dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2025 In Re: 35873778 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a chemical engineer in the nondestructive testing (NDT) field, requests his 
classification under the employment-based, first-preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a 
noncitizen with "extraordinary ability." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). Successful petitioners for U.S. permanent residence in this 
category must demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and extensively document 
recognition of their achievements in their fields. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met one of ten initial evidentiary requirements - two less than needed for a final merits 
determination. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he satisfied four additional criteria by 
submitting evidence of his: 
• Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements; 
• Original contributions of major significance in his field; 
• Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations; and 
• Commandment of a high salary, or significantly high remuneration, as compared to others in 
his field. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v), (viii), (ix). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that he has not satisfied the requisite number of evidentiary criteria. We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that they: 
• Have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• Seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Through their work, would substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" means expertise commensurate with "one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Evidence of 
extraordinary ability must demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, international 
recognized award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary criteria. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 1 
If a petitioner meets either evidentiary standard and the requirements at section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii), (iii) 
of the Act, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must then make a final merits 
determination. To merit approval, the record - as a whole - must establish a petitioner's sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognized achievements placing them among the small 
percentage at their field's very top. See Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 391 (5th Cir. 2022) (finding 
USCIS' two-step extraordinary ability analysis "consistent with the governing statute and regulation"); 
see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Petitioner and His Field 
The record shows that the Petitioner, an Egyptian native and citizen, earned a bachelor's degree in 
physics and chemistry and a master's degree in radiation physics from a university in his home 
country. Thereafter, he gained about 20 years of employment experience in NDT, techniques that 
evaluate the quality of materials, components, and systems without damaging them. NDT uses 
physical concepts like sound waves, magnetic fields, and electromagnetic radiation to detect flaws. 
The NDT field helps to ensure safety, reliability, and quality in many industries. 
The Petitioner came to the United States in 2023. He seeks to continue his work as an NDT engineer 
in this country. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
The record does not indicate - nor does the Petitioner claim - his receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award. He must therefore meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 
The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner submitted evidence that he judged others' 
work in his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). We will next review the Director's findings 
regarding the other evidentiary criteria that the Petitioner claims to have met. To satisfy these other 
requirements, his evidence must objectively meet the parameters of the applicable regulations. See 
1 If an evidentiary criterion does not "readily apply" to a petitioner's occupation, they may submit "comparable evidence" 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 20 l 0) (forbidding USCIS from "unilaterally 
impos[ing] novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5"); 
see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B). 
1. Membership in Associations 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must submit"[ d]ocumentation of [their] membership in associations 
in the field for which classification 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 submitted evidence that a technical society for NDT professionals awarded him its 
highest level of certification. Submitted information about the society indicates that its highest 
certification level involves: developing, qualifying, and approving NDT procedures and techniques; 
interpreting and reporting results; and training lower-level personnel. 
The Director found insufficient evidence that the Petitioner's certification constitutes membership in 
the society or required outstanding achievements judged by recognized experts in their fields. On 
appeal, the Petitioner contends that the society's certification equates to membership and that "the 
certification process includes technical examinations and practical evaluations conducted by a board 
of experts." He states that the certification requires "continual professional development and peer 
review" and represents the "gold standard" in the NDT field. 
The record, however, does not establish that the Petitioner's certification meets this criterion's 
requirements. As the Director found, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his claimed membership in 
the society. The society materials speak of certification, not membership. See Goncharov v. Allen, 
No. 3:21-CV-1372-B, 2022 WL 17327304, *5 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2022) (holding that "[n]o 
reasonable analysis" could find this criterion met without evidence of "associations which grant 
membership"). 
Also, the Petitioner's materials do not establish that the society requires outstanding achievements 
judged by national or international experts in their fields. The society materials state that certification 
requires passage of written and practical examinations and on-the-job experience. But the materials 
do not indicate a need for achievements judged outstanding by experts. The Petitioner submitted 
biographical information about members of the society's board of managers. But the information 
neither establishes board members' recognition as national or international experts nor indicates that 
they judge others' achievements. Rather, the information states that the board "provides guidance and 
leadership to the Society and the Certification Management Committee." 
The Petitioner has not submitted documentation of his membership in associations requmng 
outstanding achievements as judged by experts in the field. We will therefore affirm the Director's 
finding regarding this evidentiary criterion. 
3 
2. Original Contributions of Major Significance 
This criterion requires "[ e ]vidence of the [ noncitizen] '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). When 
adjudicating this requirement, USCIS first determines whether a petitioner has made original 
contributions in their field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manua!F.2(B)(l), Criterion 5. The Agency 
then considers whether the contributions have major significance in the field. Id. 
The Petitioner provided letters from three companies that contracted his NDT services. A letter from 
a provider of engineering and management services states that the Petitioner's NDT expertise and 
leadership was "instrumental to our success." The company stated that his work extended the 
operational lives of client facilities, reduced maintenance costs, elevated safety standards, and ensured 
uninterrupted operations and efficiency. A letter from a company that rehabilitates boilers states that 
the Petitioner "introduce[ ed] new technologies" and describes him as "one of the foremost experts" in 
radiation protection in Egypt. A letter from a heavy construction and engineering service provider 
praises the Petitioner's work on Egypt's largest oil refinery, a project that attracted more than $4 billion 
in foreign investment. The letter states that his work ensured the project's success and regulatory 
compliance. 
The Director found insufficient evidence that the Petitioner's contributions were "original" and had 
"major significance" in his field. On appeal, he contends that his "contributions have been widely 
recognized by leading professionals and adopted by other organizations, influencing industry 
standards in nondestructive testing." He also states that "his methodologies are cited in technical 
papers and NDT best practices used by other engineering firms." 
The record, however, does not support the Petitioner's contentions. He points to neither organizations 
that have adopted his techniques nor technical papers or best practices citing his methodologies. As 
the Director found, the Petitioner has not explained the claimed "originality" of his work or its 
significance to his field. 
The Petitioner asserts that his contributions have affected more than his contractors and their clients. 
He claims that his "technical innovations, particularly in radiographic testing and phased array 
ultrasonic testing, have been widely implemented in critical infrastructure across Egypt and the Middle 
East." He also states that his claimed innovations "have had far-reaching effects across the field of 
NDT and industries reliant on these technologies, as demonstrated by the substantial financial impact 
of his work." 
But the financial benefits of the Petitioner's work to his contractors and their clients does not 
automatically indicate its significance to his field. Other NDT professionals may perform the same 
type of work, saving similar amounts of money for their contractors and clients. The record lacks 
detailed, independent evidence of the Petitioner's claimed "technical innovations," their purported 
adoption by other organizations, and explanations of how they have purportedly advanced the NDT 
field. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 2013) (discounting support letters 
lacking details regarding others' purported use of a petitioner's techniques). 
4 
The Petitioner has not submitted evidence of his original contributions of major significance to his 
field. We will therefore affirm the Director's finding regarding this evidentiary criterion. 
3. Leading or Critical Role 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must submit "[e]vidence that the [noncitizen] has performed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
USCIS first examines whether a petitioner's role is ( or was) leading or critical. See generally 6 USC IS 
Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), Criterion 8. A leading role means that a petitioner is (or was) a leader with 
an organization or an establishment, or a division or department thereof. Id. In contrast, a critical role 
involves contributions of"significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's 
activities or those of a division or department of the organization or establishment." Id. 
USCIS then determines whether an organization for which the petitioner holds or held a leading or 
critical role has a distinguished reputation. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), Criterion 
8. Relevant factors include not only an organization's relative size or longevity but also other 
circumstances, such as the scale of its customer base or relevant media coverage. Id. 
The Petitioner primarily relies on the letters from the three companies that contracted his NDT 
services. The letters state that he worked in critical roles for the firms. 
The Director found that, to meet this criterion, the Petitioner had to be an organization's or 
establishment's employee. USCIS policy states: "Evidence of experience must consist of letters from 
employers." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l). Criterion 8 (emphasis added). As the Petitioner 
argues on appeal, however, the criterion's plain language does not specifically require an organization 
or establishment to have employed a petitioner. Rather, the criterion requires only that a petitioner 
have "performed" in a leading or critical role. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121 (forbidding USCIS 
from "unilaterally impos[ing] novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5"). 
But, even if the Petitioner did not have to be an employee, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner's materials do not establish his claimed critical roles for the contractors. The contractors' 
letters lack sufficient details to show that his contributions were of "significant importance to the 
outcome of the organization or establishment's activities." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), 
Criterion 8 ( defining the term "critical role"). For example, the engineering and management services 
contractor stated that the value of the Petitioner's equipment and services exceeded $200 million. 
Also, the Petitioner stated that his clients produced about 74% of the contractor's revenues. But the 
contractor's letter does not indicate its total revenues or confirm their percentage purportedly produced 
by the Petitioner's clients. Thus, the revenue generated by the Petitioner does not demonstrate his 
importance to the company's overall activities. Id. (requiring support letters to "contain detailed and 
probative information that specifically addresses how the person's role for the organization, 
establishment, division, or department was leading or critical"). 
5 
Similarly, the contractor that rehabilitates boilers stated that the Petitioner substantially reduced the 
amount of "shutdown time" needed for boiler maintenance and "has been instrumental in enhancing 
our operational efficiency." But the record lacks details about the claimed reductions in shutdown 
time or other improvements in the contractor's operational efficiency. Thus, the record does not 
indicate that the Petitioner's work was of significant importance to the company's activities. 
Further, the heavy construction and engineering contractor stated that the Petitioner "played a crucial 
role" in the large oil refinery project in Egypt. But the record does not indicate the project's importance 
to the contractor's overall activities. The record therefore does not establish that the Petitioner's work 
was of significant importance to the company. 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of an online news article stating that the heavy construction and 
engineering contractor generated total sales of more than $12 billion in 2023. Based on its size, we 
find that the company has a distinguished reputation. But we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
provided insufficient details to demonstrate that his remaining contractors have distinguished 
reputations. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence of his performance in a leading 
or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. We will therefore affirm the 
Director's finding regarding this evidentiary criterion. 
4. High Salary 
The Petitioner has not met three of the four additional evidentiary requirements he claims to have 
satisfied. Thus, he cannot meet three of the criteria as required for a final merits determination. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We therefore will not reach and hereby reserve consideration of his appellate 
argument regarding his purported commandment of a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for his services. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding 
that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate 
decisions). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the minimum number of evidentiary criteria required by the requested 
immigrant visa category. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6