.
Special Service Award, Sept 2001 - Service on the 4nd Generation Evaluation Team.
Special Service Award, May 1997 - Timely development and implementation of Time Line For ENC KRT Engine
System.
TNA Research & Technology Award, June 1994 - System Development.
TNA Special Service Award, June 1993 - Development of data diagnostic system.
TNA Special Service Award, June 1992 - Development and Implementation of Safety and Diagnostic Systems
Management.
U.S. Regionally Accredited University #5, Mechanical Engineering Outstanding Graduate Student Award, March
1990- for work done in support of research and teaching within the department.
Exhibit 3: Letter of Recommendation – Dr. John B. Doe, Professor and Chairperson

of Physics Department, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter of Recommendation from Dr. John B. Doe (U.S. University #2)
Department of Physics American City, CA 83700
(555) 0105
Email: john.b.doe@usuniversity2.edu Fax: (555) 0105
October 29, 2012

U.S.CIS
Attn: I-140
P.O. Box 660128
Dallas, TX 75266
Ref: Advanced Degree Professional Opinion Letter

National Interest Waiver
Dr. Jan Novak
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am pleased to write this letter of support for Dr. Jan Novak’s petition for a National Interest
Waiver with respect to his application for Permanent Residency. I am a Professor of Physics and
the Department Chairperson in the Physics Department at the U.S. Regionally Accredited
University #2. I have received federal research funding during my career in excess of $13 Million
from Federal agencies including Top National Agency (TNA) and Another National Agency. My
research specialties include astro-particle physics, space radiation dosimetry, particle detector
development, relativistic heavy ion physics, and particle transport simulation. I have known Dr.
Novak since 2008 and I am familiar with his research in the area of the active pixel-based charged
particle detectors, and in particular his work with the Detimage pixel detectors. In addition, as
Department Chair, I have been serving for the past year as his mentor for his current post-doctoral
fellowship in the Physics Department at the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2.
Having done his Ph.D. thesis research with our Detimage collaborators at the Physics Laboratory
of the Average European Technical University in European City, Dr. Novak’s unique expertise
has been invaluable in preparing the Radiation Monitoring Detector Project (RMDP) Detimage-
based devices for their current deployment on the International Space Station (ISS) as part of an
Advanced Monitor Experiment (AME). Detimage is the product of a European Laboratory for
Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland-based Collaboration, of which the U.S.
Regionally Accredited University #2 is one of only two U.S. institutions that are members. The
other member is the Space Exploration Institute at Top U.S. University #1, but their interests are
in imaging rather than space radiation dosimetry, meaning that expertise with this particular
technology is currently lacking in the U.S. Dr. Novak has been working closely with our TNA
colleagues over the last 6 months on this AME, and they have expressed their crucial dependence
upon his expertise to enable the success of this current test. In addition he has assembled by
himself the required a calibration facility for this spaceflight hardware here on the U.S. Regionally
Accredited University #2 campus and he has been a crucial member of the team that is preparing
the software for analysis of the data that has just started to arrive from those units. It is fair to say
that we would not be in the position we are to support this project were he not available.
Beyond the current deployment of this technology on the ISS, Dr. Novak has become a critical
person advising our TNA colleagues on the design and development of the next generation of
operational radiation monitoring devices that are to be deployed on the new U.S. manned
spacecraft, the Space Rocket. It is clear that the project would be seriously challenged to remain
on schedule without his inputs and guidance.
For the foreseeable future, it is clear that TNA will continue to have a critical need for his skills
and especially his familiarity with this technology. They have been impressed enough to indicate
to me their interest in hiring him permanently should he attain Permanent Residency status. While
that prospect by itself argues strongly for the approval of his petition, there are other potential
uses for this technology in the area of medical imaging that are just beginning to be developed
here in the U.S. The Detimage technology provides the prospect of delivering the capability to
produce what are effectively “color” x-ray images. A number of U.S. companies are investigating
basing next generation devices on this technology, making Dr. Novak’s value to them potentially
very great. The newest generation of the technology is just becoming available now, and bringing
it to bear to improve a number of issues with respect to the current medical imaging technology is
going to become increasingly important in the coming years.
Dr, Novak has shown himself to be an innovative and resourceful researcher and a highly
competent individual in the area of electronic pixel detectors. He is also a very congenial fellow
and a diligent worker. I dread losing him in the future, but I recognize that person’s of this caliber
will be highly sought after.
In short, I strongly recommend for the benefit of the nation in that he will continue to be an
important player in the field both for TNA in the immediately foreseeable future, but also in allied
fields of great importance to humanity, that Dr. Novak’s petition for Permanent Residency be
approved. Please do not hesitate to contact me further should you require any further information.
Respectfully,
John B. Doe
Professor and Chairperson
Physics Department
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Dr. John B. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
John B. Doe
Education:
Ph.D. in Physics - U.S. Regionally Accredited University #6, Port City, NM (1975)
M.A. in Physics - U.S. Regionally Accredited University #6, Port City, NM (1971)
B.S. in Physics - U.S. Regionally Accredited University #7, Tornado City, OK (1970)
Professional Experience:
2009-present
Outstanding Professor of Physics
1998-present
Chairperson, Physics Department, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2
1993-present
Professor of Physics, Physics Department, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2 - teaching and
research (particle detectors, space dosimetry, heavy ion physics, astrophysics)
1984-1993
Associate Professor of Physics, Physics Department, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2
1978-1984
Assistant Professor of Physics, Physics Department, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2
1975-1978
Postdoctoral Fellow, Physics Department, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2
Awards:
2009: Outstanding Professor of Physics, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2

2003: Top National Agency Outstanding Service Award
1996: Outstanding Educator Award
1995: Physics Teaching Excellence Award
1993: Teaching Excellence Award, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2
1991: Distinguished Educator, National Honor Society
Funding:
Received total funds over $ 13,000,000 from federal institutions including Top National Agency,
Another National Agency (30x Principal Investigator, 10x Co-Investigator)
Memberships:
American Physical Society

Sigma Pi Sigma
Sigma Xi
IEEE
Supervisor:
10 Ph.D. Thesis, 2 Masters Thesis
Invited Talks & Publications:
Over 40 talks since 2001
Over 400 journal publications

Exhibit 4: Letter of Recommendation – John C. Doe, Technical Fellow, Top U.S.

Aerospace Company
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter of Recommendation from John C. Doe (Top U.S. Aerospace Company)
7834 Main Street
Tel: 555/0106
Email: john.c.doe@aerospace.com
March 11, 2013
USCIS
Attn: I-140
P.O.Box 660128
Dallas, TX 75266
Re: Recommendation Letter to Support Dr. Jan Novak’s Application for Permanent
Residency (National Interest Waiver)
Dear USCIS Adjudicator:
I am writing a recommendation letter for Dr. Novak’s Permanent Residency application in

category EB-2 National Interest Waiver, although I personally do not know Dr. Novak and
have no personal ties to him. I have never worked with Dr. Novak and I consider there are no
existing conflicts of interest. In addition, I feel I am eminently and sufficiently qualified to
evaluate and judge that Dr. Novak’s work is in the national interest.
As an introduction of myself, my name is John C. Doe, Technical Fellow, Top U.S.

Aerospace Company, Radiation Physics Department, American City, CA 83735. I am an
internationally-recognized expert in the field of radiation physics with 40+ years of experience
in the areas of the space radiation environments, high-energy particle transport and
attenuation through materials, active and passive dosimetry, spacecraft, satellite, and
anatomical modeling/shielding analyses, radiation detection instrumentation, biological and
physical effects, and related data analyses. I have been a Co-Investigator on a number of
TNA (Top National Agency) / TEA (Top European Agency) radiation experiments including
the TNA Space Radiation Project, the TNA Radiation Protection Project flown on both the
Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, the Radiation Environment Test on the
Venus spacecraft, and the Radiation Research Experiment flown on the ISS. I have authored
more than 250 technical and scientific publications, and have been a science advisor/mentor
for MS/PhD students at U.S. Regionally Accredited University #8, U.S. Regionally Accredited
University #9, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #10, U.S. Regionally Accredited
University #1, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2, and U.S. Regionally Accredited
University #11. I serve on the Physics Committee for the U.S. Regionally Accredited
University #12 and the Research Committee for the U.S. Regionally Accredited University
#13, TNA Institute for Space Radiation (ISR). I received a BS and MS in Physics/Math from
U.S. Regionally Accredited University #14, and a Ph.D. Candidate, Nuclear Engineering, U.S.
Regionally Accredited University #15. I am also the recipient of the Special Honor Award for
Space Mission Success, and several TNA, International Military Alliance, U.S. Aerospace
Society (USAS), and U.S. Aerospace Association (USAA) awards and honors. In 2003 I
received a TNA Special Honor Space Mission Achievement Award for scientific advice and
space radiation analyses of the Radiation Protection Project that flew on Space Shuttle and
ISS. I am an USAS Associate Fellow and a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) professional societies.
I am aware of Dr. Novak’s outstanding work in the field of space radiation monitoring. Dr.
Novak and I recently met at Conference on Space Radiation on the International Space
Station (ISS) in Nice City, CA last year where he gave a talk on advanced radiation dosimetry
measurements and data analysis using tracking information from pixel radiation detectors.
This was a very important contribution and is an example of the basic requirement of
monitoring human (astronaut) space radiation exposures and providing radiation health
protection, which again is in the national interest.
There are several benefits of the using of pixel radiation detector technology and especially
the Radimage detector, in radiation monitoring by providing more information about the very
complex radiation environment, the directionality of the space radiation, and its particle
composition. This technology has proven to be extremely useful to complement the existing
space radiation detectors on the ISS. The results of this project are so promising that two
addition projects using same technology are currently underway at TNA and TEA. There are
a number of challenges connected with using pixel detectors in that they require
sophisticated energy calibration; there are only few laboratories able to calibrate Radimage
detectors in the world and he established one of them! It is first and only calibration
laboratory of this type in the US.
Dr Novak is considered a world expert on the Radimage detectors, and his contribution was
vital to preparation and successful application of the ISS detectors previously mentioned. He
built the calibration station used for pre-flight calibration of every Radimage detector used by
TNA. Because of the severity of the calibration process; the success of these projects would
be jeopardized if he didn’t build it and didn’t perform the calibrations. He evaluated all of the
detectors and it is important to select perfect detectors for flight due to the state-of-the-art
nature of the detectors.
His expertise and development of the new radiation detector calibration techniques and
detector evaluation serves the TNA space program and the US national interest in general,
since it improves the understanding of the detectors and their applicability for other US
research groups. This particular work by Dr. Novak is important for the safety of astronauts
and will aid future US space missions. But it may have much more wide impact. For example,
in national safety it can be used for monitoring of radiation and for more sensitive security
threat detection. These particular detectors are also used for radiation imaging where the
energy sensitivity is used for so called “color” imaging, which opens up new possible
applications.
Dr. Novak’s technical skills, work ethic and experience are extraordinary, and he has worked
on several highly important scientific projects in many world-recognized laboratories,
institutions, and organizations all over the world - TNA, TEA, CERN, GFA (German Federal
Agency). This impressive past track record of achievements and significant contribution in
TNA projects makes me believe that he will continue to be a tremendous asset and his
technical capabilities will continue to benefit greatly to our US nation now and in the future.
Our national interest would be adversely affected if his Permanent Residency application
is not approved, e.g. it would be a serious loss to the country if he cannot continue to
contribute in this significant and important research, which is in national interest and it would
compromise ongoing projects.
In conclusion, I very strongly recommend that Dr. Novak be granted Permanent

Residency approval, and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
John C. Doe
Top U.S. Aerospace Company Technical Fellow
739/259-7421
john.c.doe@aerospace.com
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – John C. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae

John C. Doe
Technical Fellow
American City
CA 83735
SUMMARY
World recognized expert in the field of radiation physics with 40+ years of experience in the areas of:
 space radiation environments
 high-energy particle transport and attenuation through materials
 active and passive dosimetry
 spacecraft, satellite, and anatomical modeling/shielding analyses
 radiation detection instrumentation
 biological and physical effects, and related data analyses
PROJECTS
Co-Investigator on a number of TNA (Top National Agency) / TEA (Top European Agency) radiation
experiments including:
 TNA Space Radiation Project and TNA Radiation Protection Project flown on both the Space
Shuttle and the International Space Station
 Radiation Environment Test on the Venus spacecraft
 Radiation Research Experiment flown on the ISS
AWARDS
 Special Honor Award for Space Mission Success

 several TNA, International Military Alliance, U.S. Aerospace Society (USAS), and U.S.
Aerospace Association (USAA) awards and honors
 TNA Special Honor Space Mission Achievement Award for scientific advice and space
radiation analyses of the Radiation Protection Project that flew on Space Shuttle and ISS
EDUCATION
Ph.D. Candidate, Nuclear Engineering, U.S. Regionally Accredited University #15

1964 - MS in Physics/Math from U.S. Regionally Accredited University #14
1962 - BS in Physics/Math from U.S. Regionally Accredited University #14
PUBLICATIONS
Over 250 publications
MENTORING
Advisor or mentor for MS/PhD students at:

 U.S. Regionally Accredited University #1
COMMITTEES & MEMBERSHIPS
 Physics Committee for the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #12

 Research Committee for the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #13
 Research Committee for the TNA Institute for Space Radiation (ISR)
 U.S. Aerospace Society (USAS) Associate Fellow
 Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Exhibit 5: Letter of Recommendation – Dr. John D. Doe, Senior Physicist / Professor

of Space Research (European University #2), Top European Agency (TEA)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter of Recommendation from Dr. John D. Doe (TEA)
Central Technology Department,
Top European Agency,
Some Street 768,
78325 Some City,
European Country #1
United States Immigration Service,

USCIS
Attn: I-140
P.O. Box 660128
Dallas, TX 75266
USA
Some City, 22nd March 2013
Subject: Permanent Residency Petition for Dr. Jan Novak (EB-2 National Interest
Waiver)
Dear Sir,
This letter is provided in support of Dr. Jan Novak’s application for United States
Permanent Residency under the EB-2 National Interest Waiver category.
I am a senior physicist of the Top European Agency (TEA) working at the

European Agency Central Technology Department (EACTD) located in Some
City, European Country #1. I have worked in space research for more than 30
years and specialize in radiation detection and measurement. I received my PhD
degree in Astrophysics from the European University #1 and am currently a
Senior Physicist at the Top European Agency and am an honorary Professor of
Space Research at the European University #2. Before acquiring my present
position, I held research positions in several US universities and government
institutions: Specifically, as a Top National Science Organization, Resident
Research Associate at Top National Agency (TNA) in Noname City, NE, as a
Project Scientist at the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #16's Space
Sciences Center in Whatever City, IL and as a Research Associate in the Physics
Department of U.S. Regionally Accredited University #17 in Another City, SC. I
have published over 270 scientific papers in major physics journals and received
grants in excess of a million euros equivalent. I currently work on the
development and exploitation of new technologies for space applications and
coordinate industrial activities in the new member states of TEA (European
Country #2, European Country #3, European Country #4, European Country #5
and European Country #6).
I have known Dr. Novak personally for more than five years through his work,
for, and on behalf of the Top European Agency. As well as consulting work, he
has been the Principal Investigator of two activities (projects) funded by TEA for
which I was the TEA Technical Officer. The first contract entitled “Calibration
Source” was awarded in 2010 and its goal was to develop and produce a wide
dynamic range gamma-ray source for the calibration of remote sensing
spectrometers for use on present and future planetary missions (both TEA and
TNA).
The measurement of gamma rays emanating from a planets surface, allows us to

determine surface composition as well as search for evidence of life.
Consequently, the ability to accurately calibrate these extremely complex sensors
cannot be overstated. The broad energy range required cannot be covered by a
conventional technique and combinations of techniques merely prolongs the
calibration procedure and increases costs. Moreover, the accumulated systematic
errors degrade the quality of the results. Dr. Novak arrived at an original solution
and designed and built a calibration station (source) which covers the whole
energy range and significantly reduces the calibration time whilst simultaneously
significantly increasing the precision or quality of the measurements. In addition,
the source was delivered on time (18 months), within budget (150,000 euro) and
specification. Based on this work, he was awarded an additional contract (68,000
euro) to produce a portable source to calibrate the remote sensing geochemistry
package on-board the Eternity spacecraft - TEA’s interdisciplinary mission to
the planet Venus scheduled for launch in 2016. Again the activity was concluded
within specification, schedule and budget. The spacecraft is currently undergoing
integration and test, both at TEA’s test facilities and at the spacecraft’s prime
contractors test facilities. The test source has now been certified by TEA and is
available to the wider space community.
Based on his expertise in radiation detection and measurement, Dr. Novak was
subsequently invited to take part in one of TEA’s measurement campaigns at the
SYNC synchrotron research facility in Other City, European Country #7. The
purpose was to demonstrate by detailed photon metrology, the effectiveness of a
new radiation monitor, prior to the Agencies commitment to build a flight model.
The tests were highly successful and a flight device was built. It is scheduled to
be launched on TEA’s Planet-X spacecraft in August 2014.
Using the experience gained on TEA programmes and in cooperation with

colleagues from European City and TNA he has developed a new generation of
radiation monitor which is currently being used on the International Space
Station for astronaut safety. The monitor is based on semiconductor pixel
technology and shows great promise, both in radiation physics and medical
applications. Consequently, he now works for the U.S. Regionally Accredited
University #2 in which he continues as a promising and very active researcher in
Dr. John B. Doe’s group in the field of space dosimetry.
In my opinion, he has demonstrated unique expertise in producing novel

radiation sensors for space and medical applications. Consequently, I believe that
the application of his knowledge will bring tangible benefits to the United States
and already serves its national interest. For this reason, I would like to express
my strongest recommendation and full support for granting Dr. Novak Permanent
Residency in the USA.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. John D. Doe

Senior Physicist,
Top European Agency
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Dr. John D. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
John D. Doe
Expertise
Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Synchrotron physics,

Radiation Physics, Space Sciences, Semiconductor Physics, Detectors
Education
1975-1978
European University #1 – PhD in Astrophysics
Professional History
1994-present
Senior Physicist
Top European Agency, European Agency Central Technology Department, Some City,
European Country #1
1990-1994
Space Observation Scientist
European University #2, Space Research Institute, Department of Physics, Second City,
European Country #8
1987-1989
Resident Research Associate
Top National Agency, Top National Science Organization, Noname City, NE, USA
1984-1987
Project Scientist
U.S. Regionally Accredited University #16, Space Sciences Center, Whatever City, IL,
USA
1978-1984
Research Associate
U.S. Regionally Accredited University #17, Physics Department, Another City, SC, USA
Grants
Received grants in excess of a million euros.
Awards
1987
Scholarship (Resident Research Associate)
Top National Agency, Top National Science Organization, Noname City, NE, USA
Publications
Published over 270 scientific papers in major physics journals.

Exhibit 6: Letter of Recommendation – Dr. John E. Doe, Principal Research

Physicist, Top U.S. University #1
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter of Recommendation from Dr. John E. Doe (Top U.S. University #1)
Astrophysics Department
Space Exploration Institute
Sky City, Minnesota, 45022
TEL: (555) 0107
FAX: (555) 0107
john.e.doe@topuniversity1.edu
March 15, 2013

USCIS
Attn: I-140
P.O.Box 660128
Dallas, TX 75266
Re: Letter of support for Dr. Jan Novak’s immigration application (National Interest Waiver)
To Whom It May Concern:
It is my great pleasure to write this letter to support Dr. Novak’s application for permanent resident
status in the United States (EB-2 National Interest Waiver). I am writing to provide evidence that Dr.
Novak’s research is in the national interest of our country.
First, let me shortly introduce myself. I earned my Ph.D. in Astrophysics from Top U.S. University #2
and a B.A. degree in Physics from the Top U.S. University #1. I am a Principal Research Physicist at
Top U.S. University #1. I am also the President of Physics Research Company which is an organization
that provides contract services for independent researchers. Finally, I am currently a Senior Scientist at
Detector Development Company which is manufacturer of the state-of-the-art imaging photon detectors.
My research focus concerns the development of photon and particle imaging detectors and their
application to space-based astronomical imaging and ground based biology and radiography
experiments. I contributed in development of very sensitive photon detectors for Top National Agency
(TNA) space astronomy missions, e.g. the Hubble Space Telescope and the Explore-X mission currently
on its way to Mercury. I am currently the Principal Investigator on a $1.3 million dollar TNA grant to
develop specialized electronics for microchannel plate detectors for space-based telescopes.
Although, I have never worked with Dr. Novak, I became aware of him through his research of
detectors. Because our research fields are very similar, I have met Dr. Novak at many international
conferences where we discussed our research. Hence, I can provide an objective opinion on his research
achievements.
Dr. Novak’s research is very original and shows his excellent knowledge of detector and imaging
techniques. One of his significant and original contributions was development of new phase contrast
imaging technique. This proposed modality uses state-of-the-art X-ray detectors called “Radimage”
which allow imaging techniques no other detector can. Their unlimited dynamic range and noiseless
readout operation is beneficial especially for low energy X-ray imaging of low absorbing materials such
as soft tissues in human body and other animal models. The advantage of this technique is reduction of
the X-ray dose necessary to obtain a quality picture and thus suppressing negative effects on the patient.
He also developed other original radiation imaging techniques based on the state-of-the-art pixel
detectors such as laminography, X-ray fluorescence, electron imaging etc. Dr. Novak has successfully
published these new radiation techniques in several peer reviewed journals.
One of the biggest advantages of the Radimage detector which distinguishes it from other devices is the
possibility to measure deposited energy in each pixel. In order to be able to obtain a precise
measurement, the energy calibration of each pixel has to be performed. The Radimage detector has more
than 65,000 pixels, hence the calibration procedure is very complex and there are only few laboratories
around the world that are capable to perform this task. Dr. Novak established such a calibration and
evaluation laboratory for Radimage detectors at the U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2, which we
plan to take advantage of soon. It is worth mentioning that it is the only laboratory of this kind in the
USA. Such demonstrated contributions sets Dr. Novak apart from his peers with similar general
qualifications.
Dr. Novak’s calibration procedure is very important because it opens up possibilities for yet more types
of applications. Radiation monitoring serves as an example of one of these applications. Calibrated
devices can be used as precise radiation monitors measuring the energy of interacting particles and
allowing calculations of the radiation effects (dose) on humans.
The national importance of the development of these new radiation monitors can be seen by the strong
interest of many government laboratories, including TNA. Dr. Novak is now working in the leading
laboratory in this area where he plays a significant role in ongoing TNA projects for space radiation
monitoring. The goal of these projects is to improve and simplify the radiation monitoring in space
where bulky, older monitors will soon be replaced by small portable devices based on pixel detectors. It
can be expected that these new radiation monitors will also be used in other areas, e.g. national safety
for borders protection or in the event of disaster.
I truly believe that Dr. Novak’s past major achievements in detector calibration, radiation imaging and
radiation monitoring have already demonstrated his great benefit to the United States. In order to sustain
the highest level of technical progress in the USA, it is extremely important to retain experts like Dr.
Novak. In this aspect, I fully support and recommend approval of Dr. Novak’s petition for Permanent
Residency.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address/email above.
Sincerely,
Dr. John E. Doe

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Dr. John E. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
Dr. John E. Doe
Space Exploration Institute
7223 Evil Rd
Top U.S. University #1
Sky City
MN 45022
TEL: (555) 0107
FAX: (555) 0107
Email: john.e.doe@topuniversity1.edu
Research:
Development of photon and particle imaging detectors and their application to space-based
astronomical imaging and ground based biology and radiography experiments.
(a) Professional Preparation
1982 Ph.D. in Astrophysics, Top U.S. University #2

1977 B.A. in Physics, Top U.S. University #1
(b) Appointments
Academic
2000-Present Principal Research Physicist, Space Exploration Institute, Top U.S. University #1
1994-2000 Associate Research Physicist, Space Exploration Institute, Top U.S. University #1
1985-1994 Assistant Research Physicist, Space Exploration Institute, Top U.S. University #1
Commercial
1992-Present Senior Scientist, Detector Development Company

1992-Present President, Physics Research Company
(c) Publications
More than 200 journal publications
(d) Current Grant
$1.3 million (Principal Investigator), Top National Agency (TNA) – development of specialized
electronics for microchannel plate detectors for space-based telescopes
Exhibit 7: Letter of Recommendation – John F. Doe, Program Director, Small State-

of-the-art Company
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter of Recommendation from John F. Doe (Small Company)
John F. Doe
258 Left Avenue
Left City, CA 83209
(555) 0104
Email: doe@smallcompany.com
March 19, 2013
USCIS
Attn: I-140
P.O.Box 660128
Dallas, TX 75266
Re: Recommendation letter for Permanent Residency Application of Dr. Jan Novak
EB-2 National Interest Waiver
Dear USCIS Officer,
I am writing this letter of support for Dr. Jan Novak with respect to his Permanent Residency
application in category EB-2 National Interest Waiver. I am employed by a small business
located just north of American City, CA: Small State-of-the-art Company. My official title is
Program Director and my responsibilities include project management, product development
and business management. I have been the principle investigator on numerous Federally
Funded Research (FFR) projects and grants with Top National Agency (TNA), Department of
U.S. Government and Agency of Other Department of U.S. Government. I have executed and
managed projects totaling well over $10 million. Additionally, I hold a secret level security
clearance for my work in Other Research. Most recently I have been working as the Principle
Investigator on an FFR project with TNA to develop a personal dosimeter for astronauts.
I first met Dr. Novak in the summer of 2012 in the course of my work on the personal
dosimeter for TNA. I have known of Dr. Novak since 2011 having read several of his papers
on pixel detectors. While I do not know Dr. Novak very well personally, I am very familiar
with his knowledge of pixel detectors, specifically the Detimage/Radimage family of
detectors. Having worked with these detectors extensively and participating in the
development of hardware and software for interfacing to the detectors, Dr. Novak has
proven himself to be an expert on the usage of the devices. This level of experience with
these pixel detectors in the United States is very limited outside of Dr. Novak. Having an
expert such Dr. Novak available to consult with has been crucial to the success of my
projects and will be a key to the success of any future project that uses these detectors.
Space radiation dosimetry is a key element to space exploration. The features and
capabilities of pixel detectors make them ideal candidates for usage in long term space
exploration. The fact that TNA has baselined this technology for area monitoring on the
Space Rocket spacecraft is a testament to its capabilities. While keeping the US at the
forefront of space exploration is of great National Interest, the applications for these
detectors go beyond space radiation dosimetry. These applications include, but are not
limited to, personal radiation monitoring for workers in the nuclear power industry, radiation
area monitoring for the nuclear power industry, radiation survey instruments for first
responders to nuclear accidents, and shipping container monitoring for detection of
radioactive material. It is easy to see how these applications are of critical national interest.
To ensure the success of the development of any products using pixel detectors, the
availability of experts such as Dr. Novak is critical. In fact, Dr. Novak’s continued availability
for consultation, evaluation of hardware, software and test data is critical to the success of
my FFR project as well as several projects currently on-going at TNA.
In short, I strongly recommend, in the national interest of the United States, that Dr. Jan
Novak’s application for Permanent Residency in category EB-2 National Interest Waiver be
approved. I can be reached by phone or email if any further information is necessary.
Kind regards,
John F. Doe
Program Director
Small State-of-the-art Company
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – John F. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae

JOHN F. DOE – PROGRAM DIRECTOR
Education: B.S., Electrical Engineering, Top U.S. University #3 1997
Experience:
Program Director, Small State-of-the-art Company 1999-Present
 Principle Investigator and Product Development Manager of 12 Federally Funded Research
(FFR) projects
 Development of devices for spacecraft and International Space Station
 Lead engineer for three Other Space Oriented Projects
Design Engineer, Small State-of-the-art Company 1997-1999
 Design and development of multiple software and hardware related to communication and
networking
Specialized Knowledge and Skills

 Programming Languages: C/C++, VBScript, Matlab, 68K Assembly, TMS320 Assembly
 Software: Microsoft Project, Microsoft Access, Microsoft Visual Studio, Microsoft Visio, Altium
Designer
 Other: Object Oriented Programming, Configuration Management
Exhibit 8: Letter of Recommendation – Dr. John G. Doe, Senior Research Scientist,

Top European University
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter of Recommendation from Dr. John G. Doe (Top EU University)
Dr. John G. Doe
Tel: (555) 0108
Fax: (555) 0108
03 April 2012
U.S.CIS
Attn: I-140
P.O. Box 660128
Dallas, TX 75266
Re: National Interest Waiver
Dear Sir/Madam,
It is a pleasure to write this letter of support for Dr. Novak’s petition for a
National Interest Waiver Permanent Residency application. I am a senior
research scientist at the Top European University. As a scientist involved in
structural biology I have always been interested in new physical
techniques, including X-Ray and Electron detectors. I have met Dr. Novak
at several international conferences and at his Physics Laboratory in
European City; we have had numerous discussions on the possibilities of
exploiting state-of-the-art hybrid pixel detectors in different applications.
Physics Laboratory, Average European Technical University in European
City, where Dr. Novak was employed for four years, is one of the leading
international institutes in this new field of semiconductor detector
technology. Dr. Novak has contributed significantly towards a better
understanding of this detector technology and actively developed new
imaging methodologies. As a member of the scientific committee of one
international conference (Conference on Radiation Detectors – held
annually), which Dr. Novak has regularly attended, I know that his work and
results are accepted in the wider scientific community. This can be seen in
the increasing number of citations of his work. From his past performance I
am confident that Dr. Novak will prove to be a great asset in any project
involving medical imaging. Considering his unique expertise and ability it
would be in the national interest of the United States of America to allow
him continue his promising career in US.
If you have further queries I would be happy to answer directly.
Dr. John G. Doe

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Dr. John G. Doe’s Curriculum Vitae
Dr. John G. Doe
Tel: (555) 0108
Fax: (555) 0108
Education
1960-1965
Ph.D. in Physics, Top European University #2, City in Europe
1957-1959
M.Sc. in Physics, Asian University #1, City in Asia
1955-1957
B.Sc. in Physics with Mathematics, Asian University #2, Other City in Asia
Professional Experience
2010-present
Senior Researcher, Physics Laboratory, Average European Technical University
in European City, European Country #2
2007-present
Senior Research Scientist, Top European University, Other City in Europe
1969-2007
Scientific Staff, Top European University, Other City in Europe
1966-1969
Research Fellow, Physics Department, Top European University #2, City in
Europe
1965-1966
Senior Scientific Officer, Asian Commision for Nuclear Physics, City in Asia
Exhibit 9: Advanced Degrees

Exhibit 9.1: PhD Degree from Average European Technical University in European
City, European Country #2
Exhibit 9.2: Credential Evaluation Report of PhD Degree (Credential Evaluation
Company)
Exhibit 9.3: Master’s Degree from Average European Technical University in
European City, European Country #2
Exhibit 9.4: Credential Evaluation Report of Master’s Degree (Credential
Evaluation Company)
Exhibit 9.5: QS World University Rankings - Average European Technical
University in European City
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Advanced Degrees

Exhibit 9.1: PhD Degree from Average European Technical University in European
City, European Country #2
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – PhD Degree from Average European Technical University in European City
[This page represents Jan Novak’s PhD Degree]
Official University Diploma - first page is in language of European Country #2 and second page in
English (both are part of officially issued University Diploma) and contain:
 Name of the country

 Name of university (Average European Technical University in European City)
 Diploma
 Diploma Number
 Jan Novak
 Date and place of birth
 Doctoral study program
 Field of study (Nuclear Engineering)
 Faculty (Nuclear Engineering)
 Date of doctoral dissertation defence
 In accordance with Act. No. … awarded academic degree Ph.D.
 Date and place of issue
 Signatures of university rector and dean
 Official university seal
Diploma is followed by official Diploma Supplement issued by University which is part of Diploma.
This supplement is also bilingual and contains:
 Personal data and qualification mentioned already in diploma

 Description of qualification level, official length of program and access requirements
 Mode of study (full-time study)
 Program requirements (subject examinations, state doctoral examination and dissertation)
 Detailed information on subject examinations (name, grade, date, European credits)
 Detailed information on oral state doctoral examination (grade and date)
 Detailed information on dissertation (name, result, date)
 Explanation of Average University grades compared to European grades
 Information on function of qualification (top level of higher education)
 Additional information (official websites, university address)
 Certification (date, place, signature of dean)
 Detailed information on national higher education system
Exhibit 9.2: Credential Evaluation Report of PhD Degree (Credential Evaluation

Company)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Credential Evaluation Report of PhD Degree
[This page represents Jan Novak’s PhD Credential Evaluation Report]
Document-by-Document Credential Evaluation Report

First page contains:
 Jan Novak
 Date of birth
 Evaluation date
 U.S. Equivalency: Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Nuclear Engineering
 Name of Awarding Institution (Average European Technical University in European City)
 Name of Awarding Institution in Native Language
 Country
 Admission Requirements
 Program Description
 Program (Doctor of Philosophy degree program in Nuclear Engineering from a regionally
accredited institution)
 Name of Dissertation Thesis
 Professional Qualification
 Standard Program Length
 Ph.D. Issued Year
 Evaluation based on original official documents (PhD degree + diploma supplement)
 Evaluation Summary: It is the judgment of Credential Evaluation Company that Jan Novak
has the USA equivalent of Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Nuclear Engineering awarded by
regionally accredited colleges and universities in the United States.
Second page contains university information:
 Logo and Name

 Location
 University Type (public)
 Accreditation (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, European Country #2)
 Year of Establishment
 Structure
 Academic Programs
 Enrollment
 Academic and Research Staff
 Affiliations and Memberships
 Official Website
 Address
 Phone
 Fax
Third page contains:
 Description of Education System in European Country #2

 Official website of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
 Evaluation Notes (evaluation reports prepared by professional evaluators; Credential
Evaluation Company is approved by State Board of Education; assumptions regarding
conversion of foreign academic hours and GPA)
Exhibit 9.3: Master’s Degree from Average European Technical University in

European City, European Country #2
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Master’s Degree from Average European Technical University in European City
[This page represents Jan Novak’s MSc Degree]
Official University Diploma (university issued diploma only in language of European Country #2)
contains:
 Name of the country

 Name of university (Average European Technical University in European City)
 Diploma
 Diploma Number
 Jan Novak
 Date and place of birth
 Master study program
 Field of study (Nuclear Engineering)
 Faculty (Nuclear Engineering)
 In accordance with Act. No. … awarded academic degree Engineer (Eng.).
 Date and place of issue
 Signatures of university rector and dean
 Official university seal
Diploma is followed by certified translation to English made by Credential Evaluation Company and
except translated data contains:
 Logo, address and contact of Credential Evaluation Company

 Certified Translation
 American Translators Association Member, ATA Membership ID
 Certification of Translation: I, John T. Doe, an authorized representative of Credential
Evaluation Company, do hereby swear to the following: To having had translated the above
document from the original text in language of European Country #2 to English which I
believe to be a true, accurate and complete rendering of the original text done by a qualified
translator conversant in both languages (followed by signature of John T. Doe and official
seal of Credential Evaluation Company)
 Subscribed and sworn before me, date, signature and official seal of state notary public
Certified translation is followed by official Diploma Supplement issued by University which is part of
Official University Diploma. This supplement is bilingual and contains:
 Personal data and qualification mentioned already in diploma

 Description of qualification level, official length of program and access requirements
 Mode of study (full-time study)
 Program requirements (30 European credits per 1 semester of accredited study program,
master thesis and final state examination)
 Detailed information on subject examinations (name, grade, date, European credits)
 Detailed information on Diploma Thesis (name, grade, date)
 Detailed information on Final state examination (name, grade, date)
 Overall classification of final state examination (grade, date)
 Explanation of Average University grades compared to European grades
 Information on function of qualification (access to doctoral study program / Engineer)
 Additional information (official websites, university address)
 Certification (date, place, signature of rector)
 Detailed information on national higher education system
Exhibit 9.4: Credential Evaluation Report of Master’s Degree (Credential

Evaluation Company)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Credential Evaluation Report of Master’s Degree
[This page represents Jan Novak’s MSc Credential Evaluation Report]
Document-by-Document Credential Evaluation Report

 Jan Novak
 Date of birth
 Evaluation date
 U.S. Equivalency: Bachelor of Science in Nuclear Engineering and Master of Science Degree
in Nuclear Engineering
 Name of Awarding Institution (Average European Technical University in European City)
 Name of Awarding Institution in Native Language
 Country
 Admission Requirements
 Program (Combined Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees program in Nuclear
Engineering from a regionally accredited institution)
 Professional Qualification (Careers in Nuclear Engineering)
 Grants Access to (Further graduate programs)
 Standard Program Length
 Graduation Year
 Evaluation based on original official documents (Master’s degree + diploma supplement)
 Evaluation Summary: It is the judgment of Credential Evaluation Company that Jan Novak
has the USA equivalent of Bachelor of Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering and Master of
Science Degree in Nuclear Engineering awarded by regionally accredited colleges and
universities in the United States.
Second page contains university information:
 Logo and Name

 Location
 University Type (public)
 Accreditation (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, European Country #2)
 Year of Establishment
 Structure
 Academic Programs
 Enrollment
 Academic and Research Staff
 Affiliations and Memberships
 Official Website
 Address
 Phone
 Fax
 Description of Education System in European Country #2

 Official website of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports
Fourth page contains:
 Evaluation Notes (evaluation reports prepared by professional evaluators; Credential

Evaluation Company is approved by State Board of Education; assumptions regarding
conversion of foreign academic hours and GPA)
Exhibit 9.5: QS World University Rankings - Average European Technical

University in European City
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – QS World University Rankings - Average European Technical University
Average European Technical University Rankings | Top Universities http://www.topuniversities.com/ranking-details/world-university-rankings/20
Forgot your password?
OVERALL SCORE RANK
World University Rankings 2012
SURVEY INDICES HISTORY RANK
Score Rank
2012 (
Academic Reputation 0.00 9 999
ranking-details
501
Employer Reputation 39.10 276 /world-university-
rankings/2012)
Faculty Student 0.00 9 999
International Faculty 0.00 9 999 2010 (

ranking-details
International Students 0.00 9 999 401
/world-university-
Citations per Faculty 0.00 9 999
rankings/2010) 27.41
FACULTY AREAS 2008 (

Score Rank ranking-details
401
Arts & Humanities 0.00 0 /world-university-
rankings/2008) 31.1
Engineering & Technology 17.07 156
Life Sciences & Medicine 0.00 0 2009 (

ranking-details
Natural Sciences 13.28 276 394
/world-university-
Social Sciences & Management 0.00 0
rankings/2009) 36.5
2007 (
ranking-details
520
/world-university-
rankings/2007) 23.8
1 of 2 22.3.2013 20:12
Exhibit 10: Curriculum Vitae
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae of Jan Novak
Department of Physics Phone: +1-555-0109

U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2 E-mail: novak@uni.edu
730 Research Street
American City, California 83700
Education:
2008 – 2012: Average European Technical University in European City, Faculty of Nuclear
Engineering, Department of Radiation - PhD degree
2002 – 2008: Average European Technical University in European City, Faculty of Nuclear
Engineering, Department of Physics - Master's degree
2006 – 2007: European University #3, Physics Department –internship
Employment record:
2/2012-present: U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2, position Research Associate 2
 Development of new read-out devices and software for Radimage detector for TNA (Top
National Agency)
 Evaluation and energy calibration of the Radimage detector for space applications of TNA –
thermal studies, charge collection, looking for optimal detector settings
 Space dosimetry and radiation monitoring at ISS using Radimage – development of new data
analysis software, data analysis
3/2008-1/2012: Physics Laboratory, Average European Technical University in European City,

position researcher, group of Dr. John J. Doe focused on Detimage/Radimage detectors
 Participated in development of Det-PC read-out device for Radimage detectors

 Co-author of Detsoft data acquisition software for Radimage and other pixel detectors
 Characterization of the Radimage detector and charge collection studies
 Energy calibration and evaluation of the Radimage detectors
 Development of new imaging methods using different radiations X-ray laminography, X-ray
phase contrast imaging, X-ray fluorescence, electron imaging
 Principal investigator of two grants (Calibration Source, Portable Calibration Source) with
the total budget 270,000 USD (funded by Top European Agency), focused on the energy
calibration of the gamma detectors used in space missions
10/2006-8/2007: GFA (German Federal Agency), internship in Physics Department
6/2007-8/2007: CERN Geneva
 Worked on experiment ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment) on detector TPC (Time
Projection Chamber) – power supply noise studies, power supply controlling software
Award, scholarship:
11/2010: Trainee Grant to the IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference
(IEEE NSS-MIC) in Knoxville, TN
11/2006-8/2007: GFA-scholarship for a research stay in Physics Department
Main Research activities:

 Radiation detector technologies – pixel detectors, gamma detectors
 Radiation monitoring, space radiation
 Imaging with pixel detectors - µ-radiography, phase contrast imaging, XRF
 3D reconstruction techniques - CT, laminography, iterative reconstruction algorithms – EM,
OSEM
 Prompt gamma ray spectroscopy
 Electron imaging and electron optics, vacuum technology
Skills:
 C++ (Visual Studio, gcc), Matlab, Microsoft Office, LaTex, CorelDRAW, Linux
 Strong in problem solving
Author and co-author of 23 scientific publications with 68 citations.
Peer-reviewed Publications:
2012
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, Author #4, Author #5, “Name of the Peer-reviewed Article
#1”, Journal of Instrumentation
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, Author #4, J. Novak, Author #6, Author #7, Author #8,
“Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #2”, Journal of Instrumentation
J. Novak, Author #2, Author #3, “Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #3”, Journal of
Instrumentation
2011
J. Novak, Author #2, Author #3, Author #4, Author #5, Author #6, Author #7, Author #8,
Author #9, Author #10, “Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #5”, Journal of Instrumentation
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, J. Novak, Author #5, Author #6, “Name of the Peer-
reviewed Article #6”, Journal of Instrumentation
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, Author #4, Author #5, Author #6, “Name of the Peer-
J. Novak, Author #2, “Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #8”, Journal of Instrumentation
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, “Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #9”, Journal of
Instrumentation
2010
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, "Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #10", Review of
Scientific Instruments
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, J. Novak, "Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #11",
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A
J. Novak, Author #2, Author #3, Author #4, Author #5, Author #6, Author #7, "Name of the
Peer-reviewed Article #12", Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, “Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #13”, Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, Author #4, Author #5, J. Novak, Author #7, "Name of the
2009
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, Author #4, "Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #15",
Conference Proceedings Publications:

2012
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, Author #4, Author #5, J. Novak, Author #7, “Name of the
Conference Proceedings Article #1”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series
2011
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, Author #4, “Name of the Conference Proceedings Article
#2”, Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), 2011 IEEE
Author #1, J. Novak, Author #3, Author #4, Author #5, “Name of the Conference
Proceedings Article #3”, Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference
(NSS/MIC), 2011 IEEE
2010
“Name of the Conference Proceedings Article #4”, Nuclear Science Symposium Conference
Record (NSS/MIC), 2010 IEEE
J. Novak, Author #2, Author #3, “Name of the Conference Proceedings Article #5”, Nuclear
Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC), 2010 IEEE
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, “Name of the Conference Proceedings Article #6”, Nuclear
2009
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, J. Novak, Author #5, “Name of the Conference
Proceedings Article #7”, Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC), 2009
IEEE
2008
Science Symposium Conference Record, 2008. NSS '08. IEEE

Exhibit 11: Letter Confirming Work Experience at the Physics Laboratory (PL) –
Jane B. Doe
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Work Experience at the Physics Laboratory (PL)
Jane B. Doe
Physics Laboratory
Physlab Street 666
49388 European City
European Country #2
To whom it may concern,
We certify that Dr. Jan Novak was a full-time employee of the Physics Laboratory of the
Average European Technical University in European City in the period from March 2008 till
January 2012.
His job description was researcher in the Department of physics, where he was mainly working
with the radiation detectors. He was also Principal Investigator of two projects financed by Top
European Agency.
Kind regards,
European City, 13th November 2012 Jane B. Doe

Exhibit 12: Letter Requesting Publication about Radimage Detectors – Dr. John I.
Doe, Editor in Elsevier Publisher
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter Requesting Publication about Radimage Detectors – Dr. John I. Doe
ADVANCES in IMAGING and ELECTRON PHYSICS
Dr. John I. DOE, editor
Email: john.i.doe@elsevier.com
ELSEVIER, Publisher
Elsevier Street 111
Elsevier City
38622
European Country #8
Dr. Jan Novak
Department of Physics
730 Research Street
American City
CA 83700
USA
Dear Dr. Novak,
I have read with considerable interest your work on coincidence imaging using the
Radimage detector. I should very much like to include an account of the detector and its
applications in Advances in Imaging & Electron Physics – would you be interested in writing
such an account?
My deadlines are July 31 and December 31 each year; length and content are up to
you, most articles in AIEP occupy between 40 and 80 printed pages. Publication is rapid,
typically 6/7 months. All material in AIEP is accessible via ScienceDirect so that articles
published there are retrieved by google etc.
I look forward to hearing from you and hope that you will be tempted.
John I. Doe

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – About book Advances in Imaging & Electron Physics
Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics, 1st Edition | John I. Doe http://elsevier.com/Advances-in-Imaging-and-Electron-Physics
Home Americas Login Create Account Help
Search by Keyword, Title, Author, ISBN, ISSN

Cart (0)
Products Subjects Industries Brands N o w : U p t o 3 0 % o ff F R E E S H I P PI N G *
Share:
Multi-Volume: Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics

Print Book Estimated Delivery Time
Volume 171: Advances in Imaging and USD 245.00
Hardcover
Electron Physics, 1st Edition In Stock
Add to Cart
Print Book
Editor : John I. Doe eBook eBook Overview
Release Date: 15 May 2012 USD 238.00

VST format
Imprint: Academic Press
PDF format
ISBN: 9780123942975
ePUB format
Pages: 440
Dimensions: 229 X 152 Add to Cart
Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics features cutting-edge Buy Print & eBook both and save 40%
articles on the physics of electron devices (especially semiconductor View Bundle Price
devices), particle optics at high and low energies, microlithography,
image science and digital image processing, electromagnetic wave
propagation, electron microscopy, and the computing methods used in
all these domains.
Add to Wish List
Part of: Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics
Overview Authors Table of Contents
Stay Connected
Learn about our products,

conferences, events, special offers,
and items of interest in your field.
Visit the website
Home » » Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics
About Elsevier Your purchases Support Related sites Stay Connected
At a Glance Order Status Inspection/Desk Copy Request Affiliate Program Summary

About the Elsevier Store Returns and Refunds Help with Online Access Resources for » Email Newsletters
Publishing Shipping Information Frequently Asked Questions Elsevier Website List RSS
1 of 2 1.4.2013 19:11
Exhibit 13: Documents Regarding Top European Agency (TEA) – Principal

Investigator of Two Projects
Exhibit 13.1: Project Proposal “Calibration Source” – price at page 1, Dr. Novak’s
position at pages 3, 13, 19
Exhibit 13.2: Final Report of Project “Calibration Source” – written by Dr. Jan
Novak
Exhibit 13.3: Part of European Country #2 Space Agency Annual Report - Factsheet
about Project “Calibration Source”
Exhibit 13.4: Project Contract “Portable Calibration Source” – price at page 6, Dr.
Novak’s position at page 12
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Top European Agency (TEA) – Principal Investigator of Two Projects
Exhibit 13.1: Project Proposal “Calibration Source” – price at page 1, Dr. Novak’s
position at pages 3, 13, 19
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Proposal “Calibration Source”

[This page represents Project Proposal “Calibration Source”]
 Subject with name of the project

 Prime Contractor (Physics Laboratory, Average European Technical University in European
City, address, phone, fax)
 Price for the activity (150 000 euro [price highlighted])
 Contact person for communication
 Contact person for the technical and contractual management
 Author of the proposal
 Legal representative
 Acknowledgements and declarations
 Date, place and signature
Second page contains:
 “Calibration Source” Proposal to TNA Invitation to Tender

 Code
 Date
 Reference ID
 Date
 Proposal title: Calibration Source
 Authors: John R. Doe, John U. Doe, Jan Novak [name highlighted], John V. Doe
 Contact information: address, phone, fax and website of Physics Laboratory, Average
European Technical University in European City
 Contractual representative
 Technical representative: Jan Novak [name highlighted], email, phone
 Approval person
 Table of Contents
Fifth page contains:
 Introduction
6th – 12th page contains Technical and Application Proposal:
 Technical objectives
 Feasibility and Development Risk – with several figures
 Application of Technology Development
 Intellectual Property Rights
 References
13th – 21st page contains Financial, Management and Administrative:
 Background and Experience of the Companies

 Team Organization and Personnel – Jan Novak [name highlighted] in second level of team
organization structure under Team leader responsible for Measurements and Construction
 Jan Novak [name highlighted] mentioned in Management plan as work package manager
 Key Staff CVs – Jan Novak’s CV
 Facilities
 Work description with flowchart, work structure, work package descriptions (Jan Novak
[name highlighted] as manager of two work packages)
 Time planning
 Costs
 Travel Plan
 Deliverables – reports, simulation results, hardware construction, results of measurements
Exhibit 13.2: Final Report of Project “Calibration Source” – written by Dr. Jan
Novak
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Final Report “Calibration Source”

[This page represents Final Report “Calibration Source” written by Jan Novak]
FINAL REPORT
Calibration Source
TEA Contract No. 101010AAA
Physics Laboratory
Date
Prepared by: Jan Novak

3rd – 21st page contains descriptions including many photos, figures, graphs, tables with data:
 Project introduction and description of basic principles

 Description of construction calibration source
 Simulation results
 Measurements
 Description of safety issues and its solution
 Results from final testing and measurements
 Instructions for use of the device
22th – 23th page contains:
 Summary
 References
Exhibit 13.3: Part of European Country #2 Space Agency Annual Report -

Factsheet about Project “Calibration Source”
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – EU Country #2 Space Agency Annual Report - “Calibration Source”
[This page represents Part of European Country #2 Space Agency Annual Report with
1 Factsheet about Jan Novak’s Project “Calibration Source” – document is bilingual in English and
language of European Country #2]
EUROPEAN COUNTRY #2 SPACE PROJECTS

 Introduction from Director of European Country #2 Space Agency – overview of the content
of this annual report and of the projects where European Country #2 is involved
Third page with factsheet describing Jan Novak’s project “Calibration Source” contains:
 Logo of Physics Laboratory, address and website

 Project duration
 Project manager: Jan Novak with email contact
 Description of Physics Laboratory
 Description of project (introduction, practical application including potential groundbreaking
discoveries in space, principles of the device, usage in space missions)
 Photos of the device
 Quotation of Jan Novak about main benefits of the project
Fourth page is same as previous page but in language of European Country #2.
Fifth page (final page of annual report) contains:
 Promotional photos
 Address, phone, email and website of European Country #2 Space Agency
Exhibit 13.4: Project Contract “Portable Calibration Source” – price at page 6, Dr.
Novak’s position at page 12
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Project Contract “Portable Calibration Source”
[This page represents Contract “Portable Calibration Source”]
Contract No. 0000XXX111
Physics Laboratory
“Portable Calibration Source”

CONTRACT
Between:
TOP EUROPEAN AGENCY
Address
represented by …, Director
and
Physics Laboratory
Address
represented by …, Rector of Average European Technical University in European City

 Subject of the Contract

 Applicable Documents
Fifth page contains:
 Places and Dates of Delivery
 Price 64 000 euro [price highlighted]

 Payment
 Purchasing items
 Inventory
 Representatives - Jan Novak [name highlighted] for technical matters (Technical Officer)
 Intellectual property rights – licences
16th page contains:
 Signatures of representatives from both institutions
 Payment plan
 Management
 Reports
 Meetings
 Deliverables
 Commercial evaluation
 Layouts for documentation
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – About TEA

[This page represents 1-page information about Top European Agency printed from official website]
About Us / TEA http://www.tea.eu/about
TEA > About Us
What is TEA?
TEA is an international organization with 20 Member States and its job is to draw up the
European space program, i.e., find out more about Earth, its immediate space environment,
our Solar System and the Universe, as well as to develop satellite-based technologies and
services. TEA also works closely with space organizations outside Europe.
Members of TEA
European Country #1, European Country #2, European Country #3 etc.

Exhibit 14: Documents Regarding Reviewing of Scientific Articles for the

Proceedings of the International Summer School Nuclear Physics Methods and
Accelerators in Biology and Medicine
Exhibit 14.1: Letter Confirming Reviewing of Scientific Articles – Dr. John K. Doe,
Physical Laboratory
Exhibit 14.2: American Institute of Physics - AIP Conference Proceedings Series
No. 1204
Exhibit 14.3: About International Summer School Nuclear Physics Methods and
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Reviewing of Scientific Articles for the Proceedings
Exhibit 14.1: Letter Confirming Reviewing of Scientific Articles – Dr. John K.

Doe, Physical Laboratory
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter Confirming Reviewing of Scientific Articles – Dr. John K. Doe
In Other European City, 30th June 2012
Hereby I certify and on behalf of all the co-editors, that Jan Novak was a reviewer of scientific
articles for the Proceedings of the International Summer School Nuclear Physics Methods and
Accelerators in Biology and Medicine held in Bratislava, Slovakia in 2009.
Sincerely,
John K. Doe, PhD
Physical Laboratory
Other Average European Technical
University
Co-Editor
Proceedings of International Summer School
Nuclear Physics Methods and Accelerators
in Biology and Medicine
American Institute of Physics – AIP
Conference Proceedings Series No. 1204
(2009)
Exhibit 14.2: American Institute of Physics - AIP Conference Proceedings Series

No. 1204
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – American Institute of Physics - AIP Conference Proceedings Series No. 1204
Browse - AIP Conference Proceedings http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/1204
Jump to Content Increase text size Decrease text size
Sign In View Cart Feedback | Help
Volume/Page
Volume: Page/Article:
Home Browse About Organizers Authors Librarians Features Purchase Content Advertisers Scitation AIP Journals
1 of 5 27.3.2013 18:08
ADVERTISEMENT
NUCLEAR PHYSICS METHODS AND ACCELERATORS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE: Search Volume | RSS | View Volume Detail
Fifth International Summer School on Nuclear Physics Methods and Accelerators in
Biology and Medicine
Date: 06–15 July 2009
Location: Bratislava (Slovakia)
ISBN: 978-0-7354-0741-1
.
FRONT MATTER (PDF)

BACK MATTER (PDF)
Page 1 of 3 Pages Next Page | Jump to Page
SELECTED: Export Citations | Show/Hide Summaries | Add to MyArticles | Email Add View
Radiation interaction in matter and principles of detection

Claude Leroy
AIP Conf. Proc. 1204, pp. 3-11; doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3295675 (9 pages)
Online Publication Date: 8 January 2010
Full Text: Download PDF
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Neutrons and their Detection with Silicon Diodes

Stanislav Pospisil and Carlos Granja
Online Publication Date: 8 January 2010 Featured Jobs
University of Exeter
+ Show Abstract GBR - Devon
+ Show PACS Chair and Lecturer (2
posts)
Sandia National
Introduction to Monte Carlo Simulation Laboratories
US - NM - Albuquerque
Robert L. Harrison
Post Doc – Nuclear/
AIP Conf. Proc. 1204, pp. 17-21; doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3295638 (5 pages) Nanoparticle Materials
Full Text: Download PDF Syracuse University
US - NY - Syracuse
+ Show Abstract Postdoc in
Experimental CM
+ Show PACS
Physics
University of Rochester
Transport of Ion Beams in Matter: Part I US - NY - Rochester
Biomedical Optics
Márius Pavlovič
AIP Conf. Proc. 1204, pp. 22-29; doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3295657 (8 pages) More Jobs
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Transport of Ion Beams in Matter: Part II

Márius Pavlovič
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Introduction to Nuclear Physics

Jozef Masarik
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Review of radiation detectors

Claude Leroy
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Microelectronics used for Semiconductor Imaging Detectors
2 of 5 27.3.2013 18:08
Erik H. M. Heijne
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Readout and DAQ for Pixel Detectors

Michal Platkevic
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Tracking and Radiation Field Measurement with Pixel Detectors

Zdenek Vykydal, Carlos Granja, Jan Jakubek, Michal Platkevic, and Stanislav Pospisil
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Detection and Real Time Spectroscopy of Charged Particles with the TimePix Pixel Detector
Carlos Granja, Jan Jakubek, Michal Platkevic, Stanislav Pospisil, and Zdenek Vykydal
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Linear Accelerators
Anatoly Sidorin
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Introduction to Circular Accelerators—Basic Science and Applied Research

Grigory Trubnikov
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Cyclotron Research and Applications

Rostislav Mach
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Introduction to Ion Beam Therapy

Mária Martišíková
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Treatment Planning for Ion Beam Therapy

Steffen Greilich and Oliver Jäkel
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Recent Advances and Future Advances in Time-of-Flight PET
3 of 5 27.3.2013 18:08
William W. Moses
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Monte Carlo Simulation of Emission Tomography and other Medical Imaging Techniques
Robert L. Harrison
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Nuclear and Related Analytical Techniques for Environmental and Life Sciences
Marina Frontasyeva
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Magneto-Optics of Ferritin
Andrzej Dobek
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Biological Signals In Medical Diagnostics

Katarína Kozlíková
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Reconstruction of Fluxes of Radioactive Sources with a Medipix2 Pixel Detector using Track Recognition
J. Bouchami, A. Gutierrez, T. Holy, A. Houdayer, J. Jakubek, C. Lebel, C. Leroy, J. Macana, J. P. Martin, S. Pospisil, S. Prak, P. Sabella, and C.
Teyssier
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Program for Numerical Simulation of Beam Losses due to Interaction with Residual Gas
G. Karamysheva and G. Skripka
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Monte Carlo Simulation of Influence of Input Parameters Uncertainty on Output Data

Lukáš Sobek
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
Algorithm for Search and Recovery of the Vertex of Decay in the Hypernuclear Experiment NIS-GIBS at Dubna
Nuclotron
Anna M. Korotkova and Juris Lukstins
+ Show Abstract
+ Show PACS
4 of 5 27.3.2013 18:08
Page 1 of 3 Pages Next Page | Jump to Page
Copyright © 2013 American Institute of Physics
5 of 5 27.3.2013 18:08
Exhibit 14.3: About International Summer School Nuclear Physics Methods and
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – About International Summer School

5th International Summer School http://www.ieee.org/organizations/npss/SummerSchool.html
CONFERENCES
5th INTERNATIONAL SUMMER SCHOOL ON NUCLEAR PHYSICS

METHODS AND ACCELERATORS IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
Bratislava – Slovakia, 6–15 July 2009
he Summer School is devoted to current topics and new developments in the principles and methods of
Nuclear Physics and Accelerators with applications to Biology and Medicine. This event is part of a School
Series held every two years within the framework of the long-term cooperation between JINR Dubna and its
Member States in Central and Eastern Europe. Initiated by the University Center of the JINR Dubna, AMU
Poznan and the CTU in Prague, the previous Schools were held in Dubna (2001), Poznan (2003), Dubna (2005)
and Prague (2007). This year’s School will be held at the Comenius University in Bratislava from the 6th–15th
July 2009, and will follow a plan similar to that of the successful Prague School
(www.utef.cvut.cz/4SummerSchool), where the program was arranged into Plenary Courses and Advanced
Lectures, with a number of specialized Speakers contributing about 10 Plenary Course Manuscripts and over 30 Carlos Granja
Short Papers for the School’s Proceedings, which were published by the American Institute of Physics
Conference Series. From the nearly 100 students attending, most of whom presented their own research as a
Short Talk or Poster, about 40 student contributions were included as short papers in the Proceedings.
The School program this year focuses on Particle Accelerators, Radiation Detectors, Hadron Therapy and
Nuclear Medical Imaging. Particular emphasis is placed on the physical principles and methods in an
introductory, explanatory way. The list of Speakers includes leading experts in their fields: William Moses,
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and IEEE NPSS Distinguished Lecturer (Nuclear Medicine), Erik Heijne,
CERN, and IEEE NPSS Distinguished Lecturer (Position Sensitive Detectors), and Claude Leroy, University of
Montreal (Radiation Detectors). Ideal participants are MSc and PhD students majoring in Engineering, Physics
or Medicine as well as young researchers working in fields related to the topics of the School. The Proceedings
of the School will be published by the AIP. The detailed program is announced on the School’s website
(www.fmph.uniba.sk/~5SummerSchool).
The School is co-organized by the Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics of the Comenius University
in Bratislava, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research JINR Dubna and the Institute of Experimental and
Applied Physics of the Czech Technical University. The School is supported by all co-organizing institutions
and by the Slovak Physical Society, the Slovak Nuclear Society, the Ministry of Education of Slovakia, the
Electrotechnical Research and Projecting Institute Slovakia, and by Grants of Government Plenipotentiaries of
Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia in JINR Dubna. The organizers are also happy to have for the first time
the Technical Co-Sponsorship of the IEEE NPSS. This initiative is one product of the 2008 IEEE NSS-MIC
Dresden Conference together with the newly formed NPSS Chapter of the IEEE Czechoslovak Section
(www.ieee.cz/nps).
Carlos Granja, Organizing Committee, IEAP CTU Prague, can be reached by e-mail at
granja@mail.utef.cvut.cz.
If you would like to contact the IEEE Webmaster

© Copyright 2009, IEEE. Terms & Conditions. Privacy & Security
return to contents
1 of 1 1.4.2013 22:11
Exhibit 15: Documents Regarding IEEE NSS-MIC Award (Trainee Grant)

Exhibit 15.1: Letter Confirming Receiving of Trainee Grant – Dr. John N. Doe,
General Chair of 2010 IEEE NSS-MIC
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Documents Regarding IEEE NSS-MIC Award (Trainee Grant)
Exhibit 15.1: Letter Confirming Receiving of Trainee Grant – Dr. John N. Doe,
General Chair of 2010 IEEE NSS-MIC
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter Confirming Receiving of Trainee Grant – Dr. John N. Doe
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Dr. Jan Novak

730 Research Street
Dear Jan:
This letter is to confirm that you were awarded a Conference Trainee Grant to
the Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS-MIC)
in Knoxville, TN from October 30 to November 6, 2010. The Grant was used to
partially support your conference registration and short course (Continuing
Education Program) fees.
Sincerely yours,
John N. Doe, PhD

General Chair
2010 IEEE NSS MIC
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway NJ 08855-1331, USA
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – About 2010 IEEE NSS-MIC – Dr. John N. Doe
//L:/JOBS/47927%20IEEE%20NPSS/HTML/data/welcome.htm
The 2010 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium, Medical Imaging

Conference, and 17th International Workshop on Room-Temperature
Semiconductor X-ray and Gamma-ray Detectors was held at the
Knoxville Convention Center in Knoxville, Tennessee from October 30
to November 6, 2010. There were 1985 registered attendees from 47
countries and more than 1600 papers submitted. During the meeting
there were six Short Courses and three specialized workshops which
ranged from Alternative Neutron Detectors to advances in PET-MR.
The attendance was the largest ever for the conference held in the
US, and second only to the 2008 conference. Almost the entire
Knoxville Convention Center was used for the nine days of the
meeting. This modern facility was well suited for the conference size
and the poster session was spacious, allowing for comfortable
interactions between the presenters and the attendees. The extensive
concourses had WiFi and many tables making them popular
interaction sites for the attendees. All of this contributed to a very successful and enjoyable week.
The success of the meeting was made possible by the incredible work of the Organizing Committee
members who contributed a massive effort both before and during the meeting to ensure that everything
worked as planned. The Program Chairs, Topic Conveners, and Session Chairs assembled a strong
program with the help of the many reviewers. With over 1600 papers to be reviewed, this was indeed a
major undertaking, especially given the time constraints. Both the NSS and MIC Program Chairs tried
new ideas for the organization of the sessions. The NSS and RTSD Program Chairs worked together to
eliminate as many overlapping and conflicting papers as possible. I am certain that the attendees
appreciated their work to try and minimize session hopping.
With the support from both long term and new industrial and governmental organizations, we were able
to provide grants to over a hundred students, allowing them to attend the meeting, present their work,
and make contacts with the worldwide community present in Knoxville. Our industrial exhibitors also
found this to be a very useful meeting and remarked on the numbers of valuable contacts they made.
The area around Knoxville is home to many Laboratories, Institutions, and Companies that participate
and contribute to the fields of interest of the conference. The technical tours to some of these were well
attended and so popular that additional tours were added. Even the weather cooperated.
It is the attendees of the Conference that deserve the most thanks, as it is their work that makes all of
this possible. As you go through this DVD of the Conference Record, I hope you will be able to review
the papers and talks you enjoyed and read any you may have missed during the Conference. The
Conference and the Conference Record are truly your work and it is only through your participation that
we have been able to make this meeting the premier meeting in the world for our fields.
John N. Doe
2010 NSS MIC General Chair
Exhibit 16: Documents Regarding Work Experience at GFA (German Federal

Agency) and CERN, GFA Scholarship Award
Exhibit 16.1: Letter Confirming Work Experience at GFA and CERN (on Alice
TPC Detector) – Dr. John L. Doe, Scientific Director, GFA
Exhibit 16.2: Evaluation Letter about Work Experience at GFA and CERN – Dr.
John H. Doe, Senior Scientist, GFA
Exhibit 16.3: Letter Confirming Receiving of GFA Scholarship Award – John M.
Doe and Jane C. Doe, GFA
Exhibit 16.4: About GFA (http://www.gfa.de/about)
Exhibit 16.5: About CERN – general data, Large Hadron Collider (LHC), ALICE
(www.cern.ch)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak –Work Experience at GFA and CERN
Exhibit 16.1: Letter Confirming Work Experience at GFA and CERN (on Alice
TPC Detector) – Dr. John L. Doe, Scientific Director, GFA
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter Confirming Work Experience at GFA and CERN – Dr. John L. Doe
German City, September 10, 2007
Research stay of Mr. Jan Novak at GFA
This is to confirm that Mr. Novak, diploma student of the Faculty of Nuclear
Engineering of Average European Technical University in European City, stayed in
academic year 2006-2007 from 1st October to 31st August 2007 here at GFA in Physics
Department I. He conducted research activities relating to his diploma work in the
field of ALICE TPC.
John L. Doe
Exhibit 16.2: Evaluation Letter about Work Experience at GFA and CERN –
Dr. John H. Doe, Senior Scientist, GFA
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Evaluation Letter about Work Experience at GFA and CERN – Dr. John H. Doe
German City, September 10, 2012
Ref.: Letter of recommendation for Jan Novak
Dear Sir / Madame,
Jan Novak had received a grant (Stipendium) to work in our group during the period
Nov. 2006 – Aug. 2007 and I was his direct supervisor during that period. His work was
within the ALICE Time Projection Chamber project, led at that time by our department
leader, Prof. John L. Doe (who had offered the Stipendium).
The work of Jan was focused on controlling of the high-voltage power supply for the
TPC gating grid and on measuring the noise characteristics of the power supply. In a very
short time Jan had understood the requirements of his tasks and the relevance it had for the
TPC project. Switching at a rate of about 1 kHz and embedded in a complex system (the
ALICE TPC has over half a million electronic channels, and an average channel noise of 1000
electrons was the target and later achieved performance) the power supply had to be tested
thoroughly to ensure its suitability. Jan had mastered the programming and data handling
skills required to achieve the task. His diligent and reliable work led to the final choice of the
HV power supply used for the TPC gating grid. Jan had also participated in the TPC
commissioning activities, which involved tests of the completed detector with cosmic-rays at
CERN. This has given him the opportunity to work in a challenging environment, where all
the system components were active. He had particularly contributed in the electronics cooling
system.
Jan was not only a very reliable contributor to the project, he also has shown very
good collaborative and social skills, necessary attributes in such a large-scale project as the
ALICE TPC. He had adapted very well in the groups, both at GFA and at CERN, and had
contributed to the atmosphere by sharing his personal interests and opinions.
In view of the reasons mentioned above, I rate the stay of Jan Novak at GFA and
CERN as highly productive and efficient.
Sincerely,
Dr. John H. Doe

Senior Scientist
Research Department, GFA
German Street 222, 88888 German City
Tel.: +49-555-110
Email: John.H.Doe@gfa.de
Exhibit 16.3: Letter Confirming Receiving of GFA Scholarship Award – John M.

Doe and Jane C. Doe, GFA
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Letter Confirming Receiving of GFA Scholarship Award
13. März 2012
To Whom It May Concern
GFA is a heavy ion research center funded by the Federal Government of

Germany. The laboratory performs basic and applied research in physics and
related natural science disciplines using a heavy ion accelerator facility.
We herewith confirm that Mr. Jan Novak, born January 1, 1983, has been
awarded a GFA-scholarship for a research stay from November 1, 2006 until
August 31, 2007 in our “Physics Department I”.
John M. Doe Jane C. Doe

Exhibit 16.4: About GFA (https://www.gfa.de/about)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – About GFA

GFA - About us http://www.gfa.de/about
GFA > About us
GFA German Federal Agency

The goal of the scientific research conducted at GFA German Federal Agency
is to reach a better understanding of the structure and behavior of the
world that surrounds us.
About us
GFA operates a worldwide unique large-scale accelerator facility for heavy ions and currently
employs about 1.100 people. In addition approximately 1.000 researchers from universities and
other research institutes around the world use the facility for their experiments.
GFA is a limited liability company (Ger. GmbH). Associates are the German Federal Government
(90 per cent), the State of Hessen (8 per cent), the State of Rhineland-Palatinate (1 per cent) and
the Free State of Thuringia (1 per cent). They are represented in the board of directors by the
Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the respective Ministries. GFA is a member of the
Helmholtz Association, Germany's largest research organisation.
Get to know more about GFA:
Facts and figures
Research
Accelerator
future facility IIA
1 of 1 30.3.2013 22:41
GFA - Research/Accelerators http://www.gfa.de/research-accelerators
GFA > Research/Accelerators
Research with the GFA accelerator facility

GFA operates a large-scale wordwide unique accelerator facility for heavy ions. Researchers from
all over the word use the facility for experiments to gain new insights about the building blocks of
matter and the evolution of the universe. In addition they develop new applications in medicine
and technology.
Crossing new frontiers

The best-known results are the discovery of six new chemical elements and the development of a
new type of tumor therapy using ion beams.
Currently the international accelerator center called IIA (International Ion Accelerator)
– one of the largest research projects in the world – is being built adjacent to GFA.
Learn more about our research and our facilities:
GFA research – an overview
GFA accelerators – large-scale facilities
Find information for experts here:

GFA's research and technical departments, experiments & collaborations
GFA Scientific Report
1 of 1 30.3.2013 22:44
Exhibit 16.5: About CERN – general data, Large Hadron Collider (LHC), ALICE
(www.cern.ch)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – About CERN

CERN Graphic Charter: use of the black & white version of the CERN logo
General Information 2012
roduction
version must only be reproduced on a
background using the correct blue:
Clear space
Council
A clear space must be respected around the logo:
other graphical or text elements must be no closer
Minimum size
Print: 10mm
Web: 60px
Management
antone: 286 than 25% of the logo’s width.
MYK: 100 75 0 0
GB: 56 97 170 Placement on a document
Web: #3861AA Use of the logo at top-left or top-centre of a
document is reserved for official use.
Member States and their normalized

ours can not be faithfully reproduced,
line version of the logo.
Directorate
contributions (%)
Director-General Rolf-Dieter Heuer

ted in Illustrator CS3
Austria 2.19
Director for Research and Scientific Computing Sergio Bertolucci
Belgium 2.85
Director for Accelerators and Technology Stephen Myers
Bulgaria 0.28
Director for Administration and
Czech Republic 0.98
General Infrastructure Sigurd Lettow
Denmark 1.83
Finland 1.39
Head of International Relations Felicitas Pauss
France 15.52
Germany 20.25
Directorate Office Isabel Béjar Alonso
Greece 1.64
Emmanuel Tsesmelis
Hungary 0.63
Italy 11.15
Communication James Gillies
Netherlands 4.59
EU Project Office Svetlomir Stavrev
Norway 2.48
Internal Audit Laure Esteveny
Poland 2.90
Legal Service Eva-Maria Gröniger-Voss
Portugal 1.25
Occupational Health & Safety
Slovak Republic 0.48
and Environmental Protection Unit Ralf Trant
Spain 8.11
Relations with Host States Friedemann Eder
Sweden 2.75
Resources Planning, Processes and Controlling Florian Sonnemann
Switzerland 5.15
VIP and Protocol Office Wendy Korda
United Kingdom 13.58
Candidate for Accession Departments

Romania 0.46
Beams (BE) Paul Collier
Associate Member State in the Engineering (EN) Roberto Saban
Pre-stage to Membership Finance, Procurement and Knowledge Transfer (FP) Thierry Lagrange
Israel 0.34 General Infrastructure Services (GS) Thomas Pettersson
Serbia 0.09 Human Resources (HR) Anne-Sylvie Catherin
Information Technology (IT) Frédéric Hemmer
Observers Physics (PH) Philippe Bloch
European Commission, India, Japan, Technology (TE) Frédérick Bordry
Russian Federation, Turkey,
UNESCO and USA.
Project Management
President of Council
Michel Spiro (France) Linear Collider Studies (CLIC and LCS) Steinar Stapnes
Worldwide LHC Computing Grid (WLCG) Ian Bird
Chairman of the Scientific Policy Linear Collider Detector (LCD) Lucie Linssen
Committee High Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) Lucio Rossi
Fabio Zwirner (Italy) LHC Injectors Upgrades (LIU) Roland Garoby
Chairman of the Finance

Committee
Björn Jacobsen (Norway)
www.cern.ch
Budget Research Programme
2012 total expenses: Accelerators
1165.9 million CHF LHC 7+7 TeV Large Hadron Collider, 27 km in circumference
SPS 450 GeV Super Proton Synchrotron, 6.9 km in circumference
PS 28 GeV Proton Synchrotron
ISOLDE Booster-ISOLDE isotope separator
Staff AD 100 MeV/c Antiproton Decelerator
CTF3 150 MeV CLIC test-facility electron beam
Staff members* as of
31 December 2011: Experiments
2424 LHC 7 active: ALICE, ATLAS, CMS, LHCb, LHCf, MoEDAL and TOTEM
SPS 5 active: COMPASS, NA61/SHINE, NA63, OPERA and ICARUS
Comprising: In preparation: NA62
PS 2 active: CLOUD and DIRAC
Research physicists 77 1 active: n_TOF
Engineers and scientists 969 2 active (do not require beam): CAST and OSQAR
Technicians 848 AD 4 active: ACE, ALPHA, ASACUSA and ATRAP
Administrators and office staff 388 1 being prepared: AEGIS
Craftsmen 142 ISOLDE 58 active
23 being prepared
* Staff head count including R&D 5 active: RD42, RD50, RD51, RD52 and UA9
externally funded. CTF3 Accelerator R&D for future linear collider
The active staff members (paid out Users

of CERN funds and available) during
2011 were 2256 full-time active.
Number of institutes and universities
Other members of personnel: participating in the above programme
Member States 300
Fellows 477 Non-Member States 329
Paid associates 306 Total 629
Students 288
Apprentices 21 Number of experimental physicists supported by
the following countries (Total = 10,357)
Member States 6403
Russian Federation 844
CIS (exc. Russian Federation) 86
Eastern Europe 149
Canada 160
USA 1681
Latin America 164
Japan 225
People’s Republic of China 94
India 115
Israel 60
Other countries 376
CH-1211 Geneva 23
Tel. + 41 22 767 61 11 Communication Group
Fax + 41 22 767 65 55 May 2012
CERN-Brochure-2012-003-Eng
CERN Graphic Charter: use of the black & white version of the CERN logo
A world-wide network of computers to analyse an enormous
amount of data
CERN is currently developing new

networking technology called the
Grid. This will link tens of thousands
of computers worldwide to create a
vast global computing resource for
the LHC experiments.
The LHC experiments generate an

enormous amount of data. Each
year the data will be enough to fill
a stack of CDs 20 km tall.
The Large Hadron Collider
An international effort, the Sun never sets on the LHC project
Acting for its Member States, CERN

is investing CHF6 billion in the LHC.
This covers the accelerator, com-
Unique CERN is home to the world’s biggest and most powerful
puting, and manpower, as well as
particle accelerator—the 27-km LHC.
CERN’s contribution to the experi-
ments. However, the LHC is a world
project, and about 10% of the ac-
Scientific What we learn there will take us to a deeper understand-
celerator material cost is being con-
ing of the Universe.
tributed by other countries.
Insight The results are eagerly anticipated by particle physicists
everywhere and could open up new fields of scientific
More than 10 000 scientists and en- endeavour.
gineers from around 500 academic
institutes and industrial companies
worldwide are contributing to the
The LHC A machine to accelerate two beams of particles in op-
LHC project. Equipment has been posite directions to more than 99.9% the speed of light.
built in many European countries, Smashing the beams together creates showers of new
and in others such as Canada, India, particles for physicists to study.
Japan, Russia and the US.
CERN
European Organization for Nuclear
Research
CH-1211 Geneva 23
CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, was founded in 1954.
Communication Group, July 2010 It has become a prime example of international collaboration, with currently
CERN-Brochure-2010-006-Eng 20 Member States. It is the biggest particle physics laboratory in the world,
and sits astride the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva.
www.cern.ch www.cern.ch
LHC
the world’s most powerful accelerator
>>>
Alps
Where is it?
Geneva
The LHC is installed in a tunnel 27 km in circum-
e
ch
ou
ference, buried 50-150 m below ground. Located
LHCb
eM
ke
Geneva la
ATLAS ALICE
pp
between the Jura mountain range in France and
ili
Ph
n
tio
Lake Geneva in Switzerland, the tunnel was built
tra
in the 1980s for the previous big accelerator, the
Large Electron–Positron collider (LEP).
us
Ill
CMS
How does it work?
After reaching an energy of 0.45 TeV in CERN’s

accelerator chain, the beams are injected into the
LHC ring, where they make millions of circuits.
What does it do? On each circuit, the beams receive an additional
impulse from an electric field contained in spe-
cial cavities, until they reach the final energy of
The LHC produces head-on collisions between 7 TeV. To control beams at such high energies,
two beams of particles of the same kind, either the LHC uses some 1800 superconducting mag-
protons or lead ions. The beams are created in
CERN’s chain of accelerators and then injected LHC net systems. These electromagnets are built
from superconducting materials.
into the LHC, where they travel through a At low temperatures they
vacuum comparable to outer space. Supercon- can conduct electric-
ducting magnets operating at extremely low ity without resistance
temperatures guide the beams around the ring. and so can create If the LHC used ordinary
Each beam will ultimately consist of nearly What is it for? How powerful? much stronger “warm” magnets instead of
superconductors, the ring would
3000 bunches of particles, each bunch contain- magnetic fields
ing as many as 100 billion particles. The particles than ordinary have to be at least 120 km in cir-
are so tiny that the chance of any two colliding The LHC provides collisions at the highest ener- The LHC is a machine for concentrating energy electromag- cumference to achieve the same col-
is very small. When the bunches cross, there will gies ever observed in laboratory conditions and into a very small space. Particle energies in the nets. The LHC’s lision energy and it would consume
be only about 20 collisions among 200 billion physicists are eager to see what they will reveal. LHC are measured in tera-electronvolts (TeV). niobium-titanium 40 times more electricity.
particles. However, bunches Four huge detectors—ALICE, ATLAS, CMS 1 TeV is roughly the energy of a flying magnets op-
will cross about 30 million and LHCb—observe the collisions so that the mosquito, but a proton is about a erate at a
times per second, so At near light- physicists can explore new territory in matter, trillion times smaller than a mos- tempera-
the LHC will gener- speed, a proton in the LHC energy, space, and time. quito. ture of only
ate up to 600 mil- makes 11 245 turns every Each proton flying round the 1.9 K (–271°C).
lion collisions per second. A beam might circulate LHC will ultimately The strength of a magnetic
second. for 10 hours, travelling more than have an energy of field is measured in units called
10 billion kilometres—far enough to 7 TeV, so when tesla. At maximum energy
get to the planet Neptune and back two protons the LHC will operate at about
again. At full power, each beam will be collide the 8 tesla, whereas ordinary
about as energetic as a car travel- collision “warm” magnets can achieve a
ling at 1600 kph. The energy stored energy will be maximum field of about 2 tesla.
in the magnets would be enough to 14 TeV. Lead ions
melt 50 tonnes of copper. have many protons,
and together they give
an even greater energy: the
lead ion beams will have a colli-
sion energy of 1150 TeV.
LHC
the world’s most powerful accelerator
>>>
Alps
Where is it?
Geneva
The LHC is installed in a tunnel 27 km in circum-
e
ch
ou
ference, buried 50-150 m below ground. Located
LHCb
eM
ke
Geneva la
ATLAS ALICE
pp
between the Jura mountain range in France and
ili
Ph
n
tio
Lake Geneva in Switzerland, the tunnel was built
tra
in the 1980s for the previous big accelerator, the
Large Electron–Positron collider (LEP).
us
Ill
CMS
How does it work?
After reaching an energy of 0.45 TeV in CERN’s

accelerator chain, the beams are injected into the
LHC ring, where they make millions of circuits.
What does it do? On each circuit, the beams receive an additional
impulse from an electric field contained in spe-
cial cavities, until they reach the final energy of
The LHC produces head-on collisions between 7 TeV. To control beams at such high energies,
two beams of particles of the same kind, either the LHC uses some 1800 superconducting mag-
protons or lead ions. The beams are created in
CERN’s chain of accelerators and then injected LHC net systems. These electromagnets are built
from superconducting materials.
into the LHC, where they travel through a At low temperatures they
vacuum comparable to outer space. Supercon- can conduct electric-
ducting magnets operating at extremely low ity without resistance
temperatures guide the beams around the ring. and so can create If the LHC used ordinary
Each beam will ultimately consist of nearly What is it for? How powerful? much stronger “warm” magnets instead of
superconductors, the ring would
3000 bunches of particles, each bunch contain- magnetic fields
ing as many as 100 billion particles. The particles than ordinary have to be at least 120 km in cir-
are so tiny that the chance of any two colliding The LHC provides collisions at the highest ener- The LHC is a machine for concentrating energy electromag- cumference to achieve the same col-
is very small. When the bunches cross, there will gies ever observed in laboratory conditions and into a very small space. Particle energies in the nets. The LHC’s lision energy and it would consume
be only about 20 collisions among 200 billion physicists are eager to see what they will reveal. LHC are measured in tera-electronvolts (TeV). niobium-titanium 40 times more electricity.
particles. However, bunches Four huge detectors—ALICE, ATLAS, CMS 1 TeV is roughly the energy of a flying magnets op-
will cross about 30 million and LHCb—observe the collisions so that the mosquito, but a proton is about a erate at a
times per second, so At near light- physicists can explore new territory in matter, trillion times smaller than a mos- tempera-
the LHC will gener- speed, a proton in the LHC energy, space, and time. quito. ture of only
ate up to 600 mil- makes 11 245 turns every Each proton flying round the 1.9 K (–271°C).
lion collisions per second. A beam might circulate LHC will ultimately The strength of a magnetic
second. for 10 hours, travelling more than have an energy of field is measured in units called
10 billion kilometres—far enough to 7 TeV, so when tesla. At maximum energy
get to the planet Neptune and back two protons the LHC will operate at about
again. At full power, each beam will be collide the 8 tesla, whereas ordinary
about as energetic as a car travel- collision “warm” magnets can achieve a
ling at 1600 kph. The energy stored energy will be maximum field of about 2 tesla.
in the magnets would be enough to 14 TeV. Lead ions
melt 50 tonnes of copper. have many protons,
and together they give
an even greater energy: the
lead ion beams will have a colli-
sion energy of 1150 TeV.
A world-wide network of computers to analyse an enormous
amount of data
CERN has developed new network-

ing technology called the Grid. This
links tens of thousands of comput-
ers worldwide to create a vast glo-
bal computing resource for the LHC
experiments.
The LHC experiments generate an

enormous amount of data. Each
year the data will be enough to fill
a stack of CDs 20 km tall.
The Large Hadron Collider
An international effort, the Sun never sets on the LHC project
Acting for its Member States, CERN

has invested CHF6 billion in the
LHC. This covers the accelerator,
Unique CERN is home to the world’s biggest and most powerful
computing, and manpower, as
particle accelerator—the 27-km LHC.
well as CERN’s contribution to the
experiments. However, the LHC is
a world project, and about 10% of
Scientific What we learn there will take us to a deeper understand-
the accelerator material cost is be-
ing of the Universe.
ing contributed by other countries.
Insight The results are eagerly anticipated by particle physicists
everywhere and could open up new fields of scientific
More than 10 000 scientists and en- endeavour.
gineers from around 500 academic
institutes and industrial companies
worldwide are contributing to the
The LHC A machine to accelerate two beams of particles in op-
LHC project. Equipment has been posite directions to more than 99.9% the speed of light.
built in many European countries, Smashing the beams together creates showers of new
and in others such as Canada, India, particles for physicists to study.
Japan, Russia and the US.
CERN
Research
CH-1211 Geneva 23
CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, was founded in 1954.
Communication Group, July 2010 It has become a prime example of international collaboration, with currently
CERN-Brochure-2010-006-Eng 20 Member States. It is the biggest particle physics laboratory in the world,
and sits astride the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva.
www.cern.ch www.cern.ch
The Detector
Weighing 10 000 tonnes and with

a height of 16 m and a length of
26 m, ALICE is a large and complex
detector composed of 18 sub-
detectors to track and identify the
tens of thousands of particles pro-
duced in each heavy-ion collision.
To record up to 8000 collisions per
second, the ALICE detector is based
of state-of-the-art technologies:
• high precision systems for detect-

ing and tracking the particles;
• ultra miniaturized systems for

processing electronic signals;
• a worldwide distribution of com-

puting resources for data analysis
(the Grid).
ALICE
The ALICE Experiment
An International Collaboration
A journey to the beginning of the Universe...
What happens to matter when it is heated to 100 000

times the temperature at the centre of the Sun?
Why do protons and neutrons weigh 100 times more

ALICE counts more than 1000
collaborators, including around than the quarks they are made of?
200 graduate students, from 116
physics institutes in 33 countries Can the quarks inside the protons and neutrons be
across the world. A wide variety
of skills are needed to build and freed?
operate such a large experiment.
...ALICE is going in search of answers to these questions,
using the extraordinary tools provided by the LHC.
CERN Photo credits:
Cover galaxy: NASA, ESA, CXC, and JPL-Caltech
Centre background: T.A.Rector (NOAO/AURA/NSF)
Research and Hubble Heritage Team (STScl/AURA/NASA)
CH-1211 Geneva 23 Centre, stars: J. Hester and P. Scowen (Arizona
State University), NASA/ESA/STScl CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, was founded in 1954. It has
Centre, galaxy: Christopher Burrows, NASA/ESA/
Communication Group, December 2010 STSci become a prime example of international collaboration, with currently 20 Member
CERN-Brochure-2010-007-Eng Centre, atomic structure: André-Pierre Olivier States. It sits astride the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva and is the biggest particle
ALICE photos: Antonio Saba and CERN
physics laboratory in the world.
http://aliceinfo.cern.ch/Public/ www.cern.ch
The Detector
Weighing 10 000 tonnes and with

a height of 16 m and a length of
26 m, ALICE is a large and complex
detector composed of 18 sub-
detectors to track and identify the
tens of thousands of particles pro-
duced in each heavy-ion collision.
To record up to 8000 collisions per
second, the ALICE detector is based
of state-of-the-art technologies:
• high precision systems for detect-

ing and tracking the particles;
• ultra miniaturized systems for

processing electronic signals;
• a worldwide distribution of com-

puting resources for data analysis
(the Grid).
ALICE
The ALICE Experiment
An International Collaboration
A journey to the beginning of the Universe...
What happens to matter when it is heated to 100 000

times the temperature at the centre of the Sun?
Why do protons and neutrons weigh 100 times more

ALICE counts more than 1000
collaborators, including around than the quarks they are made of?
200 graduate students, from 116
physics institutes in 33 countries Can the quarks inside the protons and neutrons be
across the world. A wide variety
of skills are needed to build and freed?
operate such a large experiment.
...ALICE is going in search of answers to these questions,
using the extraordinary tools provided by the LHC.
CERN Photo credits:
Cover galaxy: NASA, ESA, CXC, and JPL-Caltech
Centre background: T.A.Rector (NOAO/AURA/NSF)
Research and Hubble Heritage Team (STScl/AURA/NASA)
CH-1211 Geneva 23 Centre, stars: J. Hester and P. Scowen (Arizona
State University), NASA/ESA/STScl CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, was founded in 1954. It has
Centre, galaxy: Christopher Burrows, NASA/ESA/
Communication Group, December 2010 STSci become a prime example of international collaboration, with currently 20 Member
CERN-Brochure-2010-007-Eng Centre, atomic structure: André-Pierre Olivier States. It sits astride the Franco-Swiss border near Geneva and is the biggest particle
ALICE photos: Antonio Saba and CERN
physics laboratory in the world.
http://aliceinfo.cern.ch/Public/ www.cern.ch
Exhibit 17: Letter Confirming Requested Advising for Filming Documentary for PBS
TV Channel
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Requested Advising for Filming Documentary for PBS TV Channel
March 29, 2013
I certify that Dr. Novak assisted me and my colleagues with the pilot for a PBS series
we are producing about the challenges surrounding the human colonization of Mars.
He kindly shared his expertise in the field of the space radiation and space radiation
measurements during our filming and he also borrowed an actual space dosimeter used
at ISS which was invaluable to our filming efforts at the National Space Research
Organization in January 2013.
While we do not have a specific broadcast date, we hope to have a video showcasing
some of the concepts, technologies and challenges we were apprised of at NSRO ready
for publication in October 2013 on the KQED web site, www.kqed.org.
With best regards,
John P. Doe
Producer
KQED Science Unit

3927 TV Street
Documentary City
AL 23793
Exhibit 18: Member of Organizing Committee – Conference on Radiation Detectors

(CRD) 2009
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Member of Organizing Committee – CRD 2009
[This page represents part of Proceedings of the Conference on Radiation Detectors
(CRD) 2009 showing Jan Novak as a member of organizing committee]
 Conference on Radiation Detectors 2009

 Proceedings of the Conference on Radiation Detectors 2009
 Place and date
 Official CDR logo
 Editors
 Organizing institution logo
Second page (editorial) contains descriptions of Proceedings and CDR:
 Part of Nuclear Instrument and Methods in Physical Research A [real name of the journal]
 More than 10 years history of CDR
 Over 150 participants
 Invited talks
 Covered topics
 Place
 Sponsors
 Scientific Committee
 Organizing Committee - Jan Novak [name highlighted] among others
 Sponsors
 Sponsor logos
Exhibit 19: Citations

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Citations

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Citations (Google Scholar)

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Citations (Scopus)

….
…
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Citations (Web of Knowledge)

Exhibit 20: Publications

(http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=3100&category=3105&country=
all&yea)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Publications

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Peer-reviewed Publications

List of Peer-reviewed Publications
2012
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, Author #4, J. Novak, Author #6, Author #7, Author #8,
“Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #2”, Journal of Instrumentation
J. Novak, Author #2, Author #3, “Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #3”, Journal of
Instrumentation
2011
Author #9, Author #10, “Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #5”, Journal of Instrumentation
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, J. Novak, Author #5, Author #6, “Name of the Peer-
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, Author #4, Author #5, Author #6, “Name of the Peer-
J. Novak, Author #2, “Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #8”, Journal of Instrumentation
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, “Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #9”, Journal of
Instrumentation
2010
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, "Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #10", Review of
Scientific Instruments
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, J. Novak, "Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #11",
J. Novak, Author #2, Author #3, Author #4, Author #5, Author #6, Author #7, "Name of the
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, “Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #13”, Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, Author #4, Author #5, J. Novak, Author #7, "Name of the
2009
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, Author #4, "Name of the Peer-reviewed Article #15",
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – List of Peer-reviewed Publications

[This page represents all 15 peer reviewed papers of Jan Novak which were submitted in complete
and full-length form, in chronological order according to the list on previous page (names of journals
as well as order of authors remain real in this list)]
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Conference Proceedings Publications

List of Conference Proceedings Publications
2012
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, Author #4, Author #5, J. Novak, Author #7, “Name of the
Conference Proceedings Article #1”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series
2011
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, Author #4, “Name of the Conference Proceedings Article
#2”, Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (NSS/MIC), 2011 IEEE
Author #1, J. Novak, Author #3, Author #4, Author #5, “Name of the Conference
Proceedings Article #3”, Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference
(NSS/MIC), 2011 IEEE
2010
“Name of the Conference Proceedings Article #4”, Nuclear Science Symposium Conference
Record (NSS/MIC), 2010 IEEE
Author #1, Author #2, J. Novak, “Name of the Conference Proceedings Article #6”, Nuclear
2009
Author #1, Author #2, Author #3, J. Novak, Author #5, “Name of the Conference
Proceedings Article #7”, Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC), 2009
IEEE
2008
Science Symposium Conference Record, 2008. NSS '08. IEEE
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – List of Conference Proceedings Publications

[This page represents all 8 conference proceedings papers of Jan Novak which were submitted in
complete and full-length form, in chronological order according to the list on previous page (names
of proceedings as well as order of authors remain real in this list)]
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Abstract of PhD Thesis

AVERAGE EUROPEAN
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY IN
EUROPEAN CITY
Faculty of Nuclear Engineering
Department of Radiation
Development of New Methods
Ph.D. thesis
Jan Novak
European City, October 2011

Title: Development of New Methods
Author: Jan Novak
Specialization: Nuclear Engineering
Sort of Project: Ph.D. thesis
Supervisors: Dr. John R. Doe, Physics Laboratory,
Dr. John J. Doe, Physics Laboratory,
Author’s affiliation: Physics Laboratory,
Abstract: The semiconductor pixel detector Radimage, product of the Detimage collaboration, is a
novel detector based on a hybrid detector technology. [… the whole abstract follows here…]
4
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Abstract of Master’s Thesis

AVERAGE EUROPEAN TECHNICAL
UNIVERSITY IN EUROPEAN CITY
Faculty of Nuclear Engineering
Master’s Thesis about

Detectors
Master Thesis
Jan Novak
European City
2007
Title: Master’s Thesis about Detectors
Author: Jan Novak
Specialization: Nuclear Engineering
Sort of Project: Master Thesis
Supervisor: Dr. John Q. Doe, Department of Physics, Faculty of Nuclear

Engineering, Average European Technical University in European City
Consultant: Dr. John S. Doe, CERN, Geneva
Abstract: [… the whole abstract follows here…]
Keywords: detector
iii

(http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=3100&category=3105&country=
all&yea)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Peer-reviewed Journal Rankings

Journal Rankings on Instrumentation Page 1 of 2
Home Journal Rankings

Journal Rankings Ranking Parameters
Journal Search Subject Area: Physics and Astronomy 

Country Rankings
Subject Category: Instrumentation 
Country: All  Year: 2011 
Country Search Order By: SJR 
Compare Display journals with at least: 0 Citable Docs. (3 years)  Refresh
Map Generator
Subject Area: Physics and Astronomy.

Help
Subject Category: Instrumentation.
About Us Year: 2011.
Download data in MS Excel format (14 Kb)
How to cite this website? 1 - 50 of 64 << First | < Previous | Next > | Last >>
Total Total Total Citable Cites /

H Total Ref. /
SJR is developed by: Title SJR Docs. Docs. Cites Docs. Doc. Country
index Refs. Doc.
(2011) (3years) (3years) (3years) (2years)
1 Laser Physics Letters 1,835 39 146 451 5.052 3.626 449 10,06 34,60
2 Histochemistry and Cell Biology 1,481 61 110 428 5.196 1.540 409 2,68 47,24
3 Ultramicroscopy 1,407 68 251 686 6.271 1.576 668 2,46 24,98
Journal of Guidance, Control, and
4 1,232 66 181 582 4.551 1.023 570 1,56 25,14
Dynamics
Journal of Micromechanics and
5 0,991 77 409 1.250 11.417 2.930 1.232 2,26 27,91
Microengineering
6 Structural Health Monitoring 0,842 23 46 114 1.364 187 100 1,31 29,65
7 Journal of Instrumentation 0,816 17 362 550 5.143 945 549 1,00 14,21
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in
Physics Research, Section A:
8 0,803 98 1.990 3.894 29.980 4.899 3.783 1,27 15,07
Accelerators, Spectrometers,
Detectors and Associated Equipment
9 Journal of Microscopy 0,738 67 128 607 3.605 1.008 602 1,58 28,16
10 Journal of Chemometrics 0,671 55 68 244 2.294 401 232 2,00 33,74
11 Journal of Electron Microscopy 0,650 31 71 165 2.451 223 161 1,45 34,52
12 Growth Factors 0,650 41 32 130 1.950 263 129 1,52 60,94
13 PMC Physics A 0,602 3 0 6 0 17 5 3,40 0,00
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in
Physics Research, Section B: Beam
14 0,600 74 678 2.409 14.227 3.002 2.377 1,27 20,98
Interactions with Materials and
Atoms
15 Microscopy Research and Technique 0,576 78 164 351 6.083 613 341 1,77 37,09
16 Infrared Physics and Technology 0,542 29 80 237 1.611 339 235 1,53 20,14
Journal of Dynamic Systems,
17 Measurement and Control, 0,523 48 112 286 2.692 256 283 0,79 24,04
Transactions of the ASME
18 Scanning 0,510 29 72 136 1.782 157 125 1,08 24,75
Ad-Hoc and Sensor Wireless
19 0,494 4 45 64 1.182 43 62 0,69 26,27
Networks
20 Micron 0,476 48 116 456 4.712 765 452 1,65 40,62
21 Radio Science 0,473 45 147 179 4.273 219 170 1,24 29,07
International Journal of
22 0,362 5 25 74 644 58 69 0,69 25,76
Optomechatronics
23 0,354 21 189 439 2.494 276 415 0,69 13,20
http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=3100&category=3105&country=all&yea... 4/14/2013
Journal Rankings on Instrumentation Page 2 of 2
Total Total Total Citable Cites /

H Total Ref. /
Title SJR Docs. Docs. Cites Docs. Doc. Country
index Refs. Doc.
(2011) (3years) (3years) (3years) (2years)
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical
Physics
Transactions of the Institute of
24 0,350 17 57 92 1.234 102 89 1,17 21,65
Measurement and Control
Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and
25 0,349 26 133 416 3.157 422 380 1,27 23,74
Terahertz Waves
26 Accreditation and Quality Assurance 0,330 24 112 328 1.794 194 268 0,82 16,02
Insight: Non-Destructive Testing and
27 0,310 19 86 268 1.121 118 221 0,65 13,03
Condition Monitoring
28 TM. Technisches Messen 0,297 12 77 231 879 81 212 0,41 11,42
Zhejiang Daxue Xuebao (Gongxue
29 Ban)/Journal of Zhejiang University 0,273 13 367 1.258 5.300 437 1.258 0,31 14,44
(Engineering Science Edition
30 X-Ray Optics and Instrumentation 0,268 3 1 18 18 14 17 0,82 18,00
Quantitative InfraRed
31 0,268 2 11 15 108 10 15 0,67 9,82
Thermography
Yi Qi Yi Biao Xue Bao/Chinese
32 0,267 11 486 1.957 7.854 1.407 1.957 0,98 16,16
Journal of Scientific Instrument
33 Microscopy and Microanalysis 0,255 35 119 1.826 3.457 579 1.792 0,41 29,05
Journal of Laser Micro
34 0,239 4 33 53 585 30 53 0,57 17,73
Nanoengineering
35 Automation and Remote Control 0,236 13 224 576 3.205 177 570 0,30 14,31
36 Metrology and Measuring Systems 0,235 6 61 163 1.154 108 157 0,83 18,92
Annual IEEE Semiconductor Thermal
37 Measurement and Management 0,225 16 52 137 706 54 131 0,38 13,58
Symposium
38 Chinese Physics C 0,221 6 221 840 4.318 195 835 0,24 19,54
Nami Jishu yu Jingmi
39 Gongcheng/Nanotechnology and 0,213 6 102 302 1.279 100 302 0,35 12,54
Precision Engineering
Photogrammetrie, Fernerkundung,
40 0,210 4 28 68 567 37 62 0,60 20,25
Geoinformation
Conference Record - IEEE
41 Instrumentation and Measurement 0,201 17 360 425 4.434 138 423 0,00 12,32
Technology Conference
Mediterranean Journal of
42 0,199 4 18 70 348 16 60 0,33 19,33
Measurement and Control
43 Measurement Techniques 0,195 6 349 639 2.948 66 630 0,12 8,45
44 Mikrokosmos 0,188 5 57 207 433 31 179 0,23 7,60
Instruments and Experimental
45 0,186 14 154 479 1.698 99 478 0,17 11,03
Techniques
CPEM Digest (Conference on
46 Precision Electromagnetic 0,184 7 0 742 0 165 740 0,32 0,00
Measurements)
47 Sensors and Materials 0,179 19 25 135 434 47 122 0,41 17,36
Instrumentation Science and
48 0,165 16 39 146 898 61 143 0,45 23,03
Technology
Journal of Thermal Science and
49 0,149 2 29 40 539 10 40 0,25 18,59
Technology
Journal of Automated Methods and
50 0,146 11 13 28 372 13 28 0,33 28,62
Management in Chemistry
1 - 50 of 64 << First | < Previous | Next > | Last >>
Scimago Lab, Copyright 2007-2013. Data Source: Scopus®
http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=3100&category=3105&country=all&yea... 4/14/2013
Exhibit 21: Detimage Collaboration – Member Institutions
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Detimage Collaboration – Member Institutions

[This page represents list of members of Detimage collaboration printed from official website]
 Logo of collaboration
 Spokesperson
 List of institutes within the Detimage collaboration (institute, group, address)
2nd – 6th page contains:
 Detimage collaboration members (name of person, institute, phone, fax)

Exhibit 22: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - Reducing Radiation from
Medical X-rays
(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/UCM185316.pdf)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – U.S. FDA - Reducing Radiation from Medical X-rays
Consumer Health Information
www.fda.gov/consumer
Reducing Radiation
from Medical X-rays
conditions. X-rays can be used on just
about any part of the body—from
the head down to the toes—to iden-
tify health problems ranging from
a broken bone to pneumonia, heart
disease, intestinal blockages, and kid-
ney stones. And X-rays cannot only
find cancerous tumors, but can often
destroy them.
Along with their tremendous value,
medical X-rays have a drawback: they
expose people to radiation. FDA reg-
O
ulates radiation-emitting products
ne of medicine’s including X-ray machines. But every-
most remarkable one has a critical role in reducing
achievements radiation while still getting the maxi-
is the use of X-rays mum benefit from X-ray exams.
to see inside the What are X-rays?
body without having X-rays are a form of electromagnetic
a surgeon wield a radiation that can penetrate cloth-
scalpel. ing, body tissue, and internal organs.
An X-ray machine sends this radia-
tion through the body. Some of the
radiation emerges on the other side
of the body, where it exposes film
Fotosearch
or is absorbed by a digital detector
to create an image. And some of it
“Before medical X-ray machines emergency room with severe inju- is absorbed in body tissues. It is the
were available, people who were in ries, within a few minutes you can radiation absorbed by the body that
an accident and had serious injuries be X-rayed, often with a sophisticated contributes to the “radiation dose” a
would often need exploratory sur- computed tomography, or ‘CT,’ unit, patient gets.
gery to find out what was wrong,” have your injuries assessed, and be Because of their effectiveness in the
says CAPT Thomas Ohlhaber, U.S. treated quickly before you progress early detection and treatment of dis-
Public Health Service, a physicist and to a much more serious state,” says eases, and their ready access in doc-
deputy director of the Food and Drug Ohlhaber. tor’s offices, clinics, and hospitals,
Administration’s (FDA) Division of X-rays are used for much more X-rays are used more today and on
Mammography Quality and Radia- than identifying injuries from acci- more people than in the past, accord-
tion Programs. dents. They are used to screen for, ing to the National Council on Radia-
“But today, if you’re brought to the diagnose, and treat various medical tion Protection and Measurements.
1 / FDA Consumer Health Information / U.S. Food and Drug Administration FEBRUARY 2009
Ask your dentist if he/she uses the

faster (E or F) speed film for X-rays.
• In the early 1980s, medical X-rays made up about 11 percent of all the It costs about the same as the con-
radiation exposure to the U.S. population. Current estimates attribute nearly ventional D speed film and offers
35 percent of all radiation exposure to medical X-rays. (Nuclear medicine similar benefits with a lower radiation
procedures, which use radioactive material to create images of the body, dose. Using digital imaging detectors
account for about 12 percent of radiation exposure, and natural sources of instead of film further reduces radia-
radiation in the environment that we’re exposed to all the time make up tion dose.
approximately 50 percent.)
Know your X-ray history. “Just as you
• Radiation dose per person from medical X-rays has increased almost 500 may keep a list of your medications
percent since 1982. with you when visiting the doctor,
• Nearly half of all medical X-ray exposures today come from CT equipment, keep a list of your imaging records,
and radiation doses from CT are higher than other X-ray studies. including dental X-rays,” says Ohl-
haber. An X-ray record card you can
Source: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
keep in your wallet can be found at
www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/record_
card.pdf. When an X-ray is taken, fill
X-ray Risks reduce radiation exposure—whether out the card with the date and type of
The risks of medical X-rays include they’re a consumer or patient, doc- exam, referring physician, and facil-
• a small increase in the chance of tor, physicist, radiologist, technologist, ity and address where the images are
developing cancer later in life manufacturer, or installer.” kept. Show the card to your health
• developing cataracts and skin burns care professionals to avoid unnec-
following exposure to very high levels Steps for Consumers essary duplication of X-rays of the
of radiation Consumers have an important role in same body part. Keep a record card
reducing radiation risks from medical for everyone in your family.
The small risk of cancer depends on X-rays. FDA recommends these steps:
several factors: FDA’s Role
Ask your health care professional FDA works to reduce radiation doses
• The lifetime risk of cancer increases how an X-ray will help. How will it to the public while preserving image
as a person undergoes more X-ray help find out what’s wrong or determine quality for an accurate exam by
exams and the accumulated radiation your treatment? Ask if there are other • establishing performance standards
dose gets higher. procedures that might be lower risk for radiation-emitting products, rec-
• The lifetime risk is higher for a per- but still allow a good assessment or ommending good practices, and con-
son who received X-rays at a younger treatment for your medical situation. ducting educational activities with
age than for someone who receives health professionals, scientists, indus-
them at an older age. Don’t refuse an X-ray. If your health try, and consumers to encourage the
• Women are at a somewhat higher care professional explains why it is safe use of medical X-rays and mini-
lifetime risk than men for developing medically needed, then don’t refuse mize unnecessary exposures
cancer from radiation after receiving an X-ray. The risk of not having a • working with professional groups and
the same exposures at the same ages. needed X-ray is greater than the small industry to develop international safety
risk from radiation. standards that build dose-reduction
The risk of cataracts and skin burns technologies into various procedures
are mainly associated with repeated or Don’t insist on an X-ray. If your and types of radiological equipment
prolonged interventional fluoroscopy health care professional explains • working with states to help them
procedures. These types of procedures there is no need for an X-ray, then annually inspect mammography facil-
show a continuous X-ray image on a don’t demand one. ities, test mammography equipment
monitor (an X-ray “movie”) to deter- (X-ray machines to help detect breast
mine, for example, where to remove Tell t he X-ray tec hnologist in cancer), and ensure that facilities
plaque from coronary arteries. advance if you are, or might be, adhere to the Mammography Qual-
“The benefits of medical X-rays far pregnant. ity Standards Act, which establishes
outweigh their risks,” says CDR Sean standards for radiation dose, person-
Boyd, U.S. Public Health Service, an Ask if a protective shield can be nel, equipment, and image quality
engineer and chief of FDA’s Diagnostic used. If you or your children are get- • monitoring industry technologi-
Devices Branch. “And everyone involved ting an X-ray, ask whether a lead apron cal advances that reduce radiation
with medical X-rays can do their part to or other shield should be used. doses. Equipment manufacturers
Medical X-rays: How Much Radiation Are You Getting?

This table shows the radiation dose of some common medical X-ray exams compared to the radiation people are
exposed to from natural sources in the environment. For example, the radiation exposure from one chest X-ray equals
the amount of radiation a person is exposed to from their natural surroundings in 10 days.
The unit of measurement for an effective radiation dose is the millisievert (mSv). The average person in the United
States receives a dose of about 3 mSv per year from naturally occurring radiation.
Three types of X-ray procedures are listed:

• computed tomography (CT) generates a three-dimensional image of part of the body
• radiography generates a two-dimensional image
• mammography is radiography of the breast
Your effective Comparable to natural

For this procedure:
radiation dose is: background radiation for:
Abdominal region:
Computed Tomography (CT)-Abdomen 10 mSv 3 years
Computed Tomography (CT)-Body 10 mSv 3 years
Radiography-Lower GI Tract 4 mSv 16 months
Radiography-Upper GI Tract 2 mSv 8 months
Bone:
Radiography-Extremity 0.001 mSv Less than 1 day
Chest:
Computed Tomography (CT)-Chest 8 mSv 3 years
Radiography-Chest 0.1 mSv 10 days
Women’s Imaging:
Mammography 0.7 mSv 3 months
Copyright © 2009 RadiologyInfo.org; Courtesy: American College of Radiology and Radiological Society of North America
have already incorporated several page (www.fda.gov/consumer), which What are the Radiation Risks
advances to decrease the dose in features the latest updates on FDA- from CT?
newer machines that perform CT, regulated products. Sign up for free www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.html
which is considered the gold stan- e-mail subscriptions at www.fda.gov/
dard for diagnosing many diseases consumer/consumerenews.html. RadiologyInfo, a radiology
but also contributes greatly to the information resource for patients
collective radiation dose to the U.S. For More Information www.radiologyinfo.org/
population. X-ray Record Card
• participating in “Image Gently,” a www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/record_ Whole-Body Computed
national initiative to educate parents card.pdf Tomography (CT) Imaging
and health care professionals about www.fda.gov/womens/getthefacts/
the special precautions required for Medical X-rays ct.html
children who get X-rays. (Children www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhealth/products/
are more sensitive to medical X-ray medicalxray.html National Council on Radiation
radiation than adults.) Protection and Measurements
Radiology & Children: Extra Care www.ncrponline.org
Required
This article appears on FDA’s Con- www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/
sumer Health Information Web radiology_kids062308.html
Exhibit 23: U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) - Domestic Nuclear

Detection Office Should Improve Planning to Better Address Gaps and Vulnerabilities
(http://www.gao.gov/assets/290/285334.pdf)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – U.S. GAO - DNDO Should Improve Planning to Better Address Gaps…
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters
January 2009
NUCLEAR
DETECTION
Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office
Should Improve
Planning to Better
Address Gaps and
Vulnerabilities
GAO-09-257
January 2009
NUCLEAR DETECTION
Accountability Integrity Reliability
Highlights
Highlights of GAO-09-257, a report to
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office Should Improve
Planning to Better Address Gaps and Vulnerabilities
congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found

In April 2005, the Domestic Nuclear DNDO has made some progress in strengthening radiation detection
Detection Office (DNDO) was capabilities to address critical gaps and vulnerabilities in combating nuclear
established within the Department smuggling, which include the land border area between ports of entry into the
of Homeland Security (DHS) to United States, aviation, and small maritime vessels. However, DNDO is still in
enhance and coordinate federal, the early stages of program development, and has not clearly developed long
state, and local efforts to combat
nuclear smuggling domestically
term plans, with costs and time frames, for achieving its goal of closing these
and overseas. DNDO was directed gaps by expanding radiological and nuclear detection capabilities. For
to develop, in coordination with the example, DNDO and Customs and Border Protection have been collaborating
departments of Defense (DOD), on radiological and nuclear detection options to better secure the land
Energy (DOE), and State (State), a borders between ports of entry. However, DNDO-sponsored field evaluations
global strategy for nuclear to test radiation detection equipment are still not complete and DNDO and
detection—a system of radiation CBP may not have all radiation detection equipment in place until 2012. In
detection equipment and addition, DNDO is in the first year of a 3-year maritime pilot program, working
interdiction activities domestically with the Coast Guard and local law enforcement agencies in the Puget Sound,
and abroad. GAO was asked to Washington, area to field test equipment and to develop radiological and
examine (1) DNDO’s progress in nuclear screening procedures. However, DNDO has made little progress in (1)
developing programs to address
critical gaps in preventing nuclear
developing criteria for assessing the success of the pilot to help determine
smuggling domestically, (2) whether it should be expanded to other locations, and (2) resolving some of
DNDO’s role in supporting other the challenges it faces in the pilot program, such as technological limitations
agencies’ efforts to combat nuclear of the detection equipment and sustaining current detection efforts.
smuggling overseas, and (3) the
amount budgeted by DHS, DOD, Although DNDO has no authority over other federal agencies’ programs to
DOE, and State for programs that combat radiological and nuclear smuggling overseas, it has worked with DOD,
constitute the global nuclear DOE, and State to provide subject matter expertise and exchange lessons
detection strategy. To do so, GAO learned on radiological and nuclear detection. However, most of DNDO’s
analyzed agency documents; efforts are modest in scope, reflecting the fact that these agencies have well-
interviewed agency, state, and local established programs to combat nuclear smuggling. For example, DNDO has
officials; and visited select pilot
program locations.
been working with State’s Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism to
develop model guidelines that other nations can use to establish their own
What GAO Recommends nuclear detection programs.
GAO recommends that DHS According to DNDO, approximately $2.8 billion was budgeted by DHS, DOD,
(1) develop a plan for the domestic DOE, and State in fiscal year 2007 for programs included in the global strategy
part of the global strategy, and for nuclear detection. Of this amount, approximately $1.1 billion was
(2) in coordination with DOD, budgeted for programs to combat nuclear smuggling overseas, $1.1 billion was
DOE, and State, use the Joint
budgeted for nuclear detection programs at the U.S. border and within the
Annual Interagency Review to
guide future strategic efforts to United States, and approximately $577 million was budgeted to fund cross-
combat nuclear smuggling. GAO cutting activities, such as providing technical support to users of the radiation
also has two recommendations detection equipment. DNDO collected budget data and published them in the
related to maritime planning. DHS Joint Annual Interagency Review, an annual report required by Congress.
did not directly comment on the DOD, DOE, and State officials told GAO that this information is used primarily
recommendations, but said they as a status report of individual programs to combat nuclear smuggling. It is
aligned with DNDO’s efforts. not used as a tool to help plan for or inform the future direction of the strategy
or to help establish current or future priorities.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on GAO-09-257.
For more information, contact David Maurer
at (202) 512-3841 or maurerd@gao.gov.
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 4
Background 9
DNDO Is in the Early Stages of Enhancing Domestic Initiatives for
Nuclear Detection 13
DNDO Has Limited Role in Influencing U.S. Efforts to Combat
Radiological and Nuclear Smuggling Overseas 23
A Total of $2.8 Billion Was Budgeted in Fiscal Year 2007 for
Programs Associated with Detecting Radiological and Nuclear
Materials 25
DNDO Has Not Yet Implemented Recommendation from July 2008
Testimony 32
Conclusions 32
Recommendations for Executive Action 34
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 34
Appendix I Comments from the Department of Homeland

Security 39
GAO Comments 50
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 56
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 58
Related GAO Products 59
Table
Table 1: Distribution of Fiscal Year 2007 Budget for Detecting
Radiological and Nuclear Weapons or Materials 26
Figures
Figure 1: Elements of the Global Nuclear Detection Strategy 10
Figure 2: Cargo Vehicle Passing through Radiological Detection
Equipment at Dulles International Airport 16
Page i GAO-09-257 Nuclear Detection

Figure 3: A Coast Guard Officer Wearing Standard Boarding Team
Equipment 22
Figure 4: Budgets by Program Focus and Agency 26
Abbreviations
ASP advanced spectroscopic portal (monitor)

CBP Customs and Border Protection
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DNDO Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
NYPD New York Police Department
RIID radioactive isotope identification device
SAFE Port Act Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of
2006
State Department of State
TSA Transportation Security Administration
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page ii GAO-09-257 Nuclear Detection

Washington, DC 20548
January 29, 2009
Congressional Requesters
Preventing terrorists from using radiological or nuclear material to carry

out an attack in the United States is a top national priority. If terrorists
were to carry out such an attack, the consequences could be devastating
to national security. Since the events of September 11, 2001, there is
heightened concern that terrorists may try to smuggle radiological and
nuclear materials or a nuclear weapon into the United States or obtain
such materials within the United States. In 2002, Congress established the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and gave it authority to, among
other things, develop and deploy technologies to detect, prevent, and
interdict nuclear materials or devices from being transported into and
used within the United States.
In April 2005, the President issued a directive establishing the Domestic

Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO), within DHS, to enhance and coordinate
federal, state, and local efforts to prevent radiological and nuclear attacks.
Congress subsequently passed the Security and Accountability for Every
Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), which established DNDO in statute.1
Among other things, DNDO is required to develop, in coordination with
the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), the
Department of Justice, and the Department of State (State), an enhanced
global nuclear detection architecture—essentially a strategy involving
radiation detection equipment and interdiction activities to combat
nuclear smuggling in foreign countries, at the U.S. border, and inside the
United States.2 DNDO is responsible for coordinating the implementation
of the domestic portion (at the U.S. border and within the United States)
of the global strategy, including the efforts of federal, state, and local
governments. It is also responsible for developing and acquiring radiation
detection equipment to support the domestic efforts of DHS and other
federal agencies. The directive and the SAFE Port Act reaffirmed that
1
Pub. L. No. 109-347, section 501, 120 Stat. 1884, 1932 (2006).
2
Neither the presidential directive nor the SAFE Port Act, which established DNDO and
directed the agency to develop a global nuclear detection architecture, defined the term
“architecture.” DNDO has interpreted “architecture” as a time-phased, geographic approach
to reducing the risk of a radiological or nuclear attack. For the purposes of this report, we
refer to the architecture as a strategy.
Page 1 GAO-09-257 Nuclear Detection

on
DOD, DOE, and State, among other agencies, are responsible for programs
to combat radiological and nuclear smuggling outside the United States.
In its initial approach, DNDO categorized existing nuclear detection

programs into three main geographic regions—overseas, U.S. border, and
U.S. interior—which it further divided into nine more specific geographic
segments. In addition, agencies identified other programs that support
more than one segment; DNDO categorizes these as cross-cutting. While
DNDO is responsible for developing the global strategy for nuclear
detection, each federal agency that has a role in combating nuclear
smuggling is responsible for implementing its own programs. DNDO
identified 73 federal programs, which are primarily funded by DOD, DOE,
and DHS, that engage in radiological and nuclear detection activities.
Since its inception about 4 years ago, DNDO has been examining nuclear
detection strategies along potential pathways—such as air, land, or sea—
for smuggling radiological or nuclear material and identified opportunities
to improve the likelihood of detection and interdiction. Through these
studies, DNDO concluded that potential smuggling pathways outside of
traditional ports of entry—where U.S. government efforts have been
focused—represented critical gaps in the existing nuclear detection
strategy. Specifically, DNDO identified several gap areas, among others,
with respect to detecting potential nuclear smuggling and prioritized its
efforts on three primary pathways: (1) land border areas between ports of
entry into the United States, (2) aviation, and (3) small maritime craft.3
These pathways are important because of their size, volume of traffic, and
limited deployment of radiological and nuclear detection capabilities.
Specifically, the United States has more than 6,000 miles of land border
with many locations where people and vehicles can easily enter the United
States. Nuclear weapons and material also can be small and portable
enough to be carried on most aircraft. On average, nearly 2,000
international commercial flights and over 400 international general
aviation flights land in the United States each day.4 In the maritime
3
Small maritime craft are vessels less than 300 gross tons and can include recreational
boats, commercial fishing vessels, and tug boats. These vessels are subject to few security
regulations. For example, they do not have to provide a 96-hour advance notice of arrival.
4
International general aviation applies to noncommercial, nonmilitary aircraft traveling to
the United States from an international location. International general aviation aircraft can
range in size from small planes (such as a Cessna 182) to planes as large as a DC-9 or even
an Airbus A380.

environment, a Coast Guard risk assessment revealed that small boats
pose a greater threat for nuclear smuggling than container ships. There are
at least 13 million registered domestic pleasure craft in the United States
and 110,000 commercial fishing vessels. These small boats have
traditionally been used to smuggle drugs and people, but, as occurred in
the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, can be used to deliver a weapon.
GAO was asked to examine (1) DNDO’s progress in developing programs

to address critical gaps in preventing nuclear smuggling domestically,
(2) DNDO’s role in supporting other agencies’ efforts to combat nuclear
smuggling overseas, and (3) the amount budgeted by DHS, DOD, DOE, and
State for programs that constitute the global nuclear detection strategy
and the extent to which the budget information is used for planning
purposes. In addition, we are providing an update on DNDO’s efforts to
implement the recommendation made in our July 2008 testimony, which
presented preliminary observations on the global strategy for nuclear
detection.5
To evaluate the status of DNDO’s progress in developing programs to

address critical gaps and its role in supporting other agencies’ efforts to
combat nuclear smuggling overseas, we reviewed and analyzed documents
DNDO used to help create the baseline, or initial strategy, as well as
DNDO-sponsored studies on gaps identified in the strategy. We also
reviewed our previous reports on nuclear and radiological detection.6 We
interviewed officials from DNDO about steps taken to develop and
improve upon the existing strategy for nuclear detection and interviewed
agency officials from DOD, DOE, and State who manage programs that are
part of the global strategy to obtain their perspectives on how these
programs fit into the global strategy and to learn about any new initiatives
to address gaps and vulnerabilities. In addition, we interviewed officials
from a variety of federal, state, and local agencies—including Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), the Coast Guard, the New York City Police
Department, and local law enforcement participating in the Puget Sound
maritime pilot—to obtain their views on DNDO’s initiatives to combat
nuclear smuggling. We chose the New York City Police Department
because of its efforts to enhance nuclear detection capabilities through the
5
GAO, Nuclear Detection: Preliminary Observations on the Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office’s Efforts to Develop a Global Nuclear Detection Architecture, GAO-08-999T
(Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2008).
6
See the list of related GAO products at the end of this report.

Securing the Cities initiative and Puget Sound because that was the first
location chosen for the maritime radiological and nuclear detection pilot
program. We also interviewed subject matter experts from the academic
and nonprofit sectors, as well as representatives from the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to gain their perspective on efforts to
develop and implement the strategy. To examine the amount budgeted for
the programs that constitute the global strategy for nuclear detection, we
analyzed budget data submitted by DHS, DOD, DOE, and State to DNDO
as part of DNDO’s Joint Annual Interagency Review and spoke with
officials from these agencies to discern how this information was used. We
assessed the reliability of these data and determined it was sufficient for
the purposes of this analysis. We conducted this performance audit from
November 2007 through January 2009 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
DNDO has made some progress in strengthening radiation detection

Results in Brief capabilities to address critical gaps and vulnerabilities in combating
nuclear smuggling, which include the land border areas between ports of
entry into the United States, aviation, and small maritime vessels.
However, DNDO is still in the early stages of program development, and
has not clearly developed long-term plans, with costs and time frames, for
achieving its goal of closing these gaps by expanding radiological and
nuclear detection capabilities. Specifically, we found:
• Land border areas between ports of entry. DNDO and CBP, both agencies
within DHS, have been collaborating on radiological and nuclear detection
options to better secure the border areas between ports of entry. CBP is
responsible for developing and implementing screening procedures;
DNDO provides the equipment for these operations. DNDO and CBP plan
to have radiation detection equipment in place at all 20 CBP sectors by
fiscal year 2012. However, DNDO-sponsored laboratory and field
evaluations to identify and test radiation detection equipment are still not
complete, DNDO has fallen behind on its original test schedule, critical
testing has been postponed owing to problems with the detection
technology being tested, and DNDO has not estimated the total cost of this
effort. In addition, DNDO has not provided CBP with the equipment

needed in a timely manner to improve radiation detection capabilities
either at ports of entry or land border areas between ports of entry.
• Aviation. DNDO is still in the early stages of developing programs to

achieve its goal of screening all incoming international planes, cargo, and
passengers for nuclear weapons and material. Although some initiatives in
the aviation arena are under way, it is unclear how long this effort will
take or how much it will cost. Since December 2007, CBP has been
screening 100 percent of passengers and baggage on arriving international
general aviation flights (approximately 400 flights per day), as well as the
aircraft, for radiological or nuclear materials. However, CBP efforts to
screen international cargo have not proceeded as smoothly. Jurisdictional
and operational issues between the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), CBP, and the local airport authority delayed efforts
to screen international cargo at the initial airport selected for screening
until September 2008. Planned expansion of this screening to a total of 30
U.S. airports, which represent 99 percent of incoming international cargo,
is not projected to be fully achieved until 2014.
• Small maritime vessels. DNDO has developed and tested equipment for
detecting nuclear material on small maritime vessels. However, efforts to
use this equipment in a port area have been limited to pilot programs for
demonstrating the feasibility of screening small vessels. Whereas
initiatives to combat smuggling at land border areas between formal ports
of entry and through aviation routes are being integrated into already
existing CBP screening operations, initiatives in the maritime environment
require developing and testing new equipment and new procedures with
the Coast Guard and local law enforcement agencies. DNDO is currently in
the first year of a 3-year pilot program in Puget Sound and San Diego to
design, field test, and evaluate equipment and is working with CBP and
Coast Guard as they develop procedures for screening. This review is
scheduled to end in 2010, when DNDO will decide whether screening of
small vessels for radiological and nuclear material is feasible. However,
DNDO has not established criteria for assessing the success of this pilot
effort to help determine whether it should be expanded to other locations.
In addition, should DNDO decide to continue this program, it does not
currently have a plan detailing which locations it would target for
maritime radiological and nuclear detection programs, nor has it estimated
the total cost of this initiative. Although DNDO is providing state, tribal,
and local agencies with initial equipment, support, and training during the
pilot, DNDO expects them to seek funding from federal grant programs to
sustain these initiatives. For many state and local agency officials we
spoke with, the uncertainty of federal resources jeopardizes their ability to
continue radiological and nuclear detection activities.

Although DNDO has no authority over other federal agencies’ programs to
combat radiological and nuclear smuggling, it has worked with DOD, DOE,
and State to support these agencies’ efforts to combat nuclear smuggling
overseas by, for example, providing subject matter expertise and
exchanging lessons learned on radiological and nuclear detection.
However, most of DNDO’s efforts are modest in scope, reflecting the fact
that DOD, DOE, and State have well-established programs to combat
nuclear smuggling. Some of the areas in which DNDO has been able to
contribute to other agencies’ overseas programs include (1) working with
State’s Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism to develop model
guidelines that other nations can use to establish their own nuclear
detection programs and sponsoring a related workshop, and
(2) exchanging lessons learned with DOE from its efforts to develop
operations to screen for radiological and nuclear materials in the aviation
arena. In addition, DNDO has been collecting information and developing
an inventory of radiation detection equipment deployed overseas. DNDO
subsequently has shared this information with relevant agencies, and
agencies have used this information to guide equipment placement
decisions.
According to DNDO, approximately $2.8 billion was budgeted by DHS,

DOD, DOE, and State in fiscal year 2007 for programs included in the
global strategy for nuclear detection; however, agencies are not analyzing
this budget information to ensure that resources are clearly aligned with
overarching priorities. Of this $2.8 billion, approximately $1.1 billion was
budgeted for programs designed to combat nuclear smuggling and secure
materials overseas. Approximately $220 million was budgeted for
programs to support the detection of radiological and nuclear material at
the U.S. border; an additional $918 million funded security and detection
activities within the United States. Finally, approximately $577 million was
budgeted for a number of cross-cutting activities that support many
different layers of the strategy, such as those focused on research and
development or technical support to users of the detection equipment.
When analyzed by agency, the majority of the $2.8 billion—$1.8 billion, or
62 percent—was budgeted for DOE programs, primarily those related to
securing nuclear weapons and weapons material at its source and
deploying radiological and nuclear detection systems at international
border crossings, airports, and seaports. DNDO collected these program-
level budget data in response to a statutory requirement that select
agencies, including DHS, DOD, DOE, and State, annually assess their
capacity to implement their portion of the global nuclear detection
strategy. DNDO’s June 2008 report discusses, among other things,
programs and budgets in support of the global nuclear detection effort.

The report provides an overview of the global nuclear detection strategy
and discusses programs and budgets for combating nuclear smuggling
domestically and overseas. Agency officials from DOD, DOE, and State
said that this information is used primarily to provide agencies and
Congress with a picture of the already established roles and
responsibilities within the layered structure of the strategy. The
information is not being used, however, as a tool to look more broadly
across the global strategy, to help assess the overall strategic direction of
global detection efforts, or help establish current or future global
priorities, according to these officials.
In July 2008, we testified that DNDO had not developed an overarching

strategic plan to guide its development of a more comprehensive global
strategy for nuclear detection.7 We recommended that DHS, in
coordination with DOD, DOE, and State, develop a strategic plan to guide
the development of a more comprehensive global nuclear strategy
including (1) clearly defining objectives, (2) identifying the roles and
responsibilities for meeting each objective, (3) identifying funding
necessary to achieve those objectives, and (4) employing monitoring
mechanisms to determine programmatic progress and identify needed
improvements. DNDO agreed with the need for an overarching strategic
plan and believes that many elements of such a plan exist in DHS and
other agency documents, but that there are gaps and vulnerabilities for
which solutions are still under development. As of December 2008, DNDO
had not yet established detailed plans to address those gaps and
vulnerabilities, nor had it integrated all the plan elements into an
overarching strategic plan as recommended.
To complement our July 2008 recommendation, we are recommending

that the Secretary of Homeland Security develop a strategic plan for the
domestic part of the global nuclear detection strategy to help ensure the
future success of initiatives aimed at closing gaps and vulnerabilities. This
plan should focus on, among other things, establishing time frames and
costs for the three areas of recent focus—land border areas between ports
of entry, aviation, and small maritime vessels. In addition, to enhance
DNDO’s future efforts to combat nuclear smuggling via small maritime
vessels, we are recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security
develop criteria to assess the effectiveness, cost, and feasibility of its
maritime radiological and nuclear pilot program. Furthermore, should the
7
GAO-08-999T.

Secretary decide to expand the program beyond the pilot, we recommend
that DHS undertake additional planning to identify next steps, including
how and where a broader strategy would be implemented, what
technology would be needed, what organizations should be involved, and
how such efforts would be sustained.
We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOD, DOE, and State for
comment. DHS and DOD provided written comments, which are presented
in appendixes I and II, respectively. DOE and State provided technical
comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOD concurred with
the recommendation that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, and
Secretary of State, use the Joint Annual Interagency Review to guide
future strategic efforts to combat nuclear smuggling. DOD stated that
greater use could be made of the review associated with the development
of this annual report to guide U.S. efforts to combat nuclear smuggling.
DHS did not directly comment on our recommendations but noted that the
recommendations aligned with DNDO’s past, present, and future actions.
DHS pointed out what, in its view, were a number of shortcomings in the
draft report. Specifically, the department believes that we did not give
enough credit to DNDO’s strategic planning efforts. Furthermore, the
department believes that we did not clearly and adequately explain the
background and context of DNDO’s efforts to develop a global strategy,
what has been accomplished so far, what remains to be done, and what
challenges it faces. Finally, DHS asserted that the draft contained a
number of inaccuracies and omissions that make it less reliable and useful
than it could be. DHS also provided a number of more detailed comments
on specific issues presented in the draft report. We have addressed those
comments in our detailed responses in appendix I and incorporated
changes, where appropriate.
We believe that our report fairly and accurately presents DNDO efforts to
develop and implement a global strategy to enhance nuclear detection
efforts. We have reported DNDO’s key initiatives to improve radiation
detection capabilities in the areas of land borders between the ports of
entry, aviation, and maritime. For example, the report acknowledges how
DNDO has helped highlight the need to address these critical gaps and has
also made some progress in developing and supporting initiatives to close
these gaps. In our view, DNDO needs better planning to improve the
chances that the strategy will be successfully implemented and sustained
in the future. In its comments, DNDO agreed that the overarching strategic
plan we had previously recommended in our July 2008 testimony based on

our preliminary findings on this very issue was valuable and that work on
such a plan has begun.
According to IAEA, between 1993 and 2006, there were 1,080 confirmed
Background incidents of illicit trafficking and unauthorized activities involving nuclear
and radiological materials worldwide. Eighteen of these cases involved
weapons-usable material—plutonium and highly enriched uranium—that
could be used to produce a nuclear weapon. IAEA also reported that 124
cases involved materials that could be used to produce a device that uses
conventional explosives with radioactive material (known as a “dirty
bomb”). Past confirmed incidents of illicit trafficking in highly enriched
uranium and plutonium involved seizures of kilogram quantities of
weapons-usable nuclear material but most have involved very small
quantities. In some of these cases, it is possible that the seized material
was a sample of larger quantities available for illegal purchase. IAEA
concluded that these materials pose a continuous potential security threat
to the international community, including the United States.
Nuclear material could be smuggled into the United States in a variety of

ways: hidden in a car, train or ship; sent through the mail; carried in a
private aircraft or small boat; carried in personal luggage through an
airport; or walked across the border. In response to these threats, U.S.
agencies—including DHS, DOD, DOE, and State—fund, manage, and
implement programs to combat nuclear smuggling in foreign countries and
the United States. DOD, DOE, and State are responsible specifically for the
overseas programs. Many of these programs started operations prior to
DNDO’s creation and collectively cover all of the geographic regions of the
global strategy. (See fig. 1.)

Figure 1: Elements of the Global Nuclear Detection Strategy
2
1
5
3
6-9
4
Overseas U.S. Border U.S. Interior
1.
1. Foreign origin: Locations in foreign 4. Transit to United States: Actual ship
4 6. U.S. origin: Places within the U.S.
6.
countries where nuclear weapons or passage or airplane flight from the point where nuclear weapons, nuclear
material, or radiological material are of departure to the port of entry material or radiological material are
stored, used, or created stored, used, or processed
5. U.S. Border: Radiation detection at all
2.
2. Foreign transit: Any transport of land borders with Canada and Mexico, the 7. U.S. Regional: Capabilities that
7.
radiological or nuclear material within or coastal and inland waterway borders, and detect or identify radiation sources
between foreign countries from its site of international airports between the entry into the United
origin to its point of departure to the U.S. States (or the U.S. point of origin) and
the ultimate target
3.
3. Foreign departure: Points of
departure to the U.S. including seaports 8. Target Vicinity: Detectors located
8.
and airports. “near” targets but with sufficient
standoff to protect the targets, or at
least mitigate damage, if a device is
detonated
9. Target: Detect devices delivered to

9.
the target but not yet detonated
Sources: GAO analysis of DNDO data and Map Resources (map).
For example, DOE’s Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting

program, initiated in 1995, provides support to the Russian Federation and

other former Soviet Union countries to secure nuclear weapons and
weapons material that may be at risk of theft or diversion.8 In addition,
during the 1990s, the United States began deploying radiation detection
equipment at borders in countries of the former Soviet Union. DOD’s
Cooperative Threat Reduction program was established in the early 1990s
to help address proliferation concerns in the former Soviet Union,
including helping secure sites where nuclear weapons are located.9 Two
other DOD programs have provided radiation portal monitors, hand-held
equipment, and radiation detection training to countries in the former
Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe. Similarly, DOE’s Second Line of
Defense program, initiated in 1998, supplies radiation detection
equipment, training, and communication systems to Russia and other
countries.10 DOE’s Megaports Initiative, also part of the Second Line of
Defense program, began in 2003 and is focused on providing radiation
detection systems at major international seaports. Once the equipment is
installed, it is then operated by foreign government officials and port
personnel working at these ports.11 State also has programs that provide
radiation detection equipment and training to numerous countries.
Domestically, DHS, in conjunction with other federal, state, and local

agencies, is responsible for combating nuclear smuggling in the United
States and has provided radiation detection equipment, including portal
monitors, personal radiation detectors (known as pagers), and radioactive
isotope identifiers at U.S. ports of entry, as well as in other settings. For
example, DHS has equipped Coast Guard boarding and inspection teams
with portable detection systems and has provided equipment, training, and
8
GAO, Nuclear Nonproliferation: Progress Made in Improving Security at Russian
Nuclear Sites, but the Long-term Sustainability of U.S.-Funded Security Upgrades Is
Uncertain, GAO-07-404 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2007).
9
GAO, Cooperative Threat Reduction: DOD Has Improved Its Management and Internal
Controls, but Challenges Remain, GAO-05-329 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005).
10
GAO, Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Corruption, Maintenance, and Coordination
Problems Challenge U.S. Efforts to Provide Radiation Detection Equipment to Other
Countries, GAO-06-311 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2006). Since its initial deployment of
equipment in 1998, the Second Line of Defense program has grown to include cooperation
with countries throughout the Former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and the Caucasus,
providing radiation detection equipment at land border crossings, international airports,
and feeder seaports.
11
GAO, Preventing Nuclear Smuggling: DOE Has Made Limited Progress in Installing
Radiation Detection Equipment at Highest Priority Foreign Seaports, GAO-05-375
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005).

assistance in other maritime, air, and land venues. In addition, DOE has
programs to secure nuclear and radioactive sources domestically. For
example, the U.S. Radiological Threat Reduction program recovers and
manages excess and unwanted radioactive sources that belong to U.S.
licensees. In addition, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as 35
states that have signed an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, are responsible for regulating the security of radioactive and
nuclear materials within the United States through its Radiological
Materials and Reactor Security Programs.
Several types of radiation detection equipment are used by CBP, the Coast
Guard, and other agencies involved in radiological and nuclear detection
activities: radiation portal monitors, radioactive isotope identification
devices (RIID), and personal radiation detectors, among others. Portal
monitors are stationary or mobile pieces of equipment that can detect
radioactive materials carried by vehicles or transported in cargo
containers. RIIDs are a type of handheld radiation detection equipment
that can detect radiation as well as identify the specific isotope of the
radioactive source. Personal radiation detectors are worn by CBP officials,
Coast Guard boarding teams, and other law enforcement agents. Unlike
portal monitors and RIIDs, personal radiation pagers function primarily as
personal safety devices to alert the individual wearer when he or she is
exposed to an increased level of radiation. Under certain circumstances
these devices also could be used to detect smuggled nuclear material.
However, they can only indicate variations in the general level of radiation
and their sensitivity is limited because of the small size of the detector.
Therefore, they should not be relied upon for that purpose.
All radiation detection devices have limitations in their ability to detect

and identify nuclear material. Detecting attempted nuclear smuggling is
difficult because many sources of radiation are legal and not harmful when
used as intended. These materials can trigger alarms—known as nuisance
or innocent alarms—that may be difficult to distinguish in some cases
from alarms that could sound in the event of a true case of nuclear
smuggling without a thorough secondary inspection. Nuisance or innocent
alarms can be caused by patients who have recently had cancer
treatments, a wide range of cargo with naturally occurring radiation (e.g.,
fertilizer, ceramics, and food products), and legitimate shipments of
radiological sources for use in medicine and industry. Additionally,
detecting actual cases of illicit trafficking in weapons-useable nuclear
material is complicated: one of the materials of greatest concern in terms
of proliferation—highly enriched uranium—is among the most difficult
materials to detect because of its relatively low level of radioactivity.

DNDO is currently testing the next generation of radiation portal
monitors—the advanced spectroscopic portal monitor, or ASP. We have
repeatedly raised concerns about DNDO’s efforts to develop and test
ASPs. Specifically, we found that testing of ASPs at DOE’s Nevada Test
Site did not represent an objective or rigorous assessment because DNDO
used biased test methods that enhanced the apparent performance of the
ASPs and did not test the limitations of the ASPs’ detection capabilities.12
In 2008, we also found that DNDO’s cost estimate to equip U.S. ports of
entry with radiation detection equipment is unreliable because it omits
major project costs and relies on a flawed methodology. Furthermore, the
agency is no longer following the original project execution plan, the
scope of the agency’s current ASP deployment strategy has changed, and
DNDO now plans a much more limited deployment of the ASP than
initially proposed.13 The current ASP testing is expected to continue into
2009.
DNDO’s ultimate goal is to expand radiological and nuclear detection

DNDO Is in the Early capabilities to areas identified as vulnerable to nuclear smuggling. To that
Stages of Enhancing end, in 2005, DNDO identified critical gaps in domestic efforts to prevent
and detect radiological and nuclear smuggling, including, but not limited
Domestic Initiatives to: (1) land border areas between ports of entry into the United States,
for Nuclear Detection (2) aviation, and (3) small maritime craft. However, DNDO is still in the
early stages of developing initiatives to address these vulnerabilities, and it
has not clearly articulated a long-term plan for how to achieve its goal of
closing these gaps by expanding radiological and nuclear detection
capabilities in the time frames identified.
Land border areas between ports of entry. The United States has more
than 6,000 miles of land border susceptible to illegal crossings by people
and vehicles. DNDO began addressing this gap in 2005 and currently is
jointly working with CBP to equip Border Patrol agents—who are
responsible for patrolling the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico—with
portable radiological and nuclear detection equipment by 2012. Portability
12
GAO, Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Additional Actions Needed to Ensure Adequate
Testing of Next Generation Radiation Detection Equipment, GAO-07-1247T (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 18, 2007).
13
GAO, Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DHS’s Program to Procure and Deploy Advanced
Radiation Detection Portal Monitors Is Likely to Exceed the Department’s Previous Cost
Estimates, GAO-08-1108R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2008).

is critical to strengthening radiation detection efforts because it expands
the opportunity to detect a potential radiological threat should a Border
Patrol agent encounter one. To date, as part of a phased approach, DNDO
and CBP have tested and evaluated radiation detection equipment and
CBP developed operating procedures for using the equipment and
resolving radiation alarms along the southern U.S. border. However,
similar tests along the northern U.S. border have been postponed.14
Specifically, DNDO and CBP originally scheduled equipment testing along
the southern border for January 2008 and along the northern border for
March 2008. However, they did not actually begin testing along the
southern border until May 2008. According to a CBP official, DNDO
explained that this schedule slip was caused by a delay in selecting the
equipment for the test. DNDO told us that it chose to conduct an
additional review of commercially available detection equipment before
field testing, which caused these tests to be delayed. As a result of
preliminary findings from the field tests, DNDO and CBP decided in
November 2008 to indefinitely postpone the previously scheduled tests
along the northern border. According to these agencies, the preliminary
test results indicated that further technological improvements will be
necessary before the portable radiation detection equipment can be
distributed more widely for use in this environment. Full distribution of
equipment along the land border areas between ports of entry is
contingent on completing these field evaluations and entails providing
detection equipment and operating procedures to all 20 Border Patrol
sectors across the United States. Assuming no further schedule and
technological delays, the radiation detection equipment to help secure the
U.S. land border areas between ports of entry may not be fully in place
until fiscal year 2012. According to DNDO, the agency requested a total of
$33.6 million in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for such initiatives, but it has
not estimated the total cost for this effort beyond those years.
One of DNDO’s roles in supporting the effort to close gaps in the land
border area between ports of entry is to procure and supply detection
equipment to CBP. However, according to CBP officials, in fiscal year
2008, DNDO did not procure needed radiation detection equipment in a
timely manner. Specifically, CBP’s Office of Field Operations—responsible
for official ports of entry—and its Office of Border Patrol requested
14
The southern U.S. border tests occurred in the Border Patrol’s El Paso, Texas, and
Tucson, Arizona, sectors. The northern U.S. border test was planned for the Border Patrol’s
Swanton, Vermont, sector.

approximately 240 additional RIIDs. However, according to CBP officials,
DNDO did not fill its procurement needs. As of November 2008, only 64 of
the 240 devices requested had been delivered to CBP. This situation is
particularly problematic for the Border Patrol because its agents do not
have enough RIIDs to meet their current patrol needs, according to a
Border Patrol official.
Aviation. Because nuclear weapons and material can be small and

portable enough to be carried on most aircraft, CBP, with the support of
DNDO, has been working on initiatives to screen all incoming
international planes, cargo, and passengers. Although progress has been
made on screening international general aviation, many of the other
initiatives are either in their initial phases or still on the drawing board and
it is unclear how long it will take or how much it will cost to complete
these initiatives. In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, DNDO has requested a total
of $35 million for aviation-related activities; 15 however, it has not
estimated the costs of these initiatives beyond the near term.
Since December 2007, CBP has been screening 100 percent of arriving
international general aviation aircraft (approximately 400 flights per day)
for radiological and nuclear material. According to DNDO officials, such
efforts are being included in the strategy for the first time. To assist with
the international general aviation initiative, DNDO managed the testing
and evaluation of radiation detection devices in close coordination with
CBP officials to ensure that the technology and operating procedures
would be consistent with CBP’s responsibilities to screen all aircraft
arriving from outside the United States.16 Specifically, in 2008, DNDO, in
partnership with CBP, tested portable radiation detection equipment for
use in scanning small, medium, and large international general aviation
aircraft and assessed whether CBP screening procedures needed to be
modified.
While CBP has made progress in ensuring that appropriate operating

procedures for using the equipment and resolving radiation alarms are
established and all international general aviation is screened, its other
aviation initiatives have not proceeded as smoothly or have not yet begun.
CBP is working with DNDO on an initiative to screen international air
15
This number includes the fiscal year 2007 Supplemental Appropriation which provided
$22 million for aviation initiatives into fiscal year 2009.
16
6 U.S.C. section 202.

cargo for radiological and nuclear material and has chosen Dulles
International Airport as the first location for this screening. According to
DNDO, this airport was chosen first because it has one gate through which
all cargo travels. However, because both international and domestic cargo
pass through this gate, the start of operations was delayed until September
2008 due to jurisdictional issues between CBP and TSA—CBP is
responsible for screening international cargo for radiological and nuclear
material and TSA for scanning domestic cargo for explosives. The two
agencies had to reach an agreement allowing CBP to screen all cargo for
radiological and nuclear material, regardless of origin. (Fig. 2 shows cargo
moving through a stationary radiation portal monitor at Dulles
International Airport.)
Figure 2: Cargo Vehicle Passing through Radiological Detection Equipment at

Dulles International Airport
Source: GAO.
In October 2008, we visited Dulles to observe this operation, including a

demonstration of radiation detection capabilities. CBP sent a vehicle
containing a small sample of Cesium-137—a radiological material that is
considered a highly attractive source for the purpose of a radiological
dispersal device, or dirty bomb—through the detection equipment.
Cesium-137, which is generally in the form of a powder similar to talc, is
highly dispersible. CBP uses this sample to routinely test equipment.
However, the detection equipment failed to sound an alarm until the

material had passed through it for a third time. CBP officials told us that
this source material triggered an alarm during a test earlier that week, and
attributed the problems with this demonstration to either the shielding of
the source material by the vehicle or to a weak signal given off by the
material because it may be nearing the end of its usable life.
CBP plans to have cargo screening at the 30 U.S. airports that account for
99 percent of incoming international cargo by 2014. However, because
cargo processing at Dulles is simpler than at other airports, due to the
configuration of its cargo area, CBP officials acknowledged that their plan
is very ambitious. According to CBP officials, expanding the cargo
screening initiative to larger, more complicated airports will require CBP
to devise different operational procedures and possibly develop new
detection technology. DNDO and CBP also plan to cooperate with other
federal agencies on an initiative to screen passengers and baggage from
international commercial flights. However, according to DNDO, it is still
working on the basic approach for this initiative, such as where to locate
passenger and baggage scanning equipment in an airport. To date, DNDO
and CBP have initiated a pilot program for screening international
passengers and their baggage at airports. In fiscal year 2008, they
completed site surveys at five airports in order to develop requirements
for testing planned for fiscal year 2009.
Current aviation initiatives focus on radiation detection both prior to

departure from a foreign location and after the aircraft lands in the United
States. Ultimately, DNDO and CBP would like the detection of radiological
and nuclear materials to occur as far outside of U.S. borders as possible—
at the point of departure instead of the point of entry. For example, rather
than screening international general aviation once the plane arrives in the
United States, it would be preferrable to screen the plane at the country
from which it departs. However, such a strategy would rely on negotiating
agreements with foreign governments, which could prove challenging
given concerns about sovereignty and rights of access. Furthermore,
DNDO officials were uncertain when and if agreements could be reached
with enough foreign governments to establish a more effective aviation
strategy. As of December 2008, DHS has concluded agreements with
Ireland and Aruba to include radiological and nuclear screening of
international general aviation aircraft in these countries.

Small maritime vessels. A Coast Guard analysis revealed that small boats
pose a greater threat for nuclear smuggling than transporting illicit
material in shipping containers, according to a senior Coast Guard
official.17 These small boats, which include maritime craft less than 300
gross tons, number in the millions. DNDO efforts related to radiological
and nuclear detection on small maritime vessels are part of a larger DHS
effort—the Small Vessel Security Strategy. This strategy recognizes a
number of risks that small vessels pose, including serving as a vehicle to
smuggle weapons or terrorists into the United States, and using the boat
itself as an improvised explosive device. DHS is working to develop a
Small Vessel Security Strategy implementation plan, which will, among
other things, identify needed research, development, and testing, and
recommend actions for future efforts and put the strategy into action. To
address one of the vulnerabilities, DNDO has been working since 2005
with multiple federal agencies, including the Coast Guard and CBP, as well
as state and local agencies, to develop and expand capabilities to detect
radiological and nuclear materials that could be smuggled on small
maritime craft. Coast Guard and CBP are responsible for developing the
screening procedures and making decisions about what vessels are to be
screened; DNDO provides the radiological and nuclear detection
equipment. Coast Guard and DNDO have entered into a Joint Acquisition
Strategy to update the current Coast Guard detection technology
inventory, as well as to acquire new equipment if necessary.
There are a number of challenges associated with radiological detection

capabilities in the maritime environment that have limited DNDO’s ability
to roll this initiative out widely. Specifically, these agencies have a pilot
project underway in Puget Sound, Washington, to field-test equipment and
develop standard operating procedures for detecting and interdicting
radiological and nuclear materials on small vessels. DNDO chose Puget
Sound because of its proximity to Vancouver, Canada, the host of the 2010
Winter Olympics; its military and economic significance; and the large
number of commercial and recreational vessels. DNDO is also expanding
this pilot to San Diego, California, where it has conducted an initial
assessment of the area and briefed officials about the program. DNDO
selected San Diego as a pilot location because of its proximity to Mexico,
geographic configuration, and many military facilities. DNDO is currently
17
From testimony delivered by Vice Admiral Thad Allen on the role of Coast Guard in
border and maritime security, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland
Security, U.S. Senate, Apr. 6, 2006.

in the first year of a 3-year pilot program; the Puget Sound and San Diego
operations are scheduled to be completed in December 2010. According to
DNDO’s data for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the agency requested
$14.7 million for the pilot project and a total of $54.2 million for these and
other maritime initiatives.
One significant challenge in developing maritime radiological and nuclear

detection efforts is sustaining them beyond the original pilot projects;
DNDO has not yet developed plans for doing so. In addition to the Coast
Guard and CBP, state and local governments play a key role in maritime
law enforcement activities. For example, in Puget Sound, the majority of
the law enforcement personnel and equipment available for radiological
and nuclear detection belong to the 15 state, tribal, and local agencies
participating in the pilot.18 However, these agencies generally have limited
resources, making it difficult to expand their mission to include
radiological and nuclear detection. Furthermore, these agencies have
competing demands and could choose to fund other priorities. Although
DNDO is providing these agencies with the initial equipment, support,
training, and maintenance during the Puget Sound and San Diego pilots, it
is expecting them to seek funding from federal grant programs to sustain
these initiatives. For many state and local agency officials we spoke with,
the uncertainty of federal resources jeopardizes their ability to continue
radiological and nuclear detection activities. According to one local sheriff
from Washington state, if funding to maintain and support radiation
detection equipment provided during the pilot disappears, his department
will not continue radiological and nuclear detection activities.
Other state and local agencies participating in the Puget Sound pilot also
emphasized the difficulty in keeping personnel trained on detection
equipment without additional federal support beyond the current pilot
project. Because maritime law enforcement personnel may not frequently
need to use the equipment, future training is necessary to ensure that that
they maintain their skills. However, without the additional resources
currently provided by DNDO, state and local agencies would have
difficulty covering the costs associated with ongoing training, including
18
The state and local agencies are Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington
State Patrol, Washington Department of Health, Whatcom County Sheriff, Pierce County
Sheriff, Seattle Fire Department, Seattle Police Department, Port of Seattle Police, Everett
Police Department, Bainbridge Island Police Department, Port Orchard Police Department,
Tacoma Police Department, Suquamish Tribal Police, Port of Everett, and Skagit County
Sheriff.

overtime salaries for personnel who have to take on the regular duties of
those being trained.
Given these state and local concerns, DNDO’s strategy for sustaining such
programs appears problematic. According to DNDO officials, sustaining
the existing pilot programs will be the responsibility of the local
jurisdictions through a well-established federal grants process.
Specifically, DNDO anticipates that funding for these programs will come
from Homeland Security grants, Urban Areas Security Initiative grants,
and the DHS Port Security Grant Program. However, DNDO currently does
not have a plan detailing which locations it would target next for the
maritime program, nor has it estimated the total cost of this initiative.
According to DNDO officials, the office has focused first on just two
locations in order to determine whether maritime screening of small
vessels for radiological and nuclear material is feasible and to gather
lessons learned that can be used to minimize challenges and develop
operating procedures for using the radiation detection equipment and
resolving radiation alarms in other areas. However, DNDO has not
established criteria for assessing the success of this pilot effort to help
determine whether it should be expanded to other locations. Should its
concept for detecting and interdicting radiological and nuclear material
smuggled on small maritime vessels prove feasible, DNDO plans to
develop guidance so that state and local law enforcement agencies can
implement their own maritime radiological and nuclear detection
programs.
In addition, unlike radiation detection technology for land or aviation,

technology in the maritime environment is relatively undeveloped and
poses unique challenges. For example, the level of background radiation in
water differs from the level of background radiation on land, which affects
the capability of equipment to detect and identify certain types of
radioactive material. Furthermore, the equipment needs to be water
resistant and designed so that it can be used by agents who need their
hands free to board and climb around ships. To date, DNDO has, among
other things, tested boat-mounted radiation detectors, detection
equipment that can be carried in a backpack, and handheld radiological
detection and identification devices that can withstand exposure to water.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of radiation detection equipment in the
maritime environment remains limited. For example:
• The boat-mounted radiation equipment is unable to indicate the direction

of the radioactive material causing the alarm, making it difficult to identify

the potential threat in an open sea with many small vessels, according to a
local law enforcement officer we spoke with. CBP Air and Marine officers
also expressed uncertainty about how boat-mounted detection equipment,
which has been tested only in a fairly controlled lake environment, will
work in a more turbulent open sea environment, where it is more difficult
to detect and determine radioactive material. DNDO officials told us that a
fiscal year 2009 initiative will assess boat-mounted detection systems in
real-world environments.
• The backpack radiation equipment works best when physically worn by

someone, according to a DNDO official. However, Coast Guard officers
already have a difficult time maneuvering through the small passageways
on boats with the current equipment they must wear. (Fig. 3 shows a Coast
Guard officer wearing standard boarding team equipment, without a
backpack.) The backpacks have the potential to further decrease officers’
maneuverability and their ability to inspect boats.
• If a hand-held radiological detection and identification device is

accidentally dropped overboard, it does not float and can withstand being
submerged under only 30 feet of water. These handheld devices cost
$15,000 per unit, making them expensive to replace.

Figure 3: A Coast Guard Officer Wearing Standard Boarding Team Equipment
Source: Coast Guard.
DNDO has also delayed in rolling out radiation detection equipment to the
agencies engaged in its maritime initiatives. Although federal, state, and
local agencies in the Puget Sound pilot determined their equipment needs
in April 2008 and submitted this request to DNDO, they have received little
equipment. According to a DNDO official, DNDO was slow to process the
order and once it was placed, the manufacturer was unable to fill the order
in a timely manner and did not immediately notify DNDO of this delay.
According to DNDO, once it was notified of the delay from the vender, it
borrowed units from the Coast Guard so that the pilot could proceed. Of
the 362 personal radiation detectors ordered, 95 had been delivered as of
October 2008. However, the order may not be completely filled until early
2009.
DNDO, in coordination with the Coast Guard, the New York City Police
Department (NYPD), and other state and local agencies, is also engaged in
maritime nuclear detection activities in the New York City area as part of
the Securing the Cities initiative. This initiative is intended to enhance

protection and response capabilities in and around high-risk urban areas
by designing a system to detect and interdict illicit radioactive materials
that may be used as a weapon. As with the Puget Sound pilot, the agencies
involved in the initiative’s maritime activities do not presently have
enough equipment to meet their needs, according to officials participating
in the Securing the Cities initiative. For example, the Coast Guard has one
boat, with radiation detection equipment provided by DOE, and the NYPD
has two boats with radiation detection equipment. However, NYPD
officials told us that the NYPD has another 28 boats that need to be
equipped with radiation detection technology and these equipment
purchases depend on the availability of future federal grant funding.
Although DNDO has no authority over other federal agencies’ programs to

DNDO Has Limited combat radiological and nuclear smuggling overseas, it has exchanged
Role in Influencing lessons learned with DOD, DOE, and State and provided technical
expertise on radiological and nuclear detection equipment. However, most
U.S. Efforts to of DNDO’s efforts are modest in scope and reflect the fact that DOD, DOE,
Combat Radiological and State have well-established programs to combat nuclear smuggling
overseas. DNDO officials told us that their efforts to develop a more
and Nuclear comprehensive approach to global nuclear detection are very complex
Smuggling Overseas because each agency has a distinct area of authority. Areas in which
DNDO has been able to contribute to other agencies’ overseas programs
include the following:
• DOD. DNDO has been working with DOD, among other agencies, to
develop radiation detection equipment and to minimize duplication of
research efforts. For example, DNDO and DOD are collaborating through
the National Institute for Standards and Technology to develop
interagency standards and common practices for testing and evaluating
radiation detection systems. These standards will be threat based and will
state the minimum detection capability that certain radiation detection
systems should have to perform their purpose.
• DOE. DNDO has been collaborating with DOE to develop strategies for
addressing gaps in DOE’s overseas radiation detection programs that are
similar to those DNDO has been working on domestically. For example,
DOE’s Second Line of Defense program had focused more on placing fixed
detectors at particular sites. However, as a result of DOE’s review of its
existing nuclear detection programs and its discussion with other
agencies, including DNDO, DOE officials told us the agency has begun to
work with law enforcement officials in other countries to improve
detection capabilities for the land between ports of entry. DOE officials

said they also are considering assisting other countries with the
implementation of mobile detection technologies, similar to those used
domestically by CBP. DNDO and DOE also are exchanging lessons learned
from both agencies’ efforts to screen aviation, specifically the
development of standard operating procedures for using hand-held
radiation detection equipment.
• State. DNDO is working with State on the Global Initiative to Combat

Nuclear Terrorism—which provides 75 countries with an opportunity to
integrate resources and share information and expertise on nuclear
smuggling prevention, detection, and response—to develop model
guidelines that other countries can use to establish their own nuclear
detection strategies. DNDO sponsored a Global Initiative workshop in
March 2008 to help 25 countries develop a draft of the model guidelines
document. This document, among other things, is intended to raise
awareness about the elements of an effective nuclear detection strategy
and build consensus for its implementation. In addition, DNDO personnel
have traveled with officials from State to countries involved in the
department’s Nuclear Smuggling Outreach Initiative, a program to assess
and improve the capabilities of countries to combat smuggling of nuclear
and radiological materials, in order to provide advice to these countries on
how to build their own capabilities to counter nuclear smuggling. DNDO
also helped State develop questions that these countries could use to
assess their own vulnerabilities.
In addition to providing the U.S. government agencies engaged in

international nuclear detection programs with knowledge gained from
domestic nuclear detection initiatives, DNDO has been directed by these
agencies to develop an inventory of radiation detection equipment
deployed overseas. In a March 2006 report, we recommended that State,
working with DOD and DOE, create, maintain, and share a comprehensive
list of all U.S.-funded radiation detection equipment provided to foreign
governments.19 In December 2006, State, in coordination with DOD, DOE,
and DHS, issued a strategic plan giving DNDO responsibility for gathering
data on the deployment of radiation detection equipment overseas,
including portal monitors and handheld devices.20 As part of DNDO’s
efforts to develop the global strategy for nuclear detection, it is charged
with maintaining this database, share information from it at interagency
19
GAO-06-311.
20
U.S. Department of State, Strategic Plan For Interagency Coordination of U.S.
Government Nuclear Detection Assistance Overseas (Washington, D.C., Dec. 1, 2006).

meetings, and provide other relevant government agencies with access to
the database. According to DNDO, it collected information on radiation
detection equipment from DOD, DOE, and State most recently in 2007 and
is updating some of the information in 2008 and 2009. A DNDO official also
said that the agency analyzed these data to determine the proximity of
radiation detection equipment to areas with nuclear facilities.
DHS, DOD, DOE, and State budgeted a total of $2.8 billion in fiscal year
A Total of $2.8 Billion 2007 for the programs included in the global strategy for radiological and
Was Budgeted in nuclear detection, according to DNDO. Nearly the same amount of funds—
$1.1 billion—were budgeted for programs and activities to (1) combat
Fiscal Year 2007 for nuclear smuggling overseas and (2) detect nuclear materials primarily at
Programs Associated U.S. borders and ports of entry; a smaller portion was budgeted for cross-
cutting programs. By agency, the majority of 2007 budgeted funds for the
with Detecting global strategy for radiological and nuclear detection went to DOE—
Radiological and 62 percent. Although DNDO has detailed information on the budgets for
Nuclear Materials various security and detection programs, it is not using this information to
coordinate with other agencies on the overall strategic direction of these
detection efforts.
Amounts Budgeted for According to our analysis of DNDO’s data, of the approximately
Programs to Combat $2.8 billion agencies budgeted in fiscal year 2007, about 39 percent went to
Nuclear Smuggling combat nuclear smuggling overseas, while 41 percent went to programs to
detect and secure radiological and nuclear materials at and within U.S.
Overseas and to Detect borders; another 20 percent went to programs that cut across foreign and
Nuclear Materials domestic activities. Figure 4 shows budgets by program focus and by
Primarily at U.S. Borders agency.
and Ports of Entry Were
Nearly the Same

Figure 4: Budgets by Program Focus and Agency
FY 2007 Budget by Program Focus FY 2007 Budget by Agency
3%
State
United States
DOD
Cross-cutting
11%
20%
41%
62% 24% DHS
39% Overseas
DOE
Source: GAO analysis of DNDO data.
Table 1 shows the allocation of these funds by programs to combat

nuclear smuggling overseas and within the United States.
Table 1: Distribution of Fiscal Year 2007 Budget for Detecting Radiological and
Nuclear Weapons or Materials
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2007 budget
Geographic focus DHS DOD DOE Statea Total
Overseas $139.77 $161.90 $736.74 $81.13 $1,119.54
United Statesb 274.65 1.60 871.49 0.00 1,147.74
Cross-cutting 271.18 137.07 168.86 0.00 577.12
Total $685.60 $300.57 $1,777.09 $81.13 $2,844.39
Source: GAO analysis of DNDO data.
a
State does not sponsor domestic programs to combat nuclear smuggling and did not provide budget
amounts for its cross-cutting programs because these programs do not provide direct financial
assistance and generally leverage resources from other federal agencies and international partners.
b
United States includes efforts at the border as well as within the interior of the country.

Programs to combat nuclear smuggling overseas. DOE received the
majority of the budget for programs to combat international nuclear
smuggling—$737 million (or approximately 67 percent) of the $1.1 billion
total in fiscal year 2007. For all the agencies, the international programs
are largely intended to secure nuclear and radiological materials at their
source or detect them in transit. By agency, key programs include the
following:
• DHS budgeted $139 million for its Container Security Initiative, which
provides multidisciplinary teams—agents, intelligence analysts, and CBP
officers—to selected foreign seaports in order to protect the United States
from potential terrorist attacks using maritime cargo shipments and to
help secure the primary system of containerized shipping for international
trade.21 Another DHS program, the Secure Freight Initiative,22 is important
to the global strategy for nuclear detection because it provides foreign
countries with radiation scanning systems for containers at ports of
departure and communications infrastructure to transmit radiological and
nuclear material data to the United States. This program is designed to test
the feasibility of 100 percent scanning of U.S.-bound container cargo at
seven overseas seaports and involves the deployment of integrated
scanning systems, consisting of radiation portal monitors and RIIDs.
• At DOD, 98 percent of its budget for combating nuclear smuggling

overseas went to three programs that are part of the Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program—a program that protects national security by
reducing the present threat and preventing the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction.23 The Nuclear Weapons Safety and Security Program had
a budget of $92.8 million to enhance Russia’s security systems at nuclear
weapons storage sites and capability to account for and track nuclear
weapons scheduled for dismantlement. The Proliferation Prevention
Initiative had a budget of $32.4 million to help countries of the former
Soviet Union prevent the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction or
related materials across their borders; this initiative provides equipment,
logistics support, and training. Finally, the Nuclear Weapons
21
GAO, Supply Chain Security: Examinations of High-Risk Cargo at Foreign Seaports
Have Increased, but Improved Data Collection and Performance Measures Are Needed,
GAO-08-187 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2008).
22
GAO, Supply Chain Security: Challenges to Scanning 100 Percent of U.S.-Bound Cargo
Containers, GAO-08-533T (Washington, D.C.: June 12, 2008).
23
GAO, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nonproliferation Programs Need Better
Integration, GAO-05-157 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 2005).

Transportation Security Program had a budget of $32.7 million to enhance
safe and secure transport of nuclear weapons from operational sites and
storage areas to enhanced security storage sites and dismantlement sites
throughout Russia.
• At DOE, two programs account for about 81 percent of the department’s

budget to combat nuclear smuggling overseas. First, the Materials
Protection, Control, and Accounting Program had a budget of
$414 million.24 This program provides support to the Russian Federation
and other countries of the former of Soviet Union to secure nuclear
weapons and weapons material that may be at risk of theft or diversion
from their current location. Second, DOE’s Second Line of Defense—a
cooperative assistance program for deploying radiological and nuclear
detection systems and associated training at international border
crossings, airports, and seaports—had a budget of $183 million.25
• State budgeted approximately $42 million for its Export Control and
Related Border Security program to help stem the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and conventional
weapons by assisting recipient countries in detecting, deterring,
preventing, and interdicting illicit trafficking in weapons and weapons-
related items.26 The program is also designed to provide a wide range of
assistance and support, such as offering licensing and legal and regulatory
technical workshops, and providing detection equipment and training for
border control and enforcement agencies.
Programs to combat radiological and nuclear smuggling at and within

U.S. borders. As with programs to combat nuclear smuggling overseas,
DOE received most of the budget for programs to combat radiological and
nuclear smuggling domestically—$871 million (or 76 percent) of the
$1.1 billion budgeted in fiscal year 2007. By agency, key programs include
the following:
24
GAO, Nuclear Nonproliferation: Progress Made in Improving Security at Russian
Nuclear Sites, but the Long-term Sustainability of U.S. Funded Security Upgrades Is
Uncertain, GAO-07-404 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2007).
25
GAO, Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Corruption, Maintenance, and Coordination
Problems Challenge U.S. Efforts to Provide Radiation Detection Equipment to Other
Countries, GAO-06-311 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2006).
26
GAO, Nonproliferation: U.S. Efforts to Combat Nuclear Networks Need Better Data on
Proliferation Risks and Program Results, GAO-08-21 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2007).

• At DHS, the Advanced Spectroscopic Portals/Radiological Portal Monitors
program had a budget of $209 million to provide systems development,
acquisition, and deployment of these technologies to ports of entry. The
Securing the Cities initiative, with a fiscal year 2007 budget of $8.47
million, is intended to enhance protection and response capabilities in and
around the nation’s highest risk urban areas. Starting with New York City,
the department will work with state and local officials to develop urban
and regional deployment and operations strategies, identify appropriate
detection equipment, establish the necessary support infrastructure, and
develop incident management and response protocols. In addition, DHS
budgeted $1.1 million for the West Coast Maritime Radiation Detection
Program, which is evaluating general radiation detection capabilities to be
deployed aboard Coast Guard or other law enforcement vessels that
participate in vessel-boarding activities.
• DOD budgeted $1.6 million for domestic radiation detection programs,

with $1.1 million directed to its Radiation Protection Program. This
program uses the best available detection technologies to prevent or
mitigate the effects of radiation exposure on Pentagon personnel and
structures. The remaining funds were budgeted for the department’s
Unconventional Nuclear Warfare Defense, which installed radiological and
nuclear sensors at Camp Lejeune.
• At DOE, $846 million (or 97 percent) of the $871 million budgeted to

combat nuclear smuggling went to the Nuclear and Radiological Materials
Security Program, which is intended to protect DOE’s critical assets—
nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons components, special nuclear materials,
classified information, and DOE facilities from such threats as terrorist
activity, theft, diversion, loss, or unauthorized access.
Cross-cutting activities that simultaneously support multiple programs.

DHS had nearly half of the $577 million budgeted for cross-cutting
activities—about $271 million. By agency, key programs include the
following:
• At DHS, the Human Portable Radiation Detection System had a budget of

$18.1 million to support the development of detection systems and the
acquisition of advanced, hand-held radiation detectors. In addition, DHS
budgeted about $11 million for the Technical Reachback Program, which
provides technical assistance to help personnel operating radiation
detection equipment identify the source that triggered the alarm. Finally,
the Joint Analysis Center had a budget of $1.75 million to collect and
notify appropriate federal, state, and local agencies as early as possible of

radiological and nuclear threats and coordinate technical support to
federal, state, and local authorities.
• DOD budgeted $94.5 million of the $137 million of its funds budgeted for
cross-cutting programs to support its Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil
Support Teams. These 55 teams are deployed nationwide to support civil
authorities during domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
high-yield explosives incidents.27 In addition, the Nuclear Detection
Technologies Division of DOD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency was
budgeted $28 million in fiscal year 2007 to develop technologies to detect,
locate, and identify radiological and nuclear weapons and materials to
support search and interdiction missions.
• At DOE, nearly all of the $168 million DOE budgeted for cross-cutting
programs went to one program—the Proliferation Detection Program. This
program, budgeted at $148 million, provides technical expertise and
leadership toward the development of next generation nuclear detection
technologies and methods to detect foreign nuclear materials and
weapons production. This program develops the tools, technologies, and
techniques for detecting, locating, and analyzing the global proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, with a special emphasis on nuclear weapons
technology and the diversion of special nuclear materials.
• Because many of State’s efforts to combat nuclear smuggling leverage

resources from other federal agencies and international partners, or these
efforts do not provide direct financial assistance, State does not have a
budget for all of its efforts. However, it still oversees a number of
crosscutting programs. For example, the Nuclear Trafficking Response
Group is responsible for coordinating responses to international nuclear
and radiological alarms; its mission is to protect the United States by
resolving incidents of nuclear smuggling and by interdicting materials in
transit. The National Combating Terrorism Research Program works to
develop prototypes for technology with specific applications to detect and
characterize nuclear materials. This program is not a financial assistance
program, and therefore has no formal budget.
27
Each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam,
has their own Civil Support Teams and California has two. Civil Support Teams are
National Guard assets and are under the direction of the governor of that state.

DNDO’s Joint Annual In July 2007, Congress passed the “Implementing Recommendations of the
Interagency Report Is Not 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,” which required DHS, DOD, DOE, the
Used for Analysis or to Department of Justice, and the Director of National Intelligence to
coordinate the preparation of a Joint Annual Interagency Review of the
Focus Nuclear Detection Global Nuclear Detection Architecture. DNDO collected these program-
Priorities level budget data in response to a statutory requirement that select
agencies, including DHS, DOD, DOE, and State, annually assess their
capacity to implement their portion of the global nuclear detection
strategy. DNDO issued this report in June 2008 after gathering data from
relevant agencies on programs and budgets in support of each layer of the
global nuclear detection effort. The report provides an overview of the
global nuclear detection strategy and discusses programs and budgets for
combating nuclear smuggling domestically and overseas.
DNDO has collected these data since 2006. It used these data to identify
areas in which new domestic initiatives may be needed. For example, in
the most recent review, DNDO said that programs focused on the land
border areas between ports of entry, aviation, and maritime pathways will
need to grow substantially in the years ahead. However, the Joint Annual
Interagency Review does not serve as a tool to analyze nuclear detection
budgets across agencies in order to ensure that the level and nature of
resources devoted to combating nuclear smuggling are going toward the
highest priority gaps and are aligned with the overall strategic direction of
global detection efforts.
Agency officials said that their program decisions and budget requests are
primarily guided by their agencies’ mission-related needs, rather than by
the overarching goals and priorities of a broader, more comprehensive
global detection strategy. In addition, DOD, DOE, and State officials told
us that the information in the review is primarily used to provide agencies
and Congress with an overview of already established programmatic roles
and responsibilities across the range of programs to combat nuclear
smuggling. Finally, agency officials told us that they do not use the specific
budget data included in the Joint Annual Interagency Review to help
determine whether funding levels are reasonable in terms of individual
agency or governmentwide needs.

In July 2008, we testified on the preliminary findings of our work.28
DNDO Has Not Yet Specifically, we found that while DNDO’s initiatives are a step in the right
Implemented direction for improving the current efforts to combat nuclear smuggling,
they are not being undertaken within the larger context of an overarching
Recommendation strategic plan. Although each agency with a role in combating nuclear
from July 2008 smuggling has its own planning documents, an overarching strategic plan
is needed to guide these efforts to address the gaps and move to a more
Testimony comprehensive global nuclear detection strategy. Our past work has
discussed the importance of strategic planning.29 We have reported that
strategic plans should clearly define objectives to be accomplished,
identify the roles and responsibilities for meeting each objective, ensure
that the funding necessary to achieve the objectives is available, and
employ monitoring mechanisms to determine progress and identify
needed improvements. For example, such a plan would define how DNDO
would monitor the goal of detecting the movement of radiological and
nuclear materials through potential smuggling routes, such as small
maritime craft or land border areas in between ports of entry. Moreover,
this plan would include agreed-upon processes and procedures to guide
the improvement of the efforts to combat nuclear smuggling and
coordinate the activities of the participating agencies.
DNDO agreed with the need for an overarching strategic plan and believes
that many elements of such a plan exist in DHS and other agency
documents, but noted that solutions for addressing gaps and
vulnerabilities are still under development. As of December 2008, DNDO
had not yet established detailed plans to address those gaps and
vulnerabilities, nor had it integrated all the plan elements into an
overarching strategic plan, as we recommended.
Preventing terrorists from obtaining and smuggling radiological or nuclear

Conclusions material into the United States is a national security imperative. DNDO has
28
GAO-08-999T.
29
GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for
Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005); Results-
Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration
among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005); Combating
Terrorism: Observations on National Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-03-519T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 3, 2003); and Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the
Government Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June
1996).

an important and complex task in this regard—develop a global nuclear
detection strategy to combat nuclear smuggling and to keep radiological
and nuclear material and weapons from entering the United States.
However, DNDO has not yet taken steps to work with DOE, DOD, and
State to develop an overarching strategic plan, as we recommended in
July 2008. Given the national security implications and urgency attached to
combating nuclear smuggling globally, we continue to believe that such a
plan needs to be established as soon as possible. Without an overarching
plan that ties together the various domestic and international efforts to
combat nuclear smuggling and clearly describes goals, responsibilities,
priorities, resource needs, and performance metrics, it is unclear how the
strategy will evolve or whether it is evolving in the right direction.
While DNDO has gathered useful program and budget information in its
Joint Annual Interagency Review, we believe it has missed an opportunity
to use this information as a basis for working with other agencies—most
notably DOD, DOE and State—to identify future priorities, and analyze
and help determine future resource allocations. We are not suggesting that
any of the agencies participating in U.S. efforts to combat nuclear
smuggling cede authority to manage its own programs. However, this
information could be used as a tool to better ensure that limited resources
are leveraged to promote program effectiveness and avoid potential
duplicative efforts. By doing so, we believe the federal government will be
better positioned to take a holistic view of global nuclear detection and
develop a plan that helps safeguard investments to date, more closely links
future goals with the resources necessary to achieve those goals, and
enhances the agencies’ ability to operate in a more cohesive and integrated
fashion.
DNDO, for its part, has helped highlight the need to address critical gaps in
efforts to combat nuclear smuggling domestically. It also has made some
progress in developing and supporting initiatives to close these gaps.
However, remaining challenges are great, funding is uncertain, time frames
are unclear, and the technology may not be available any time soon to
bridge some of these vulnerabilities. Without a plan to guide development
of initiatives to address domestic gaps, it is unclear how DNDO plans to
achieve its objectives of closing these critical gaps, particularly in three
key areas—land border areas between ports of entry, aviation, and small
maritime vessels.
Maritime detection efforts pose unique technological and operational

challenges. DNDO’s maritime pilot is a sensible first step to addressing this
vulnerability. However, DNDO should establish criteria for assessing the

effectiveness of this effort and use the result of this evaluation to
determine the feasibility of expanding this program beyond the pilot stage.
Should the pilot prove worthy of replicating, we believe that DNDO will
need to engage in additional planning to identify next steps to help ensure
that it will be able to roll the program out to other locations in a timely
manner.
To help ensure that U.S. governmentwide efforts to secure the homeland

Recommendations for are well coordinated, well conceived, and properly implemented, we
Executive Action reiterate the recommendation we made in our July 2008 testimony to
develop an overarching strategic plan. We also recommend that the
Secretary of Homeland Security take the following four actions:
• In coordination with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy,

and the Secretary of State, use the Joint Annual Interagency Review to
guide future strategic efforts to combat nuclear smuggling. This effort
should include analyzing overall budget allocations to determine whether
governmentwide resources clearly align with identified priorities to
maximize results and whether there is duplication of effort across
agencies.
• Develop a strategic plan for the domestic part of the global nuclear
detection strategy to help ensure the future success of initiatives aimed at
closing gaps and vulnerabilities. This plan should focus on, among other
things, establishing time frames and costs for the three areas of recent
focus—land border areas between ports of entry, aviation, and small
maritime vessels.
• Develop criteria to assess the effectiveness, cost, and feasibility of the

maritime radiological and nuclear pilot program.
• Should the decision be made to expand the maritime radiological and

nuclear program beyond the pilot, undertake additional planning to
identify next steps, including how and where a broader strategy would be
implemented, what technology would be needed, what organizations
should be involved, and how such efforts would be sustained.
We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOD, DOE, and State for
Agency Comments comment. DHS and DOD provided written comments, which are presented
and Our Evaluation in appendixes I and II, respectively. DOE and State provided technical
comments which we incorporated as appropriate. DOD concurred with
the recommendation that the Secretary of Homeland Security, in

coordination with the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, and
Secretary of State, use the Joint Annual Interagency Review to guide
future strategic efforts to combat nuclear smuggling. DOD stated that
greater use could be made of the review associated with the development
of this annual report to guide U.S. efforts to combat nuclear smuggling.
DHS did not directly comment on our recommendations but noted that the
recommendations aligned with DNDO’s past, present, and future actions.
The department agreed, however, that planning can always be improved
and that the office will seek to continue to do so. DHS also reiterated that
it agreed with a recommendation that we made in our 2008 testimony on
the need for an overarching strategic plan to guide future efforts to combat
nuclear smuggling and move toward a more comprehensive global nuclear
detection strategy. In its comments, DHS noted that work had already
begun on an overarching plan.
DHS also pointed to what, in its view, were a number of shortcomings in

the draft report. Specifically, the department believes that we did not give
enough credit to DNDO’s strategic planning efforts. The department
asserted that we did not clearly and adequately explain the background
and context of DNDO’s efforts to develop a global strategy, what has been
accomplished so far, what challenges it faces, and what remains to be
done. Finally, DHS asserted that the draft contained a number of
inaccuracies and omissions that make it less reliable and useful than it
could be. DHS also provided a number of more detailed comments on
specific issues presented in the draft report. We have addressed those
comments in our detailed responses and incorporated changes where
appropriate.
First, we found no evidence that DNDO engaged in long-term strategic

planning to carry out its initiatives to address gaps in domestic nuclear
detection. During the course of our review, we specifically asked DNDO
for strategic planning documents used to develop and implement a global
radiation detection strategy. In response, DNDO officials referred to the
more than 4,000 pages of documents provided and stated in their
comments on the report that this material was the basis for their plan.
Although this information documented the efforts put forth by DNDO in
developing its initial strategy and identifying gaps and vulnerabilities, it did
not constitute a plan with clear goals, time frames, and costs. More
specifically, DNDO commented that we did not mention the DNDO-Coast
Guard Joint Acquisition Strategy as a cornerstone of its small maritime
strategy, that we only mention DHS Small Vessel Security Strategy in
passing in the back of the report, and that we do not mention the DHS

Small Vessel Security Strategy implementation plan. We revised the report
to include references to the Joint Acquisition Strategy and the
implementation plan. However, we disagree with DNDO’s characterization
that we failed to give the Small Vessel Security Strategy adequate
attention. In fact, the report describes the strategy and how it relates to
efforts to combat nuclear smuggling. We would also point out, however,
that these planning documents cited by DNDO only apply to one specific
critical gap area identified—the small maritime vessel threat.
Second, we disagree with the department’s comment that we did not

clearly and adequately explain the background and context of DNDO’s
efforts to develop a global strategy, what has been accomplished so far,
what remains to be done, and what challenges it faces. Specifically, our
report contains an overview of DNDO’s initial approach in developing a
global strategy, including providing information on steps DNDO has taken
to identify potential pathways for radiological and nuclear material. In
addition, the report identified some of DNDO’s accomplishments in
specific areas, such as working with the other agencies to develop new
radiation detection technologies. Furthermore, we recognize that DNDO
has helped highlight the need to address critical gaps in efforts to combat
nuclear smuggling, and we have reported DNDO’s key initiatives to
improve radiation detection capabilities in areas that had previously
received insufficient attention—land borders between the ports of entry,
aviation, and maritime. The report also recognizes the many challenges
that DNDO faces as it attempts to enhance nuclear detection capabilities,
including technological limitations of detection equipment and sustaining
initiatives beyond their pilot phase. We also believe that DNDO needs to
undertake additional planning so that it can be in a better position to
determine the work that remains. That is why our recommendation to
develop a strategic plan for the domestic part of the global nuclear
detection strategy is so crucial.
Finally, where appropriate, we have incorporated a variety of technical

comments provided by DHS to better characterize DNDO’s role and
accomplishments, and the challenges it faces in developing a global
nuclear detection strategy to combat nuclear smuggling. We do not believe
that any of the comments that we incorporated represented a serious flaw
in the content or quality of the draft report and in fact improve the
technical accuracy of the report. In the few areas where DHS commented
that we were factually incorrect, we have made minor changes to the
report to clarify our point, to correct technical inaccuracies, or to avoid
confusion. Where appropriate, we have provided additional information to

further support our point, in some cases using information contained in
DHS’s letter.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the
report date. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional
committees and Members of Congress, the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the
Secretary of State. The report will also be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page
of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are
listed in appendix III.
David Maurer
Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment

List of Requesters
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Chairman
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson

Chairman
The Honorable Peter T. King
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives
The Honorable Bart Gordon

Chairman
Committee on Science and Technology
The Honorable Edolphus Towns

Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer

United States Senate
The Honorable James R. Langevin

The Honorable Michael T. McCaul


Appendix I: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security
Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in
the report text appear at
the end of this appendix.


See comment 1.
See comment 2.
See comment 3.
See comment 4.
See comment 5.

See comment 6.
See comment 7.
See comment 8.
See comment 9.
See comment 10.

See comment 11.
See comment 12.

See comment 13.
See comment 14.
See comment 15.
See comment 16.

See comment 17.
See comment 18.
See comment 19.

See comment 20.

See comment 21.
See comment 22.
See comment 23.

See comment 24.
See comment 25.
See comment 26.
See comment 27.
See comment 28.

See comment 29.
See comment 30.
See comment 31.
See comment 32.
See comment 33.
See comment 34.

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Homeland

Security’s letter dated January 14, 2009.
1. We agree with DHS that deploying or purchasing ineffective equipment

GAO Comments would be inappropriate. We also agree with DHS that, as we reported,
field evaluations are not complete and that the necessary equipment
may not be deployed until 2012. We discuss the reasons for these
delays on page 14 of the report. In addition, we disagree with DHS’s
assertion that Border Patrol told us that lessons learned from field
evaluations “would help avert large amounts of taxpayer funds for
equipment that would not have been effective.” We do not dispute the
importance of spending taxpayer dollars wisely; however, it was not
expressed to us as such until this letter.
2. We added language on the highlights page to clarify that CBP is also

responsible for putting radiation detection equipment in place.
3. We discuss in more depth the technological limitations of detection

equipment and sustaining detection efforts on pages 19 through 21 of
the report.
4. DHS commented that we have understated the value, importance, and

challenge of technology development efforts needed to arrive at
effective solutions. We disagree. We acknowledge these challenges in
the body of the report and discuss some of the measures DNDO has
taken to develop needed equipment. Furthermore, we disagree with
DNDO’s statement about our findings regarding the status of
sustainability planning. We describe at more length on pages 19 and 20
of the report our concerns with DNDO’s efforts to sustain maritime
initiatives into the future.
5. While we do not mention the Phased Deployment Implementation Plan

by name, on page 14 we state that DNDO and CBP are jointly working
on measures to better secure the border areas between ports of entry
and that these efforts are part of a phased approach. We have added
clarifying language to the paragraph on page 4 to more clearly
delineate the different roles CBP and DNDO play in this regard.
Furthermore, while we do not disagree with taking a phased approach,
DNDO has not kept to its original schedule and if such delays continue,
it is uncertain whether DNDO and CBP will meet their original goal of
full deployment of equipment by 2012.

6. We have modified the text on page 16 to include a reference that

efforts to screen aviation for radiological and nuclear materials are
being included in the strategy for the first time.
7. We have modified the language on page 5 to clarify the roles and

responsibilities of DNDO and CBP.
8. DHS may have misunderstood the point we were making concerning

maritime screening as compared with land and aviation screening. We
agree that non-port of entry screening will require modifications to
existing screening operations and new equipment. However, we were
told that maritime screening posed unique challenges, which we have
documented on pages 18-21 of this report.
9. We disagree with DHS that the conclusions we reach regarding the

maritime program are incorrect. Although DHS comments that our
conclusions are incorrect, DHS does not dispute the facts we present.
Namely, DNDO has not established criteria for assessing the success of
pilot efforts and it has no plan detailing which locations it would target
next. Furthermore, during the course of our work we heard repeated
concerns about the sustainability of the maritime radiological and
nuclear screening from state and local law enforcement. Specifically,
we asked the maritime mission area manager if a sustainability plan
existed and we were told no. After our visit to Puget Sound, we
received an e-mail from the manager stating DNDO would begin to
develop a sustainability plan should the decision be made to continue
the initiative.
10. We understand the role of grants in funding these types of activities

and agree with DHS that, according to DNDO, grants are the primary
mechanism it plans to rely on for sustaining radiological and nuclear
detection activities in the maritime environment. We agree with DNDO
efforts to work with the Coast Guard to adapt the Maritime Security
Risk Assessment Model to accommodate more explicitly radiological
and nuclear detection challenges. However, we maintain our concern
that DNDO does not have any detailed plans, including how and where
a broader strategy would be implemented, what technology would be
needed, what organizations should be involved, and how such efforts
would be sustained for this important national security issue.
11. DNDO incorrectly asserted that we did not recognize its contributions
to international efforts. On page 23 of the report we acknowledged
DNDO’s efforts to look for opportunities to work with other agencies
to help strengthen their radiological and nuclear detection efforts,

despite the fact that these programs to combat nuclear smuggling are
well established and are under the purview of another agency.
12. DNDO has misunderstood the reference to its annual assessment of

the global nuclear detection strategy and we believe the text that now
appears on page 6 is consistent with our discussion later in the report.
Our discussion on page 6 focuses on the global strategy, encompassing
radiological and nuclear detection activities across all relevant
government agencies. The reference DNDO makes to text later in the
report focuses specifically on actions taken by DNDO to enhance
domestic detection capabilities. However, we have modified the
language to be clearer about what is being discussed in each place. We
acknowledge that DNDO does not have authority over the budgets of
other agencies and we would not advocate for such authority to be
provided to it. However, DNDO is responsible for enhancing and
coordinating federal, state, and local efforts to combat nuclear
smuggling domestically and overseas. We believe that the analysis we
are recommending—that DNDO undertake using data collected as part
of the Joint Annual Interagency Review—is consistent with this
requirement.
13. We recommended that DNDO develop a strategic plan to guide the

development of a more comprehensive global nuclear strategy and
delineated what such a plan should contain, including clearly defined
objectives, roles, and responsibilities for meeting the objectives;
necessary funding; and monitoring mechanisms to determine progress
in meeting goals. However, DNDO has not yet produced such a
strategic plan. We acknowledge that combating nuclear smuggling on a
global scale is a large and complex undertaking. We repeatedly asked
DNDO for detailed plans, containing the elements described above, but
did not receive any.
14. We have modified the text on page 12 to recognize the role of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
15. DNDO commented that portal monitors can also be used to monitor
pedestrians, but according to CBP, it does not currently use portal
monitors for this purpose. However, we have modified the text to
reflect that portal monitors are used for screening cargo containers.
With regard to the use of pagers to detect smuggled nuclear material,
we have reported in the past on the limitations of using these devices
and that pagers should not be relied upon to detect smuggled nuclear
material.

16. None of the radiation detection devices discussed in this report use the
active interrogation techniques cited by DHS.
17. DHS commented that including a paragraph on ASPs (now on page 13)
was beyond the scope of this audit and should be removed from this
report. The scope of our review is presented on pages 3 and 4 of the
report. As such, we agree with DHS that our review did not include an
assessment of DNDO’s efforts to test and procure ASP technology.
However, several prior GAO reports have found significant problems
with DNDO’s work in this area. Reporting the results of our prior work
in the background of this report is appropriate and germane because
portal monitors are a key component of the global nuclear detection
strategy.
18. DHS commented that our findings on DNDO’s lack of long-term plans
are misleading and suggest DNDO has no plans or strategies. We agree
that DNDO has identified gaps and vulnerabilities and has taken some
steps to address these, including jointly working with CBP as
mentioned on page 14 of our report. However, DHS does not dispute
our finding that it has not developed a detailed plan, which clearly
conveys the goals, responsibilities, resource needs, and performance
metrics needed to further its detection efforts. Identifying gaps and
initiating programs are positive steps toward enhancing detection
capabilities, but these efforts alone do not constitute a long-term plan.
Without a detailed, documented plan, DNDO will be unable to
determine whether these new programs are actually succeeding and
addressing the identified gaps.
19. We believe DHS had misconstrued our description of efforts to

implement radiological and nuclear screening at the border areas in
between official ports of entry. We acknowledge that there are a
number of challenges associated with implementing portable detection
equipment for use in the field and appreciate DNDO and CBPs efforts
to develop this capability. However, the fact remains that DNDO has
not kept to its original schedule, and if such delays continue, it is
uncertain whether DNDO and CBP will meet their original goal of full
deployment of such equipment by 2012.
20. Our description of the procurement challenges faced by DNDO and

CBP is an accurate summary of the information we were provided.
One of DNDO’s primary roles is to test and procure needed
radiological and nuclear detection equipment for use by CBP and other
agencies. We were informed by CBP that it did not receive the
equipment it had originally ordered in the agreed upon time frames.

Regardless of whether the equipment was for use at an official border

crossing or for use by Border Patrol officers in the field, the needed
equipment was not procured as requested. In CBP’s technical
comments on a draft of this report, it stressed that its radiological and
nuclear detection equipment procurement funding was handed over to
DNDO in 2006. CBP further stated that it believes that the most
effective way to procure commercial off-the-shelf equipment is for
CBP to have its own radiation and nuclear equipment budget.
21. We have modified the text on pages 15 through 17 to more clearly

delineate roles and responsibilities.
22. We have accurately described what we observed during our visit to

Dulles International Airport. We were told by CBP officials that the
source used in the demonstration was what they use to routinely check
the responsiveness of the portal monitor and successfully did just that
earlier in the week.
23. We believe DHS has misconstrued our statement about detecting

radiological and nuclear material outside the U.S. borders. We are not
minimizing the importance of such a goal. In fact, since DNDO believes
that it is one of the largest and most important vulnerabilities in the
existing detection architecture, it will be even more important that
DNDO develop detailed plans for securing such arrangements with as
many nations as possible.
24. We have listed on page 18 of the report a number of other factors we

were told by DHS officials influenced the decision to pilot the maritime
program in the Puget Sound area. In response to the draft report, DHS
provided an additional reason for the selection of Puget Sound.
25. We modified the text on page 19 to include the actual funding amount
for the pilot project.
26. See comments 9 and 10.
27. DHS provided new information that the Preventative Radiological and
Nuclear Detection handbook is under development and that DNDO
reached out to state and local entities in its development. This is
another positive step. However, as DNDO stated, this handbook is
currently in draft, undergoing review, and not yet finalized or in use by
any locale.

28. We believe DNDO has incorrectly characterized our finding regarding

detection technologies in the maritime environment. On pages 20 and
21, our report delineates some of the technological limitations, as they
were presented to us by the users of the equipment. We do not assert
that these limitations are insurmountable; only that they exist and
should be taken into consideration when crafting a plan for
radiological and nuclear detection in the maritime environment.
29. The information contained in the report on page 22 is factually

accurate.
30. The information contained on pages 22 and 23 of the report was

obtained through interviews with NYPD officials in the presence of a
DNDO representative. The primary purpose of the statement was to
point out the number of boats with boat-mounted radiation detection
equipment in use at the time of our review.
31. While there are other complexities with developing a global nuclear
detection strategy, DNDO officials repeatedly told us during the course
of our review that a primary complicating factor is the office’s limited
ability to influence other agencies’ programs to combat nuclear
smuggling.
32. We modified the text on page 25 to reflect DNDO’s efforts to update

some of the information.
33. We modified the text on page 25 to reflect the fact that DNDO should
coordinate with other agencies on the overall strategic direction of
detection efforts.
34. In response to our July 2008 recommendation that DNDO develop an

overarching strategic plan, DNDO commented that it has included a
request for strategic planning information as part of its efforts to
develop the next edition of the Joint Annual Interagency Review.
However, DHS did not comment on how this will inform or contribute
to an overarching strategic plan to guide future enhancement to global
nuclear detection.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department
of Defense
of Defense

of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
David Maurer, 202-512-3841 or maurerd@gao.gov

GAO Contact
In addition to the contact person named above, Glen Levis (Assistant
Staff Director), Elizabeth Erdmann, Rachel Girshick, Sandra Kerr, Omari
Acknowledgments Norman, Kim Raheb, Rebecca Shea, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, and
Tommy Williams made key contributions to this report.

Related GAO Products
Nuclear Nonproliferation: Focusing on the Highest Priority Radiological

Securing Nuclear and Sources Could Improve DOE’s Efforts to Secure Sources in Foreign
Radiological Material Countries. GAO-07-580T. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2007.
Overseas Nuclear Nonproliferation: Progress Made in Improving Security at
Russian Nuclear Sites, but the Long-term Sustainability of U.S.-Funded
Security Upgrades Is Uncertain. GAO-07-404. Washington, D.C.:
February 28, 2007.
Nuclear Nonproliferation: DOE’s International Radiological Threat

Reduction Program Needs to Focus Future Efforts on Securing the
Highest Priority Radiological Sources. GAO-07-282. Washington, D.C.:
January 31, 2007.
Nuclear Nonproliferation: IAEA Has Strengthened Its Safeguards and

Nuclear Security Programs, but Weaknesses Need to Be Addressed.
GAO-06-93. Washington, D.C.: October 7, 2005.
Radiological Sources in Iraq: DOD Should Evaluate Its Source Recovery

Efforts and Apply Lessons Learned to Future Recovery Missions.
GAO-05-672. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2005.
Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. and International Assistance Efforts to

Control Sealed Radioactive Sources Need Strengthening. GAO-03-638.
Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2003.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Additional Russian Cooperation Needed

to Facilitate U.S. Efforts to Improve Security at Russian Sites.
GAO-03-482. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2003.
Nuclear Security: DOE and NRC Have Different Security Requirements

Securing Nuclear and for Protecting Weapons-Grade Material from Terrorist Attacks.
Radiological Material GAO-07-1197R. Washington, D.C.: September 11, 2007.
in the United States Nuclear Security: Actions Taken by NRC to Strengthen Its Licensing
Process for Sealed Radioactive Sources Are Not Effective. GAO-07-1038T.
Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2007.
National Nuclear Security Administration: Security and Management

Improvements Can Enhance Implementation of the NNSA Act.
GAO-07-428T. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2007.

Securing U.S. Nuclear Materials: Poor Planning Has Complicated DOE’s

Plutonium Consolidation Efforts. GAO-06-164T. Washington, D.C.:
October 7, 2005.
Nuclear Security: DOE Needs Better Information to Guide Its Expanded

Recovery of Sealed Radiological Sources. GAO-05-967. Washington, D.C.:
September 22, 2005.
Nuclear Security: Actions Needed by DOE to Improve Security of

Weapons-Grade Nuclear Material at Its Energy, Science and
Environment Sites. GAO-05-934T. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2005.
Securing U.S. Nuclear Materials: DOE Needs to Take Action to Safely

Consolidate Plutonium. GAO-05-665. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2005.
Nuclear Security: DOE’s Office of the Under Secretary for Energy,

Science, and Environment Needs to Take Prompt, Coordinated Action to
Meet the New Design Basis Threat. GAO-05-611. Washington, D.C.:
July 15, 2005.
Nuclear Security: Federal and State Action Needed to Improve Security

of Sealed Radioactive Sources. GAO-03-804. Washington, D.C.:
August 6, 2003.
Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Challenges Facing U.S. Efforts to Deploy

Radiation Detection Radiation Detection Equipment in Other Countries and in the United
Programs Overseas States. GAO-06-558T. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2006.
Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Corruption, Maintenance, and

Coordination Problems Challenge U.S. Efforts to Provide Radiation
Detection Equipment to Other Countries. GAO-06-311. Washington, D.C.:
March 14, 2006.
Preventing Nuclear Smuggling: DOE Has Made Limited Progress in

Installing Radiation Detection Equipment at Highest Priority Foreign
Seaports. GAO-05-375. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2005.
Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. Efforts to Help Other Countries Combat

Nuclear Smuggling Need Strengthened Coordination and Planning.
GAO-02-426. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002.

Maritime Security: The SAFE Port Act: Status and Implementation One
Container Security Year Later. GAO-08-126T. Washington, D.C.: October 30, 2007.
Maritime Security: Observations on Selected Aspects of the SAFE Port

Act. GAO-07-754T. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2007.
Homeland Security: Key Cargo Security Programs Can Be Improved.

GAO-05-466T. Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2005.
Maritime Security: Enhancements Made, But Implementation and

Sustainability Remain Key Challenges. GAO-05-448T. Washington, D.C.:
May 17, 2005.
Container Security: A Flexible Staffing Model and Minimum Equipment

Requirements Would Improve Overseas Targeting and Inspection
Efforts. GAO-05-557. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2005.
Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DHS’s Phase 3 Test Report on Advanced

Radiation Detection Portal Monitors Does Not Fully Disclose the Limitations of the Test
Technology Results. GAO-08-979. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2008.
Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DHS’s Program to Procure and Deploy

Advanced Radiation Detection Portal Monitors Is Likely to Exceed the
Department’s Previous Cost Estimates. GAO-08-1108R. Washington, D.C.:
September 22, 2008.
Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Additional Actions Needed to Ensure

Adequate Testing of Next Generation Radiation Detection Equipment.
GAO-07-1247T. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2007.
Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DHS’s Decision to Procure and Deploy

the Next Generation of Radiation Detection Equipment Is Not Supported
by Its Cost-Benefit Analysis. GAO-07-581T. Washington, D.C.:
March 14, 2007.
Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DNDO Has Not Yet Collected Most of the
National Laboratories’ Test Results on Radiation Portal Monitors in
Support of DNDO’s Testing and Development Program. GAO-07-347R.
Washington, D.C.: March 9, 2007.
Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DHS’s Cost-Benefit Analysis to Support

the Purchase of New Radiation Detection Portal Monitors Was Not Based

on Available Performance Data and Did Not Fully Evaluate All the
Monitors’ Costs and Benefits. GAO-07-133R. Washington, D.C.:
October 17, 2006.
Combating Nuclear Terrorism: Federal Efforts to Respond to Nuclear

and Radiological Threats and to Protect Emergency Response
Capabilities Could Be Strengthened. GAO-06-1015. Washington, D.C.:
September 21, 2006.
Border Security: Investigators Transported Radioactive Sources Across

Our Nation’s Borders at Two Locations. GAO-06-940T. Washington, D.C.:
July 7, 2006.
Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DHS Has Made Progress Deploying

Radiation Detection Equipment at U.S. Ports-of-Entry, but Concerns
Remain. GAO-06-389. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2006.
Technology Assessment: Securing the Transport of Cargo Containers.

GAO-06-68SU. Washington, D.C.: January 25, 2006.
Homeland Security: Limited Progress in Deploying Radiation Detection

Equipment at U.S. Ports of Entry. GAO-03-963. Washington, D.C.:
September 4, 2003.
Nuclear Safety: Construction of the Protective Shelter for the Chernobyl

Nuclear Nuclear Reactor Faces Schedule Delays, Potential Cost Increases, and
Nonproliferation and Technical Uncertainties. GAO-07-923. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2007.
Security Nuclear Nonproliferation: Better Management Controls Needed for Some
DOE Projects in Russia and Other Countries. GAO-05-828. Washington,
D.C.: August 29, 2005.
Cooperative Threat Reduction: DOD Has Improved Its Management and

Internal Controls, but Challenges Remain. GAO-05-329. Washington, D.C.:
June 30, 2005.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nonproliferation Programs Need Better

Integration. GAO-05-157. Washington, D.C.: January 28, 2005.

Nuclear Nonproliferation: DOE’s Effort to Close Russia’s Plutonium

Production Reactors Faces Challenges, and Final Shutdown Is
Uncertain. GAO-04-662. Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004.
(360896)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
Obtaining Copies of is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO
GAO Reports and posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
Testimony go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”
Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400

Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Relations Washington, DC 20548
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
Exhibit 24: Documents Regarding Employment at Physics Department, U.S.

Regionally Accredited University #2
Exhibit 24.1: Current Employment Contract – Research Associate 2 (Valid from
01/02/2013)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Documents Reg. Employment at U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2
Exhibit 24.1: Current Employment Contract – Research Associate 2 (Valid from

01/02/2013)
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Current Employment Contract – Research Associate 2
[This page represents Current Employment Contract at Physics Department, U.S.
Regionally Accredited University #2]
1-page document contains:
 U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2, Physics Department letterhead

 Date
 Jan Novak’s address
 Offer of the position Research Associate 2
 Pay rate
 Probationary period
 Condition of H-1B visa regarding minimum wage
 Salary payments details
 Benefits information
 Welcome orientation meeting information
 Requirement of filling necessary forms
 Signature of Physics Department Chairperson
 Signature of Jan Novak as acceptance of this job offer with date
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – All Paychecks (Period 02/2012 – 05/2013)
[This page represents all paychecks from employer (U.S.
Regionally Accredited University #2) showing that the whole period (last 16 months) of H-1B status
was properly covered]
16 paychecks contain:
 U.S. Regionally Accredited University #2 with address and logo

 Jan Novak
 Employee ID
 Address
 Pay group
 Department
 Location
 Job title
 Pay rate
 Net pay
 Pay begin and end date
 Check date
 Earnings
 Taxes
 Before- and after-tax deductions
 Employer-paid benefits
Exhibit 25: Documents Regarding Nonimmigrant Status H-1B

Exhibit 25.2: Current I-797A Approval Notice H-1B and I-94 – Valid 01/02/2013 –
01/01/2016
Exhibit 25.3: Previous I-797B Approval Notice H-1B – Valid 01/02/2012 –
01/01/2013
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Documents Regarding Nonimmigrant Status H-1B
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Passport

[This page represents Jan Novak’s passport (only page with biometrics data) – it contains fictive data
but corresponds with data filled in all forms of this NIW DIY kit]
Exhibit 25.2: Current I-797A Approval Notice H-1B and I-94 – Valid 01/02/2013
– 01/01/2016
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Current I-797A Approval Notice H-1B and I-94
Exhibit 25.3: Previous I-797B Approval Notice H-1B – Valid 01/02/2012 –

01/01/2013
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Previous I-797B Approval Notice H-1B
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Previous I-94

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Previous Visa Sticker H-1B

Exhibit 26: Documents Regarding Dependent’s Nonimmigrant Status H-4 (Spouse

Jana Novakova) and Marriage Certificate
Exhibit 26.2: Current I-797A Approval Notice H-4 and I-94 – Valid 01/02/2013 –
01/01/2016
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak –Dependent’s Nonimmigrant Status H-4 and Marriage Certificate
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Passport

[This page represents Jana Novakova’s passport (only page with biometrics data) – it contains fictive
data but corresponds with data filled in all forms of this NIW DIY kit]
Exhibit 26.2: Current I-797A Approval Notice H-4 and I-94 – Valid 01/02/2013 –
01/01/2016
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Current I-797A Approval Notice H-4 and I-94
EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Previous I-94

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Previous Visa Sticker H-4

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Marriage Certificate

[This page represents Marriage Certificate of Jan Novak and Jana Novakova in language of European
Country #2 with certified translation to English and Apostille (certification of authenticity by Ministry
of Affairs of European Country #2)]
First page of document is first page of marriage certificate in English and contains:
 Certified translation from language of European Country #2

 European Country #2
 CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE
 In the register of marriages kept in the Register office of the City, District, book no., year,
page/sheet, file no.
 Place of marriage
 Day, month and year of marriage
 Name and surname, birthname of groom and bride
 Day, month, year and place of birth, district/country of groom and bride
 Birth identification no. of groom and bride
 Marital status of groom and bride (both single)
 Names and surnames, birth surnames of the parents of groom and bride
 Surnames of groom, bride and children acquired after this marriage
 City and date
 Seal of local Municipal Authority
 Signature and name of the Register
Second page is back page of marriage certificate in English and contains certifications of authenticity
from authorities from lowest level to the highest (Ministry of Foreign Affairs):
 Certified translation from language of European Country #2

 Municipality of the district city certified signature and seal of the local authority where
marriage was held
 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of European Country #2 (highest level authority) certified
authenticity of signatures and seals of municipality of the district city (Apostille)
Third page contains bilingual statement of interpreter:
 “As a sworn interpreter of English language appointed by a decision of the Regional Court in
city … dated … reference no. …, I hereby certify that the translation is a literal translation of
the attached document. This interpreting act is entered under No. … of the Journal.”
 Date
 Name, signature and seal of the interpreter
Fourth page contains same data as first page in language of European Country #2.
Fifth page contains same data as second page in language of European Country #2.

I-140

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

I-140

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

I-140

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.eb2niw.

Copyright © 2020 Veronika Vaneckova. All rights reserved

Copyright © 2013 Veronika Vaneckova. All rights reserved

Petition: I-140, EB-2 National Interest Waiver - INA §203(b)(2)(B)

A. Forms and Fee

B. Petition Cover Letter

List of Recommendation Letters

Exhibit 7: Letter of Recommendation – John F. Doe, Program Director, Small State-of-the-art

Exhibit 9: Advanced Degrees

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – List of Documents

Exhibit 10: Curriculum Vitae

Exhibit 15: Documents Regarding IEEE NSS-MIC Award (Trainee Grant)

Exhibit 19: Citations

Exhibit 20: Publications

Exhibit 21: Detimage Collaboration – Member Institutions

Exhibit 25: Documents Regarding Nonimmigrant Status H-1B

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – List of Documents

Petition: I-140, EB-2 National Interest Waiver - INA §203(b)(2)(B)

A. Forms and Fee

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Forms and Fee

Petition: I-140, EB-2 National Interest Waiver - INA §203(b)(2)(B)

A.1 Filing Fee per Form I-140 - $700

Petition: I-140, EB-2 National Interest Waiver - INA §203(b)(2)(B)

A.1 Form I-140

EB-2 NIW - Dr. Jan Novak – Form I-140

Fee Stamp Priority Date Consulate Action Block

2. Company or Organization Name Part 2. Petition Type

Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 1 of 9

1.c. Middle Name 10. Date of Last Arrival (mm/dd/yyyy) 01/21/2012

2.a. Alien is in the United States and will apply for

Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 2 of 9

5.b. Street Number 6598 American Street

Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 3 of 9

1. Job Title 3. Country of Birth

2. SOC Code - 4. Relationship spouse

3. Nontechnical Job Description 5. Is he or she applying for adjustment of status?

6. Is this a permanent position? Yes No 8. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) 04/04/2013

9.c. City or Town American City

9.d. State CA 9.e. ZIP Code 83700

Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 4 of 9

14. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

16. Relationship 30. Is he or she applying for a visa abroad?

20. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

22. Relationship 36. Is he or she applying for a visa abroad?

Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 5 of 9

5. Authorized Signatory's Daytime Telephone Number Part 9. Interpreter's Contact Information,

Interpreter's Full Name

1.b. Interpreter's Given Name (First Name)

2. Interpreter's Business or Organization Name (if any)

Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 6 of 9

I am fluent in English and ,

7.b. Date of Signature (mm/dd/yyyy)

Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 7 of 9

NOTE: If you are an attorney or accredited representative, you

8.b. Date of Signature (mm/dd/yyyy)

Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 8 of 9

If you need extra space to provide any additional information

Form I-140 05/09/18 Page 9 of 9

Petition: I-140, EB-2 National Interest Waiver - INA §203(b)(2)(B)