dismissed EB-1A Case: Automotive Mechanics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-S-D-L-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR.l3,2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a chief mechanic specializing in luxury and exotic automobiles, seeks classification 
as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sCiences. 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 Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents additional evidence and asserts that he meets at least three of the 
ten criteria. In addition, he contends that the Director imposed an overly high standard of proof and 
did not properly consider all of the evidence. With respect to the standard of proof in this matter, a 
petitioner must establish that he meets each eligibility requirement of the benefit sought by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter o[Chawathe, 25 1& N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). In 
other words, a petitioner must show that what he claims is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. 
To determine whether a petitioner has met his burden under the preponderance standard, we consider 
not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of 
the evidence. !d. at 376; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
Upon de novo review, we wilr dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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, 
.
Matter of P-S-D-L-
(ii) the alien 'seeks to enter the United States to continue work m 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 onlyto 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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award) . Alternatively , he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate 
that the standards at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his.or her occupation. 
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. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is tirst counted and then, if fulfilling .the 
required number of criteria , considered in the context of a final merits detennination); 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.O. Wash . 20 II). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to detennine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Malter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
II. ANALYSIS · 
At the time of tiling, the Petitioner was working as chief mechanic for in 
Florida. As the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award , he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying ·the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any 
of these criteria. On appeal , the Petitioner claims that he meets the published material, original 
contributions, leading or critical role, and h\gh salary· criteria.' In· addition, he requests that we 
consider comparable evidence for the awards and membership criteria. 2 For the reasons discussed 
below, the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
I These four criteria correspond to the categories of evidence at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v), (viii), and (ix). 
respectively . . 
2 These two criteria correspond to the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3Xi) and (ii), respectively . 
2 
.
Ma1te1· of P-S-D-L-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or infernationa/(v 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C. F. R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record includes a letter from technical director of the 
professional team that represented in a variety of competitions in Brazil and worldwide. 
a 
states that the Petitioner "was invited to work as a lead mechanic during the competitions" and 
that his responsibilities included "fuel and tire changes" and one race where he "was in charge of the 
motor and shift." In addition, asserts that the Petitioner was a "key player'" in the 
first place victories at the (20 11 ), 
(20 1 0), (20 1 0), 
(20 I 0), (20 1 0), 
(201 0), and (20 1 0). 
The Petitioner maintains that he was "instrumental" to the first place 
victories and that his involvement is '"comparable evidence" of his receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The evidence 
includes an 201 1 blog posted at http:// which states that the '; 
team, with and ' won the 
Another blog posted at http:/, m 2010 mentions that and 
won the "first stage of the of 201 0" m 
The record also contains a 201 0 article in indicating 
that the won at at 
The Petitioner, however, has not provided sufficient documentation regarding the 
aforementioned websites' readership to demonstrate that such press coverage is indicative of 
national or international recognition. In addition, the articles do not discuss the team's racing 
awards' level of recognition in Brazil or internationally. 4 The evidence therefore is not sufficient to 
show that first place victories constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field. 
Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of ''comparable 
evidence" if the ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation." It 
is the petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to an 
individual's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence 
required at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Here, the Petitioner has not explained or demonstrated that the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) does not readily apply to race car mechanics or those 
3 The record reflects that the team's race cars were driven by and 
~Nor do these articles mention the Petitioner as lead mechanic. We will further address the submitted articles and blogs 
under the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
3 
.
Mauer of P-S-D-l-
specializing in luxury and exotic automobiles. As such, the Petitioner has not shown that he may 
rely on comparable evidence. In addition, while the record reflects the Petitioner served in an 
important position for he has not demonstrated that awards won by this 
team's drivers are comparable to ~he regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) which requires evidence 
of his receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards tor excellence in the 
field. The Petitioner has not shown the evidence he claims as comparable to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(J)(i) is of the same caliber as that required by the regulation. Accordingly, he 
has not satisfied this criterion by meeting its plain language requirements or through the submission 
of comparable evidence. 
Documental ion of !he alien's membership in associations in /he field for whkh 
classification is'sought. which require outstanding acldeJ,·emenls of their members, as 
judged by recognized nationcd or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted his and training passports 
listing the various courses he completed at these companies' automotive training centers. In 
addition, he provided ·his online automotive course history and multiple and 
technical training certificates. The record also· includes certificates indicating that he completed 
training programs offered by and 
He further offered recommendation letters from the automotive dealership 
(Brazil), and car owners in Florida and Brazil who entrusted him with the 
care and maintenance of their vehicles. For example, the letter from explains that the 
Petitioner took automotive courses "on specific· models of the brand" and that he was "the 
only one certified in Brazil on the model " Similarly, a partner at 
notes that the Petitioner is "one of the few in the world to be certitied to work on ... 
the a hybrid model that costs around $1.5 million dollars.'' The Petitioner, 
however, has not demonstrated completing specialized technical training in his trade constitutes 
membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
The Petitioner alternately contends that his highly specialized mechanic trammg is comparable 
evidence f{Jr the membership criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). He notes 
that he was selected to participate in a advertising campaign in Brazil. The Petitioner 
provides a letter from the marketing director of the automotive dealership stating that he 
took part in a Brazilian commercial for and was responsible for 
"positioning of cars, including driving the cars during the recordings." In addition, the record 
includes a letter from commercial director, indicating that the Petitioner 
was chosen as a mechanic for the through the interior of 
Brazil. 5 
lerter explains that automotive journalists drove the and "so they 
could write articles about the new models." The record also includes copies of the automotive journalists' articles about 
4 
.
Maller r~( P-S-D-L-
The Petitioner, however, has not explained or demonstrated that the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) does not readily apply to automobile mechanics. Moreover, he has not 
shown that completing technical training in his trade, providing logistical and technical support tor 
the advertising campaign, and serving a~ a mechanic for the in Brazil are 
comparable to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) which requires evidence of his 
membership in associations in the field that require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts. For instance, while the aforementioned 
and promotional campaigns required specialized technical skills from an experienced 
automotive mechanic, the record does not indicate that they required outstanding achievemel]-tS. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated the evidence he claims as comparable to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(J)(ii) is of the same caliber as that required by the regulation. He therefore has not 
established that he satisfies this criterion by meeting its plain language requirements or through the 
submission of comparable evidence. 
Published material about The ahen in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. relaTing to !he alien 's >vork in the field fiJr which cfassification is sough/. 
Such evidence shall include the Iitle, date, and author olthe material, and any neces.mr)'· 
translalion. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(J)(iii). · 
The record includes an article in entitled ' but the 
material was incomplete, and its author was not provided as required by the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion. 6 In addition, the Petitioner submitted an article in entitled 
' an article in entitled ' 
and two articles in 
entitled was tamed quickly" and "Two Brazils." These articles were 
written about the cars' road performance on the 
through Brazil rather than the Petitioner. 7 The plain language of the regulatory qiterion requires 
"published material about the alien." Articles that are not about the Petitioner do not meet this 
regulatory criterion. See, e.g.. Negro-P!umpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV -00820 at * 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). 
ln addition, as previously mentioned under the' awards criterion, the Petitioner provided an 
20 ll b I og posted at http an 20 I 0 blog posted at 
http: and a 20 l 0 article in These 
articles, however, are not about him and the evidence does not show that the aforementioned 
these new car models. 
~ The Petitioner did not submit the first page of this article. The part that was included notes that it was a "continuation 
ofpage 1." 
7 These articles only mention the Petitioner in passing. For example. in the Petitioner appears only 
in a captioned photograph, but is not discussed in the main text of the article. In addition, the article in 
only briefly references the Petitioner as "the technical mechanic." 
5 
.
Matter of P-S-D-L-
websites are major trade publications or other major media. While the record includes a report from 
the indicating that "is the newspaper" in Brazil in terms 
of subscription , thus qualifying it as a form of major media, none of the remaining publications or 
websites listed above are identified in this report. 8 The Petitioner also offers statistical 
summaries of daily visitors and page views for ·the aforementioned publications, but he has not 
established that this information elevates them to major media relative to other newspapers or online 
publications. Regardless, we tind that the articles submitted for this criterion are not about the 
Petitioner. Based on the foregoing, the Petitione·r has not demonstrated that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence (~f the alien 's original scientific , scholarly , artistic, athletic. or business­
t~elated contributions tifmajor sign(ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided ·various recommendation letters. The 
Director considered these letters and concluded that, although they discussed the Petitioner's 
specialized skills and automotive expertise, they were insufficient to establish that his work rises to 
the level of original contributions of major significance in the field. For the reasons discussed 
below, we agree with that determination. 
The Petitioner contends that his mechanical support and technical expertise for the 
promotional driving tour through Brazil's interior meets this criterion. His evidence includes the 
aforementioned recommendation letter from discussing the Petitioner's involvement in 
this marketing project to promote models. states: 
"[The Petitioner ' s] performance during the course of the journey , giving all technical support and 
mechanical support, were extremely important for the success of this trip .... This event was one of 
the main reasons for the growth of sales of the. brand in Brazil." In addition, the record contains 
newspaper articles that mentioned the Petitioner was the mechanic for this promotional driving tour. 9 
While the Petitioner's mechanical assistance and technical skills helped ensure the success of 
marketing project, the record does not show that his contributions were considered "of 
major significance in the field" rather than mainly affecting this one company's . luxury car sales in 
Brazil. 
Additionally, the Petitioner contends that his expertise as a mechanic contributed to and 
the first place victories. In his letter of support , indicates that 
the Petitioner "used his superior skills to make sure that the cars were safe and quickly maintained 
during each pit stop ." further notes that "in the 2011 
we noticed that the road was still a bit damp after the rain" and the Petitioner "suggested that we use 
the rain tires instead of the regular ones." According to the Petitioner ' s "strategic 
decision paid ofr' and the team "took first place due in part to our rain tires." Furthermore, 
8 The report ranks the top newspapers in Brazil based on their number of subscribers. 
9 These articles were discussed earlier under the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
6 
.
Maner of P-S-D-L-
stated that the Petitioner served on his race car "staff as a specialized 
automotive technician" and helped the team "achieve excellent competition results." 10 
With regard to and the victories, the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner's work for the and meets the plain language of 
. this criterion. The evidence does not indicate that their racing awards or success were attributable to 
an original contribution by the Petitioner that held major significance in the sport or auto industry. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence rhaJ the alien has pe~formed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
As lead mechanic for the we find that the Petitioner has performed in a 
critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. The record includes a letter from the 
team's technical director discussing the Petitioner's specific responsibilities and stating that he 
"played a key role" the team's racing successes. In addition, the Petitioner offers various articles 
that suffice to demonstrate that the has garnered a distinguished reputation. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has established that he meets this criterion and the Director's finding on 
this issue is withdrawn. 
Evidence that rhe alien has commanded a high salary or orher sign{ficantly high 
remuneration fiJr services , in relation to others in the field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ix). 
The Petitioner submitted a printout from the search website listing results for "New 
Auto Mechanics Manager Salaries in Brazil ... with an average salary of R$2,484" per month. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states: "[T]he Director improperly concluded that this was information 
pertaining to a 'mechanic who has been recently hired.' However, as the document demonstrates, 
'New Auto Mechanics' is the name of the employer and not a position for new mechanics." As the 
Petitioner's 2014 tax return from Brazil reflects that he earned R$76,359 (or R$6,363 monthly), he 
contends that the salary infonnation shows he has commanded a high salary. Assuming 
that the Petitioner's argument is correct and that "New Auto Mechanics''" is the employer name 
rather than the position title, then the information provided would pertain only to this company's 
"Manager Salaries." Average salary information limited to a single Brazilian employer is not a 
proper basis for comparison in demonstrating that the Petitioner has received a high salary relative 
"to others in the field." 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that his "$54,000 salary in the United States at ... is 
much higher than the median salary of $38,740 11 for mechanics in the United States as reported by 
the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupation(l{ Outlook Handbook" (OOH). The record includes 
10 The record includes articles documenting and the competitive victories. 
11 
We note the dollar amoum indicated in the Petitioner'~ statement is incorrect. The DOH printout contained in the 
record lists "20 16 Median Pay'' of"$38,470 per year" for automotive service technicians and mechanics. 
Malter of P-S-D-L-
salary information from the OOH stating that "[t]he median annual wage for automotive service 
technicians and mechanics was $38,4 70 in May 20 16" and that "the highest I 0 percent earned more 
than $64,070." This information reflects that the Petitioner's $54,000 U.S. salary is above the 
median, but well below the top decile in his field, and therefore not indicative of a high salary 
relative to others in the field. 
finally, we note that the lener from the Petitioner's employer and other information in the record 
identify him as a "chief mechanic" specializing in luxury and exotic cars. As such, he must present 
evidence showing that he has earned a high salary or significantly high remuneration in comparison 
with those performing similar services in the field. See lvfal!er of Price, 20 1&:--.1 Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour 
golfers); see also Skokos F. US Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) 
(finding salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others in the 
field): Crimson 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. 111. 1995) (comparing 
salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). Here, the Petitioner has not 
established that the wage information he presented constitutes an appropriate basis for comparison. 
Based on the foregoing,, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note the record of proceedings reflects that the Petitioner received 0-I status, a classification 
reserved tor nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on ditTerent standard­
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions aredenied after USClS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See. e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of.lustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers 
Co. Ltd.. 724 F. Supp. at 1103. Furthermore, our authority over a USC IS service center, the office 
responsible for adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, is comparable to the relationship 
between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has approved· a 
nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not bound to follow that finding in the 
adjudication of another immigration petition. La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 
2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). Here, tor the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has 
not established eligibility tor immigrant classification as an individual of extraordinary ability under 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 
Malter of P-S-D-L-
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20.12 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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as lvfatter oJP-S-D-L-, ID# 1087463 (AAO Mar. 13, 2018) 
12 In addition, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, we 
need not determine whether he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" under section 
203(b )(I )(A)(i i). 
9