dismissed EB-1A Case: Aerospace Engineering

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted tb 
prevent clearly unmd 
invasion of ped privacy 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
pmuc COPY 
FILE: LIN 05 800 13495 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 APR 1 4 2006 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office tha! originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
J' Administrative Appeals Office 
I 
u 
LIN 05 800 13495 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits additional evidence. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an aerospace 
engineer. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained 
national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim 
LIN 05 800 13495 
Page 3 
necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he 
claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted an Internet announcement of his receipt of the first ever Royal Aeronautical 
Society Cayley Award in 2003. The materials reveal that this award is a scholarship towards his 
education at Sheffield Hallam University. The petitioner also submitted a copy of the award itself, 
dated July 2003, indicating that the award is part of the Centennial Scholarship Fund. Finally, the 
petitioner submitted a list of 12 Centennial Scholarship Fund winners for 2003 and 2004. The 
petitioner's entry indicates that the scholarship funds "[clontributed to tuition fees for MSc (Hons) in 
Advanced Engineering." 
The director concluded that the award appeared to be a scholarship with at least 12 winners and that the 
petitioner had not demonstrated the requirements for selection for the award. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits evidence regarding the selection process for a "medal or award." These materials do not 
appear relevant to the scholarship the petitioner won. The petitioner also submits the Centennial 
Scholarship Fund conditions of award. These materials indicate that the scholarships are designed to 
support academics. Finally, the petitioner submits his 2004 degree from Sheffield Hallam University. 
Academic study is not a field of endeavor, but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, 
academic scholarships and student awards cannot be considered prizes or awards in the petitioner's 
field of endeavor. Moreover, competition for scholarships is limited to other students. Experienced 
experts in the field are not seeking scholarships. Thus, they cannot establish that a petitioner is one 
of the very few at the top of his field. Finally, scholarships are designed to fund future education, not 
to recognized past excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, the Cayley Scholarship cannot serve to meet this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classrJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that on September 24, 1996, he was elected as a "Graduate" member 
of the Aeronautical Society of India. A 1978 certificate indicates that associate membership in this 
society is equivalent to a bachelor's degree in Aeronautical Engineering. The petitioner submitted his 
1996 passing scores for his associate membership examinations and an evaluation of his membership 
finding it equivalent to a bachelor's degree from a regionally accredited institution of higher education 
in the United States. 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
LIN 05 800 13495 
Page 4 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that he is 
a senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and a member of 
the Royal Aeronautical Society. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that any of the above institutes require 
outstanding achievements of their members. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted evidence of his certification as a chartered engineer by the 
Engineering Council, United Kingdom. The certificate is dated June 3, 2005, after the date of filing. 
The petitioner must establish eligibility as of that date. 
 See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that his membership grade in the Aeronautical Society of India 
was upgraded to "member" in May 2001. The petitioner submitted materials from this society that 
provide the following: 
Members shall have been either Associate Members or shall have fulfilled the 
conditions necessary for Associate Membership. They shall have achieved distinction 
in the profession of aeronautics and [/1 or shall have held a position of responsibility for 
[a] minimum period of 5 years. In addition they shall have either[:] 
a) Made useful scientific or technical contribution in the field of aircraft design or 
production or aeronautical research or education or training or in any other branch of 
aviation technology. 
b) Acquired considerable experience of the practical aspects of aviation for at least a 
total period of 10 years as pilots, navigators, aircraft maintenance engineers, 
production engineers, aeronautical communication engineers, air traffic controllers 
or other scientific or technological personnel engaged in aviation activities or a field 
related to aviation activity such as aviation medicine, law, finance, marketing, 
management and holding a responsible position, in a manner acceptable to the 
Council. 
Ten years of experience, even in a position of responsibility, is not an outstanding achievement in the 
field, but the inevitable outcome for any engineer competent enough to remain in his field long enough. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter from the AIAA dated March 24, 2004 upgrading the 
petitioner to "senior member." The letter indicates that senior members with 12 years of professional 
experience can upgrade to Associate Fellows. Thus, it appears that the various membership grades in 
the AIAA are based on experience alone. As discussed above, a number of years of professional 
experience is not an outstanding achievement. 
LIN 05 800 13495 
Page 5 
Finally, even if the petitioner had established that he was a certified chartered engineer prior to the date 
of filing, he has not provided the requirements for this certification. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted an e-mail message from 
 promising to send the 
petitioner a "list of books available on Aeronautical Engineering published by Piyush Publication, 
edited & contributed by you." ~r also indicates that he will rovide a list of books "available 
with other publishers on the subject. second e-mail from M references an attachment. 
Two additional pages contain a list of six Piyush Publications, 16 SPD Publications and six books on 
aerospace engineering by "Allied Publishers." Of all the publications, only three of the titles fiom 
Piyush Publications reference the petitioner as an author. The petitioner did not submit copies of the 
covers, title pages or other evidence of the books' existence and his authorship. 
The director noted that the petitioner had not submitted the books, reviews of the book, photographs of 
the books or sales figures and concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to meet this 
criterion. The petitioner does not address this criterion on appeal. 
Primary evidence of authorship of an article or a book is a copy of the first page of the article or the title 
page of the book. Without documentation that such evidence is unavailable, secondary evidence and 
affidavits are insufficient. 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(2). We concur with the director that the petitioner has 
not established that he has authored any scholarly work. Moreover, the work must be published in a 
professional or major trade journal or other major media. The petitioner has not established that these 
books constitute major media. Specifically, the petitioner has not established that these books were 
widely purchased. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a July 16, 2004 letter from CTS Technical Services, Inc. issued to 
support a nonimmigrant petition filed by CTS. The letter confirms CTS' worldwide reputation and its 
intent to employ the petitioner as a Stress Analysis Engineer. The letter further asserts that this position 
"is one of the more critical positions within the aerospace industry and is responsible for performing the 
essential task of developing and testing stress tolerances for aircraft structures and components." 
LIN 05 800 13495 
Page 6 
The director determined that the petitioner's claim to meet this criterion was insufficient. On appeal, 
the petitioner resubmits the letter from CTS. Obviously, an engineering and technical support services 
company that supplies expertise and manpower to the aerospace industry must employ competent stress 
analysis engineers. An unsupported general claim that every such engineer plays a critical role for the 
employer is insufficient. Without an organizational chart demonstrating the number of stress analysis 
engineers and their place in the organizational hierarchy, we cannot evaluate the claim that every stress 
analysis engineers plays a leading or critical role for his employer beyond the obvious need to employ 
such engineers. As such, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzficantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in thejeld. 
The letter from CTS indicates that the petitioner would be paid $52 per hour, or $108,160 annually. 
The petitioner would also be compensated $78 per hour for any overtime. The petitioner also 
submitted a pay stub reflecting that he earns this amount. In response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, the petitioner submitted more pay stubs reflecting the same hourly rates. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established that $52 per hour was "high compared to 
others in the field. On appeal, the petitioner submitted evidence that, after the date of filing, his 
earnings rose to $55 per hour regular time and $82.5 overtime. The petitioner also submitted an 
Internet analysis ranking his entered annual wage of $130,000 as "100% and "A+." At the time of 
filing, however, the petitioner's wages were not $130,000 annually. Moreover, the petitioner has not 
established the significance of this Internet site. The petitioner also submitted information posted at 
aerospaceweb.org asserting that the median income in the field in 2001 was $70,400. The author 
estimates that the high end of the range is $1 50,000. Once again, the petitioner did not submit evidence 
of the significance of this Internet site. 
The petitioner must establish eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg. Cornrn. 1971). Thus, he must establish that his wages earned prior 
to that date were not just above the average or median wage, but compared with the wages earned by 
the most renowned experienced members of the field. The petitioner's wages as of the date of filing 
were $52 per hour. The petitioner did not submit evidence from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
th 
documenting the 90 percentile of wages for stress analysis engineers or even engineers in general. 
Even if we accept the information from aerospaceweb.org, the petitioner's wages as of the date of filing 
were well below the top wages in the field, estimated at $150,000. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
LIN 05 800 13495 
Page 7 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as an 
aerospace engineer to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as an aerospace engineer, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.