dismissed EB-1A Case: Applied Mechanics Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13454774 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN . 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an applied mechanics engineer , seeks classification as an individual 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 initially denied the petition and subsequently affirmed 
his decision on motion , concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary 
criteria for this classification , of which he must meet at least three . We dismissed the Petitioner 's 
subsequent appeal. The Petitioner now submits a combined motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider , together with new evidence, and asserts that he meets three evidentiary criteria and is 
otherwise qualified for the classification sought. 
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 review , we will dismiss both motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2) . A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that 
the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy , and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the initial decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause " for that action . Thus , to merit reconsideration, a 
petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly 
completed Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal or Motion , with the correct fee), but also show proper cause 
for granting the motion . We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements . See 
8 C.F.R . § 103.5(a)(4) . 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability. 
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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories 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. 2010) 
( 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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us on motion is whether the Petitioner has either submitted new facts sufficient to 
warrant reopening his appeal and/or established that our decision to dismiss his appeal was based on an 
incorrect application of USCIS law or policy. 
A. AAO Decision 
In our appellate decision, we acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that he meets five of the ten 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material in major trade publications or other major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others in his field; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria related to judging 
the work of others and authorship of scholarly articles. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). We 
determined that the Petitioner met the authorship of scholarly articles criterion. However, we withdrew 
the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied the judging criterion after concluding that there 
was insufficient evidence of his participation in peer review activities. We also determined that the 
Petitioner had not satisfied the criteria relating to memberships and published materials. We reserved and 
2 
did not discuss the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), noting that the Petitioner 
would not satisfy the initial evidence requirements even if he established that this criterion had been met. 1 
On motion, the Petitioner addresses the criteria relating to judging the work of others and original 
contributions. Specifically, he asserts that we overlooked certain evidence that was previously submitted 
and states that he is submitting new evidence establishing that he meets the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). He also requests that we review all evidence related to the original contributions 
criterion that we previously reserved, including new evidence submitted on motion. 
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the new evidence submitted in support of the motion 
to reopen establishes that the Petitioner meets the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
However, he has not established that he meets a third criterion and has therefore not met the initial 
evidence requirements for this classification. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that our prior 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. Accordingly, the motion to 
reopen and motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
As discussed, the Petitioner's combined motion addresses only two of the five criteria initially 
claimed. The Petitioner does not contest our determination that he did not satisfy the criteria relating 
to membership in associations and published materials about him and relating to his work. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (iii). 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
In our appellate decision, we withdrew the Director's determination that the Petitioner had satisfied 
this criterion. We acknowledged that the Petitioner had claimed eligibility based on his review of 
papers at the 2010 Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies (AMPT2010) conference, but 
determined that the submitted evidence only indicated that he had accepted an invitation to act as a 
peer reviewer for AMPT2010. Specifically, we acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted an e-mail 
from the conference chairman reminding him to conduct his paper reviews in a timely manner, but we 
found this evidence alone insufficient to establish that he actually fulfilled his role as a peer reviewer 
for the conference. We also noted that the record included a letter from I I to the 
Petitioner inviting him "to act as a reviewer" for two journals in his field; however, we emphasized 
that the Petitioner did not provide any documentary evidence establishing that he actually reviewed 
papers or manuscripts for either journal. 
In his brief on motion, the Petitioner maintains that the previously submitted evidence was sufficient 
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he met this criterion based on his peer review 
activities. We disagree as the Petitioner has not explained how the evidence referenced above 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
3 
confirmed his participation as a judge. 2 The fact that the AMPT2000 conference chair thanked the 
Petitioner in advance for agreeing to participate and reminded him to complete his review in a timely 
manner does not establish that he ultimately completed his assigned peer review activities for this 
conference. 
However, the Petitioner also submits new evidence in support of his motion to reopen that is sufficient 
to establish that he meets this criterion based on his completion of peer review activities for the 
journals referenced inl ts earlier letter. 
As the Petitioner has now established that he has met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), 
we will consider whether he has satisfied the third and final claimed criterion below. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance 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 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 3 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 in the field. 
The Petitioner asserts that he has made original contributions of major significance based on his 
doctoral dissertation at University! _ l in which he studied 
~--~I wear i~~ __ ltaa)s clue tal !interactions, and based on his work as a senior applied 
mechanics engineer witli : I where he worked on the development and commercialization of 
I I supports and restraints forl I applications in the energy industry. 
The Petitioner references his submission of letters from colleagues and other scientists and experts 
regarding his original contributions in his field.4 The letters summarize the Petitioner's research 
achjeyemeTs anq...hmadlr discuss the potential impact of his mechanical engineering research in the 
I and L__J power industries. However, they do not establish that his original 
contributions are already recognized as majorly significant within these fields. 
With respect to the Petitiolner's grjduate researchJ I who served on the Petitioner's 
dissertation committee at notes that the Petitioner "had undertaken a difficult technical but 
important problem for developing countries'! I sustainability." He explains that the 
Petitioner' S study 0~ lwear od I tools rl'providr a solution methodology ... that allowed 
the time to replace the worn tool for developers o and farther states that "the results of [the 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14. 8 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (noting that peer review for a journal may be a qualifying 
judging activity, provided that it is evidenced by a request from the journal to the individual petitioner to do the review, 
accompanied by proof that the petitioner actually completed the review). 
3 Id. at 8-9 (stating that although funded and published work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish 
that the work is of major significance). 
4 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Petitioner's research] has impact in the field ofl I removal and failure that will aid in the 
development of betterl I tools and practices as the expanding need forc=J increases in 
importance for developing countries."~-------~ a mechanical engineering professor at 
I I also discusses the Petitioner's doctoral research,! noting I that "tool wear is a major issue in 
I I operations" which "can lead to a decrease in quality and frequent downtime of 
equipment." He explains that the Petitioner's research methodology "can be used to optimize the tool 
material and the tool geometry" and to undertake "a r
1
gor
1
us study to understand the effects of 
parameters such as .. I I speed, power consumption, density, etc. has on the tool wear."c=] 
I !farther observes that the Petitioner's methodology "can potentially be used in designing 
new tools with increased wear-life that result in economic benefits." 
.__ ___ ~ __ _.I of~--------~ who indicates that he knows the Petitioner as "a 
professional, friend and neighbor," states that the Petitioner's study od I wear o~ I tools 
"can be used as a template to conduct an effective research on the study of wear phenomenon." He 
states that the Petitioner "has made enormous contributions that [are] directly applicable to the safety 
of complex mechanical systems," noting that his research techni ues have both safet and 
environmental benefits.~--------~of th L-----r----, __________ ____J 
states that the Petitioner's research in this area "is a boon for th_~--- industry and will be a great 
help to researchers working on to make thel I more efficient." While all of these letters speak 
to the applicability and potential of the Petitioner's methodology for predicting and measuring tool 
wear, none explains with sufficient specificity whether or how the Petitioner's research has already 
been widely implemented or significantly impacted the field. 
I I, a former faculty member at Oand research and development technology 
director at I I explains that the pg·' issertation research 
"adopted a fundamental approach of simulating the interaction of a particle with a tool, 
and developed a better understanding of the mechanism by which the particle 'scratches' on the 
surface of the tool." He states that the Petitioner's study provided fundamental insights into the 
mechanics of this wearing process, and that "[.,,__._...""""'-.........,~damental understanding can be utilized to 
better design tools to minimize! lwear." em hasizes that the Petitioner was invited 
to publish and present the results of his work at the 2012 Customer Conference, and notes 
that his work was also highlighted in the company magazine.__ __ ___. Community News. 5 He 
indicates that the conference invitation and wider dissemination in the magazine was "due to the 
technical quality and fundamental importance of this work, and its potential applicability in other areas 
where interactions ofl I particles and metal surfaces may be a concern." 
While the inclusion of the Petitioner's published work in conferences and journals reflects the 
originality of that work, his publications and presentations alone do not establish that his research has 
been regarded as an original contribution of major significance in his field. At the time of filing, the 
Petitioner rovided search results from Goo le Scholar indicating that his paper .... I------~---' 
.__ ______________________ _. had been cited by others a total of seven 
times since its publication in 2012. The Petitioner did not provide any comparative data suggesting 
5 
The record reflects that an article title'-----------------~----------' 
I I appeared in the "Academic Update" section of the September/October 2012 issue of,__ _ ___,Community News. 
A letter froml I mentions tha~ lis the manufacturer of the finite element tool 
I I which the Petitioner applied in his research. 
5 
that this level of attention from other researchers reflects widespread commentary about his work that 
is commensurate with a remarkable influence or impact on that field. 
We have also considered letters of recommendation that address the Petitioner's work on the 
development ofl I systems used inl I production of electricity. 
I I, the Petitioner's former manager a~ I explains that the Petitioner and his team 
"spent four 4 years analyzing and developing the analysis of thQ supports manufactured and 
supplied byl t' and "established! I models with the objective to use the template file 
for analyzing the design of regular supports and the customized supports for the customers/in""d""'u=s-=t ....<.....e=c..., 
the industr for ower eneration." notes that the Petitioner ublished 
IC 
he credits as "a tremendous contribution to th-...._ _ ___. support industry." However, he does not 
explain how the Petitioner's study has impacted the industry or how it has been regarded as a 
"tremendous contribution." The record reflects that the referenced paper was accepted for the 2015 
ASME Power and Energy Conservation Conference. However, the evidence does not demonstrate 
that the Petitioner's work has been cited by other researchers or otherwise establish that the study has 
attracted widespread commentary or been implemented by others in the industry. 
I !formerly a project engineer for one ofi I customers, also describes the 
Pet1t10ner's research m this area, noting that "[h]e outlined a procedure for the design check and used 
analytical and finite element analysis tools to create the design checks." He discusses the above­
referenced paper, noting that "the comparison of almost forty years of Codes is a huge task" and "his 
approach is innovative and based on modem methods of technical evaluation." Finally,! I 
credits the Petitioner with making recommendations "that directly helped improve the safety and 
lessen the impact on the surrounding environment" but does not provide farther explanation or 
examples of how the Petitioner's study achieved these safety and environmental improvements or how 
it has been implemented in the industry. 
The record also contains two letters frortj I, the Petitioner's colleagu;.:e:....:a~l==0====: 
who explains that the company is a world leader in supports used in ._I ___ __ 
I I power production, as well as r----"l--_J andl I facilities. In 
addition to mentioning the study discussed above, indicates that the Petitioner was "placed 
in the lead role for developing a new, for I I, product line, supports," which 
he states are critical components used in the production o as. He explains that 
manufacturing of these supports was moved from a sister facility in China to s U.S. operations 
and that the Petitioner was "one of the leading influencers of making this transition successfol.'D 
I I also credits the Petitioner for being "intimately involved in developing automation ~ 
expedite the creation of these supports for new projects." Finally, he emphasizes that thesej_____J 
supports are developed for global and multi billion-dollar industries, and as such the Petitioner's 
"innovative work had a substantial contribution, not only economically but also in ensuring the safe 
implementation of these suppo " 's letter provides support for his conclusion that the 
Petitioner was a valuable asset t and a highly skilled engineer, but he does not explain how 
his role in the transfer of his employer's~----~ support manufacturing from China to the 
United States amounts to an original contribution of major significance in the field, or sufficiently 
explain how the Petitioner tremendously impacted "the safe implementation of these supports," which 
he indicates must be designed in accordance with industry codes and regulations. 
6 
Overall, the letters recognize the originality, importance, and/or prospective benefit of the Petitioner's 
graduate research and professional contributions atl I but do not contain detailed information 
showing the unusual influence or hiah imprt the Petitioner's contributions have already had in the 
engineering field or in the I I an support industries. With respect to his graduate research, 
the letters, including those not specifically mentioned, as well as other evidence in the record, show 
that the Petitioner's original work has added value to the pool of knowledge in his field and opened 
avenues for further research into the causes and measurement of wear on tools and machines used in 
I I The evidence, however, is insufficient to confirm that the level of attention his work has 
received in this area reflects widespread commentary and acceptance of his work, or that the 
mechanical engineering field regard~ork as authoritative. Similarly, while the Petitioner 
published a study during his tenure atl__Jand introduced efficiencies into itsD support design 
process, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual 
influence or high impact his research or work has had in the wider field. Letters that specifically 
articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 6 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics do not add value, and are 
not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 7 
Although the Petitioner submits additional letters on motion, they do not offer further insight into how 
his original research has already influenced or impacted the field. For example,! I 
states that the methodology the Petitioner generated in his dissertation "finds a wider application in 
the various industrial sectors" and notes that "companies associated with thd I industry and 
implementing [the Petitioner's] research can have an upper hand over their competitors." He does 
not identify specific companies that had already implemented the Petitioner's methodology into their 
design and development oj loj I tools or otherwise elaborated! on any f ocumented 
impacts of his work. The record also contains background information on the andl I 
production industries and their importance but it does not follow that any research that contributes to 
incremental advancements in an important industry is an original contribution of major significance 
within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we incorrectly applied law or policy in our previous decision, nor 
does the new evidence submitted on motion establish that he meets at least three of the ten evidentiary 
criteria for this classification. Accordingly, the motions will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id. at 9. 
7