dismissed EB-1A Case: Aerospace Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22143529 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 16, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a specialist in aerospace technology and !modelling, seeks classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas 
available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of this classification through 
evidence of either a major, internationally-recognized award or meeting three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets four of the 
evidentiary criteria in addition to the two that the Director concluded she met. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a specialist in aerospace technology and the application of _______ 
the modelling of air transportation demand and other issues in the aviation sector. She earned a 
Diploma of Candidate of Sciences in technical sciences, e uivalent to a doctorate degree in the United 
States, from the in 2015, and is currently 
employed as a senior operational analyst by __ 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to her authorship of scholarly articles and her participation as 
a judge of the work of others in her field, and we agree with this determination. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that she also meets the following evidentiary criteria: 1 
• (ii) - membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements of their members 
• (v)- original contributions of major significance in the field 
• (viii) - a leading or critical role for organizations having a distinguished reputation 
• (ix) - a high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field 
In support of her claim to these criteria, the Petitioner submits new evidence on appeal. Where, as 
here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an 
opportunity to respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time 
1 The Petitioner does not contest the Director's decision regarding her previous claim to the evidentiary criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) relating to published material about her and her work in the field in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. We will therefore consider that claim to be abandoned. 
2 
on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). Therefore, our review of her claims below will only consider evidence in the record 
before the Director. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner bases her claim to this criterion on her membership in four professional associations. 
We initially note that the evidence regarding one of these, the National Air Transportation Association, 
indicates that the Petitioner's business, not the Petitioner, is a member. As for the remaining three 
associations, she submitted evidence confirming her membership, but provides the same response on 
appeal as was included in her response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). Notably, 
regarding the one association for which she submitted evidence of membership requirements, the 
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Petitioner does not explain why attainment of 
a bachelor's degree in science or engineering, or equivalent professional experience, would be 
considered to be outstanding in a field where such qualifications represent the minimum requirement 
for employment. We therefore agree with the Director and conclude that the Petitioner does not meet 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
have they made original contributions, but that those contributions have been of major significance in 
the field. For example, a Petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented 
throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a 
level of major significance. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. 
Here, the Petitioner identifies a paper she published in the journal Aviation in 2007, ___ 
________________________________ as an original 
contribution of major significance. She asserts, without referencing supporting evidence, that this 
paper is the "oldest" one on forecastin aviation transport demand usingl l However, 
reference letters from and I I state that she was among the first to 
use ___________ in this way. While we do not doubt the originality of this work, 
the evidence does not support the Petitioner's statement and is insufficient to show that it constituted 
an innovation which rose to the level of major significance. 
Related to this claim, the Petitioner also asserts that a particular keyword search in Google Scholar 
shows that her 2007 paper in Aviation "is one of the most cited papers on aviation demand forecasting 
of all time." We first note that the Petitioner did not submit documentation of the results of such a 
search. In addition, she did not show that these results would support her claim, especially considering 
that several of the expert letters submitted on her behalf reference older forecasting models that had 
been in existence for decades. 
3 
More importantly, the Petitioner does not indicate how the results of this search would show that her 
research was widely adopted or built upon by others in the field. While the number of citations to her 
2007 paper shows that there was some level of interest in her work, the record lacks sufficient context 
to show that that interest showed her work to be of major significance. The USCIS Policy Manual 
provides that "a goodly number" of citations "may be probative of the significance of the person's 
contributions to the field of endeavor," 2 but as noted above it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility. Here, the Petitioner provides a chart taken from an article posted on a website in 2015 
which shows the average number of citations to papers published in several broad fields, and notes 
that it shows that papers in the field of engineering average approximately 5 citations, meaning that 
citations to her 2007 paper are nearly IO times the average. However, since the number of citations 
in a field may change over time, it is not apparent that this data from an article posted in 2015 remained 
accurate 6 years later at the time of filing. In addition, the Petitioner has not explained how a 
comparison to the average citation rate in a broad field such as engineering provides an accurate gauge 
of the significance of this paper in the Petitioner's area of expertise. Finally, comparison of the 
citations to the Petitioner's paper with the average number of citations in the field does not show that 
it was amongst the most highly-cited papers in the field. 
In further support of the meaning of the number of citations to her 2007 paper in Aviation, and in 
response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted several reports. Two of these were from the 
Russian elibrar .ru website and show searches for articles published by authors affiliated with the 
where the Petitioner was employed as a researcher for 
several years, and here she received her Ph.D. These show that ofresearchers affiliated with 
I I she ranks in terms of overall citations in the field of transport, and that her 2007 paper 
ranks in the field of mechanical engineering from those authors affiliated with I She also 
submits a webpage from Aviation showing that her 2007 paper ranks in number of views of the 
papers published in that journal. These reports substantially limit the area of consideration to either a 
single journal or a single institution, and therefore the results do not show the significance of the 
Petitioner's contribution to the overall field. For example, the list showing her total citations ranks 
her out of only 16 other researchers. Further, this list showing total citations in the field of 
"transport" does not reflect the relative impact of the citations to her 2007 paper. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the reference letters she submitted show that she has made 
contributions of major significance. 3 She points out that some of the authors of these letters indicate 
that they have cited to her work in their own published papers in the field. of 
the University inl !Ukraine states that his group used the Petitioner's 2007 
paper as a foundation to develop a new forecasting method which combined her approach with 
another technique to achieve more accurate results. While he states that the Petitioner's work 
"benefitted not only our research but the industry as a whole," he does not provide details of how her 
work made an impact on the research of others beyond listing the nationalities of others who have also 
cited to the 2007 paper. 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, Appendix 
3 All of the reference letters in the record were reviewed and considered, including those not specifically mentioned in this 
decision. 
4 
a also mentions another paper authored by the Petitioner in 2013, which he 
indicates was published in the Scientific Bulletin of Moscow State Technical University of Civil 
Aviation, and claims that it shows that she "was among the first researchers worldwide to adopt more 
sophisticated techniques." Despite his statement that "this work became a very important precursor 
of many similar research works that followed," there is no evidence in the record that this paper had 
any influence on the field or other researchers. Notably, the Petitioner's Google Scholar profile 
indicates that this paper had not been cited by other researchers at the time the petition was filed. 
Another letter was written by of the I University of Technology and 
Economics, who also indicates that the Petitioner was among the first to use an model to predict 
air traffic demand and "take the dynamics of air route networks into account." He states that her "2013 
work" introduced a newl I that "was poised to change the game," and that while it was useful 
in his research "it can do much more and has a great potential to improve air transportation indsuty 
workdliwe [sic]." I I goes on to provide a lengthy analysis of the forecast model used 
by the Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S., but the record lacks evidence that the Petitioner's 
model had fulfilled that potential or generated significant interest from the FAA or other agencies or 
amongst researchers in the field. 
of the I I University of Technology, who met the Petitioner at 
scientific conferences, writes that she was the first to consider air routel I development in her 
forecasts of aviation traffic, while leading aircraft producers based their forecasts on existing air routes. 
Butl ldoes not indicate that those producers and others in the field have now adopted 
the Petitioners approach or models, nor does the record include documentary evidence that they have 
done so. 
Our review of the evidence discussed above together with other evidence submitted in support of this 
criterion shows that while the Petitioner was among the first researchers to apply to the problem 
of modelling passenger air traffic demand, her models and techniques have not been shown to have 
widely influenced other researchers in her field. For example, both I and 
write in their reference letters that her model and method have been adopted as a standard at 
but the record does not include documentary evidence to support these statements. Further, the 
adoption of her work by her colleagues and the institution that employed her for nearly a decade does 
not show that her work has contributed to the overall field to the level of major significance. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In order to meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they performed 
either a leading or critical role, and that the organizations that they played that role for have a 
distinguished reputation. A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational 
hierarchy and through the role's matching duties. A critical role is one in which the petitioner has 
contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization's activities. 4 
4 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, Appendices Tab. 
5 
The Petitioner focuses on appeal on her role at I I where she performed as a junior research 
assistant from 2008 to 2017. We note that despite the Director's specific request in his RFE, the 
Petitioner did not include evidence supporting the institution's distinguished reputation beyond 
statements the statements of its officials in their reference letters and a reference to the institution's 
website. Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence about I and its reputation 
on appeal, as noted above we will consider only the record of evidence before the Director in our 
rev1ew. 
In his decision, the Director concluded that the letter from I did not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner held a leading position atc=J.in terms of its overall organizational hierarchy, or that her 
position was critical or influential to On appeal, the Petitioner refers again to the report from 
the Russian eliblrary.edu website showing that in the area of transport, she ranks out of 16 
researchers from in number of citations to her work. Despite her claim that this is "substantial" 
evidence of her critical role, this evidence provides no connection between the citations to her work 
in this limited subject field and any contributions to the activities of las an institution. 
Turning tol I letter, she highlights the sections of his letter stating that she was one of 
the institution's "most prolific researchers at the time," which led to her receipt of a Certificate of 
Merit. However, I does not go beyond the language of this certificate to explain its 
significance or the significance of the work which led to the Petitioner's receipt of the certificate. In 
a later section of the letter, he states that the method developed by the Petitioner "was adopted as a 
standard and leading technique for predicting air route existence by I I ( and, therefore, by the 
Russian Department of Transportation.) It is indisputable that [the Petitioner] pioneered the 
application of to the problem of long-term forecasting of aviation traffic in .. " But he 
does not explain the impact of the Petitioner's work onl I overall activities. 
Another letter on which the Petitioner focuses here was written by another I I official,D 
___ He describes a different project on which he collaborated with the Petitioner, in which 
they decided to usel Ito predict the cost of I I airplane then under development. While 
he describes that as a novel us of at the time he does not indicate that this work was critical for 
In addition, addition, he also states, lik that her forecasting methods "were standardized 
bye=] and by the aviation de artment," but like I I does not go further into depth to 
explain the impact this had on overall operations. As such, this evidence does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's role at as either leading or critical. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
In his decision, the Director acknowledged receipt of salary statistics from the website rosstata.gov.ru 
and the Petitioner's income tax report from 2014, but noted that these were not accompanied by 
certificates of translation as required per 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
translations certificates, as well as the original documents in Russian. She asserts that her salary of 
898,644 RUB in 2014 is high when compared to the yearly average income for a Russian researcher, 
which she indicates was 378,972 RUB. We first note that it is not apparent from the evidence how 
the Petitioner arrived at this figure. The chart submitted with her response to the Director's RFE 
6 
clearly indicates that the average monthly salary for workers in "research and development" was 
56,188 RUB, which equates to an annual salary of 674,256 RUB. 
In addition, the statistics from Rosstat do not provide sufficient detail to form a useful basis for 
comparison to the Petitioner's salary. Evidence to show that a person's compensation is high relative 
to that of others in the field may include geographical or position-appropriate compensation surveys. 5 
Average salary information for those performing work in a related but distinct occupation with 
different responsibilities is not a proper basis for comparison. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 
954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour 
golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965,968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's 
salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) 
( comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). The AAO notes that 
in Matter of Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at * 1, *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is 
not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of 
play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This 
interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Grimson v. INS, 
No. 93 C 3354, (N.D. Ill. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99. 
Although the present case arose within the jurisdiction of another federal judicial district and circuit, 
the court's reasoning indicates that USCIS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) 
is reasonable. In this case, the data from Rosstat appears to consider all workers engaged in research 
and development, regardless of education, experience, or the complexity of the duties they perform, 
and is therefore not an adequate basis of comparison to the Petitioner's position as a researcher holding 
an advanced degree. Further, the only figure provided is an average. Although the Petitioner's 
compensation in 2014 was certainly above the average figure provided, the data is not sufficient to 
establish that it can be considered to be high when compared to top earners in similar positions. 
Finally, this is a national figure, and therefore does not take into account the inevitable differences in 
compensation based upon location, especially in a large territory such as the Russian Federation. For 
all of these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that she has commanded a high salary in relation 
to others in her field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
5 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, Appendices Tab. 
7 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that she is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8