dismissed EB-1A Case: Applied Mechanics Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6963747 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 5, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a scientific researcher, 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 initially denied the petition and subsequently affirmed 
his decision on motion, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
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)(l) 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 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 he or she 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Pe~ndicates his most recent employment as a senior applied mechanics engineer atl I D inl__J Tennessee from October 2013 to November 2017. 1 Because the Petitioner has not 
indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy 
at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Although we agree with the Director that the Petitioner authored scholarly articles 
in professional publications, we do not concur with the Director's finding relating to the judging 
criterion, discussed later. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets three additional criteria. After reviewing all of the 
evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish that he satisfies the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
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 argues for the first time on appeal that he meets this criterion based on senior 
membership with the International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology 
(IACSIT). 2 In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the 
association is based on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having 
outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 3 
1 See the Petitioner's curriculum vitae and Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. 
Although he provided an approval notice for H-lB nonimmigrant classification for employment withl O I from 
September 2017 to September 2020, the Petitioner indicated that he ceased employment in November 2017. Moreover, 
the record does not show the Petitioner's employment since November 2017. 
2 The Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for this criterion based on his membership with other associations; however, 
he does not argue on appeal, nor does the record reflect, his eligibility based on those associations. 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
2 
At the outset, the Petitioner submits a letter from.__ ___________ ___. for IACSIT, dated 
December 2018, thanking him for joining the association. The Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing and 
continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). As he filed his petition in February 
2018, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his senior membership with IACSIT occurred prior to or 
at the time of his initial filing. 
Notwithstanding the above, the Petitioner contends that senior membership with IACSIT requires "a 
doctor of philosophy and the highest university degree possible." Moreover, he submits screenshots 
from iacsit.org highlighting that "only PhD holders should apply," as well as the benefits of IACSIT 
membership, such as proposing to organize and chair conferences, inviting to review conference and 
journal material, and registering for conferences at discounted rates. Furthermore, he cites to statistics 
of American adults possessing a doctorate degree (1.63%). In addition, he references a letter fromO 
I I who indicated that he introduced the Petitioner as a senior member ofIACSIT, which 
"is one of the societies that has PhD degree and excellence in the field for a Senior Member," and a 
letter from.__ ________ ~who claimed that the Petitioner "has been an active member of 
the engineering professional organizations but is limited to the committees having the prerequisites 
for its members to have a doctoral degree and who have made significant contributions." 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish that the IACSIT' s requirements rise to the level of "outstanding 
achievements" consistent with this regulatory criterion. Instead, based on the presented 
documentation, senior membership for IACSIT exclusively involves possessing a doctoral degree, 
which in-and-of-itself: the Petitioner did not show is tantamount to an outstanding achievement. 4 In 
addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that IACSIT requires that an alien has made outstanding 
achievements in the field. Although I I asserted that IACSIT also requires "significant 
contributions," the screenshots from iacsit.org do not support his claim. Furthermore, the Petitioner 
did not establish that recognized national or international experts judge the outstanding achievements 
for membership with IACSIT. 5 Rather, as discussed, IACSIT solely grants senior membership if the 
applicant holds a doctoral degree. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies this criterion. 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in 
original research). 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (instructing that relevant factors that may lead a conclusion 
that the alien's memberships in the associations were not based on outstanding achievements in the field include, but are 
not limited to, instances where the alien's membership was based solely on a level of education or years of experience in 
a particular field). 
5 Id. (stating that the level of membership afforded to the alien must show that in order to obtain that level of membership, 
the alien was judged by recognized national or international experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the 
field for which classification is sought). 
3 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner contends that he satisfies this criterion based on an article published in the Simulia 
Community News. Specifically, the Petitioner clams that "the SIMULIA company invited him to write 
an article for the Company Newsletter," and the article "represents his work." In order to satisfy this 
criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of the material. 6 
Although the article is about the Petitioner's research regarding the~-----------~ 
I I, the article is not about him. In fact, the Petitioner is never mentioned in the body of the 
article. Instead, the Petitioner is listed as a contact in the "For More Information" section. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material to be about the alien 
relating to his work rather than self-authored articles reporting his own work. Articles that are not 
about an alien do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not 
about the actor). Further, while the Petitioner argues the influence of his research discussed in the 
article through reference letters, this criterion requires published material about the Petitioner relating 
to his work rather than the significance or impact of his work in the field. Here, the Petitioner provided 
an article only about his work instead of an article about him relating to his work. 
The Petitioner also rovides a letter from research and development director for 
~------------~------, who indicated that the article was "also made 
available as a digital version on our companx's public website." However, the Petitioner did not 
provide screenshots of the website supportingl l's claim. Regardless, the Petitioner did not 
establish that Simulia Community News or the company's public website is a professional or major 
trade publication or other major medium. The record contains an email from I l who indicated 
that "[w]e are distributing the magazine to about 7000 per issue," and "[t]he SIMULIA website gets 
about 25,000 visitors per month." 7 Here, the Petitioner did not show the significance of the circulation 
figures or visits and how such data reflects status as a major medium. 8 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7. 
7 The record also contains screenshots from Similar Web regarding website traffic and rankings relating toc=J overall 
rather than to the digital version of the company newsletter. 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
4 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied.field of specification for which classification 
is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
As discussed earlier, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. This regulatory 
criterion requires an alien to show that he has acted as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specialization. 9 For the reasons outlined below, the record does not reflect that the 
Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that he meets this criterion, and 
the Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on his review of papers 
at the 2010 Advances in Materials and Processing Technologies ]AMPT2010). The Petitioner 
provided an email from I of AMPT2010, addressed to 
colleagues thanking them for participating and reminding them to complete their reviews for the 
conference. For instance, I I stated that "prompt and accurate reviews are key 
elements to the conference," "commitment to timely conclusion of the reviewing process is helpful to 
boost attendance of authors for oral presentation," and"[ m Jany institutions will not support you [sic] 
author colleagues unless acceptance of the submitted work is finalized and notification takes place." 
Moreover,~-------~ indicated that "[t]his e-mail is to remind you of the necessity to 
conclude the review process in a timely manner," and "[i]t is imperative that we conclude the review 
process ASAP." 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that he has not only been invited to judge the 
work of others, but also that he actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same 
or allied field of specialization. 10 Here, the email does not demonstrate that the Petitioner actually 
completed the paper reviews for AMPT2010. 11 Instead, as indicated above, the email reflects a 
reminder to conduct the paper reviews. Moreover, the Petitioner did not present any supporting 
evidence establishing that he, in fact, performed the conference paper reviews. Further, the Petitioner 
did not submit corroborating documentation showing how many or which papers he reviewed at the 
conference. 12 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he participated as a judge of the 
work of others consistent with this regulatory criterion. Accordingly, we withdraw the decision of the 
Director for this criterion. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
11 Id. (proving an example of peer reviewing for a scholarly journal, as evidenced by a request from the journal to the alien 
to do the review, accompanied by proof that the alien actually completed the review). 
12 Similarly, the record contains a letter froml Ito the Petitioner inviting him "to act as a reviewer" for 
two journals. However. the Petitioner did not provide any documentary evidence establishing that he actually reviewed 
papers or manuscripts for the journals. 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that although the Petitioner satisfies the scholarly articles criterion, he does not meet any 
additional criteria on appeal regarding memberships, published material, and judging. While he argues 
and submits evidence for one additional criterion on appeal, relating to original contributions of major 
significance at C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), we need not reach this additional ground. As the Petitioner 
cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we 
reserve this issue. 13 Accordingly, 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 
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 his 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 he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner has conducted research and authored scholarly articles, the record does not 
contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
13 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like comts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
6