dismissed EB-1A Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 04, 2024 In Re: 33965724 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer specializing in the field of water resources engineering, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for this classification through 
evidence of either a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, a petitioner ( or anyone on the 
petitioner's behalf) must establish that they: 
• Have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; 
• Seek to enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability; and that 
• Their entry into the United States will prospectively substantially benefit the United States. 
Extraordinary ability must be demonstrated by evidence of sustained national or international acclaim 
as well as extensive documentation that their achievements have been recognized in the field. Section 
203(b)(l) of the Act. 
The implementing regulation further states that 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." A 
petitioner can demonstrate that they meet the initial evidence requirements for this immigrant visa 
classification through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If such evidence is unavailable, then they must alternatively provide evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten listed criteria, which call for evidence about lesser awards they may have received, 
published material about them in qualifying media, and their authorship of scholarly articles, among 
other types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2),(3). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination, assessing whether the record shows that the 
individual possesses the acclaim and recognition required for this highly exclusive immigrant visa 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 l0) ( 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 civil engineer who has completed water and sewage engineering projects and 
conducted research in hydrology and sediment transport. He holds a Ph.D. in civil engineering and 
engineering mechanics from the and states that he plans to use his skills 
in water resource engineering to find suitable employment in the United States. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he 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). The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to his authorship of scholarly articles and his 
participation as a judge of the work of others in his field. We agree with the Director's conclusions 
regarding these criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the evidentiary criteria 
relating to his membership in associations in his field, original contributions of major significance in 
his field, and his leading or critical roles for organizations having distinguished reputations. After 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that he does not meet the initial evidentiary 
requirements for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Documentation of the alien's 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) 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they are a member in an association, that the 
association is in their field of endeavor, that it requires outstanding achievements of its members, and 
that the requirement for outstanding achievements is judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their fields. 
2 
The Director acknowledged the evidence of the Petitioner's membership in the American Society of 
Civil Engineers, the terrestrial working group of the Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System, 
and the Iraqi Engineers Union (IEU) in her decision. But the Director concluded that the record does 
not include sufficient evidence about the first two associations and their requirements for membership 
to show that they require outstanding achievements, and that the bylaws of the IEU stated membership 
requirements which did not include outstanding achievements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally refers to his previously submitted evidence and asserts that the 
Director's decision regarding this criterion was in error, but he does not identify any specific errors of 
law or fact made by the Director, or point to specific evidence in the record to refute the Director's 
conclusions. For example, the Director quoted the specific individual membership requirements from 
Article 13 of the IEU's bylaws in her decision, and noted that requirements such as a minimum level 
of education are generally not considered to be outstanding achievements. On appeal, the Petitioner 
does not address the requirements, but focuses on requirements for "engineering specialization 
departments" without referencing a specific article in the bylaws or explaining its relevance to this 
criterion. In addition, while he asserts that his memberships are indicative of and demonstrate his 
outstanding achievements and recognition by national and international experts, the plain language of 
this criterion demands evidence that the associations require outstanding achievements as a condition 
for membership. As the record does not include such evidence, we concur with the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only have they made 
original contributions, but that the contributions have been of major significance in their field of 
endeavor. 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. 
The record includes multiple types of evidence submitted in support of this criterion, including copies 
of articles co-authored by the Petitioner which were published in scientific journals and at conferences, 
a listing of the number of times those papers and presentations were cited by other researchers in their 
own published work, and reference letters from the Petitioner's peers, colleagues, and other experts in 
the field of civil engineering. In her decision, the Director concluded that while the articles showed 
that the Petitioner has contributed original research to his field, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
those contributions were of major significance. Specifically, she noted that the Petitioner did not show 
that the citations to his published research was indicative of major significance, and that the reference 
letters did not provide sufficient detail regarding the Petitioner's contributions and their impact or 
influence on other researchers in the civil and water resources engineering fields. 
Regarding the evidence of citations by other researchers to his published work, the Petitioner asserts 
on appeal that the quantity of these citations alone does not accurately reflect the significance of his 
contributions to the field of water resource engineering. He points to a letter from K-L-, who taught 
the Petitioner and served on his doctoral dissertation committee, who writes that the narrowness of the 
field of sediment transport has limited the number of citations to his work. We note, however, that 
3 
both the Petitioner, in his personal statement, and Professor J-D-, his doctoral advisor at identify 
his field as water resources engineering. Also, the Petitioner asserts in his appeal that his field should 
be construed broadly. While we acknowledge that researchers typically focus on a narrow area within 
their field, we will not consider the Petitioner's field to be occupied only by those who share this 
narrow focus on sediment transport. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the requirement 
that a petitioner be among the small percentage of the very top of their field by allowing them to 
narrow their field until they rank among the top of a small group in that "field." See Buletini v. INS, 
860 F.Supp. 1222, 1229 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (finding that the individual's field was medical science 
rather than nephrology). Accordingly, we consider the evidence of the quantity of citations to the 
Petitioner's published research on sediment transport as a factor in determining whether his 
contributions to the field of water resources engineering have been of major significance. 
In addition, contrary to the Petitioner's assertion on appeal, the Director did not rely solely on the 
quantity of citations to his work in making her determination under this criterion. Several of the 
reference letters in the record were considered and discussed in the decision, as was the evidence of 
the Petitioner's work on feasibility studies for water and sewage projects in Iraq. The Petitioner asserts 
that the evidence pertaining to the projects, which includes a letter from the 
I I recognizing his and another engineer's work on the feasibility studies, shows the significance 
of this contribution and his "practical expertise in addressing critical infrastructure challenges." But 
the record includes no further information about this organization and only a partial copy of the one 
of the feasibility studies, and thus does not support the significance of this recognition or the 
contribution of these reports to the field of water resource engineering. And while the Petitioner's 
ability to draft these studies and contribute to engineering projects is shown, his skills and expertise 
are not themselves contributions which have been demonstrated to remarkably impact or influence the 
field. 
Regarding his leadership of a river monitoring project atD the Petitioner asserts that this shows his 
ability to "conduct groundbreaking research with practical implications." He focuses on appeal on the 
reference letter from K-L-, who writes that the Petitioner "has led a new direction in examining flow 
and sediment transport through vegetated areas." However, the professor further notes that this work 
"will become increasingly valuable" and that the Petitioner "has the capability to fill that gap" of aging 
researchers soon to leave the field. The letter's focus on the Petitioner's potential future contributions 
does not aid in demonstrating that he has already made significant contributions to the field. 
Another reference letter emphasized by the Petitioner on appeal was written by U-A-, a researcher at 
I I with whom he has collaborated. The Petitioner asserts that the Director did not 
acknowledge "the immediate and practical significance" of his research, noting U-A-'s statement that 
he "immediately began to contribute by coming up with robust and smart solutions." However, the 
writer does not provide details regarding these solutions or whether or how they were implemented, 
either within the research project discussed or in the broader field of water resource engineering, and 
thus does not support their significance. And while the Petitioner criticizes the Director for 
"dismissing the potential long-term impact of [the Petitioner's] research," this criterion requires 
evidence of contributions which an individual has already made. More broadly, eligibility for the 
requested classification must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F .R. § § 103 .2(b)(1 ), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). An evaluation of potential prospective 
contributions cannot establish that a petitioner meets this criterion. 
4 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director's determination and conclude that 
the Petitioner has not established that he 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) 
To meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must first establish that they have served in a 
role that was either leading or critical for an organization or establishment, or a department of division 
thereof: and that the organization, establishment, department, or division has a distinguished 
reputation. Evidence of a leading role may include a title and matching duties, and should indicate 
that the petitioner is or was a leader. Evidence supporting a critical role should show that the petitioner 
has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization's or 
establishment's activities, or those of a division or department. Second, a petitioner must show that 
the organization or establishment, or department or division thereof: for which the leading or critical 
role was performed has a distinguished reputation. Factors may include the size, longevity, media 
coverage, awards, and industry rankings of the organization, establishment, department, or division. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(b)(l). 
Here, the Petitioner focuses on his role on the I Iwhile a doctoral student at 
as well as his role within the civil engineering department at the I Iin Iraq. 
Regarding the former, he highlights both letters from J-D-, one of which was written to nominate him 
as for the outstanding graduate student award in department of civil engineering. The letters 
affirm the Petitioner's leading role on this project, but as stated by the Director, a project is not an 
organization or establishment as contemplated under this criterion. This evidence does not show that 
the Petitioner's leadership of the project evidences a leading or critical role for the department. Neither 
J-D-' s letters nor the others from professors at show that among research projects conducted in 
the department at the time, the Petitioner's leadership of the _____ project was of significant 
importance to the outcome of the department's activities. Nor do the letters suggest that the Petitioner, 
as a doctoral student, occupied a leadership role for the overall department. 
As support for his asserted qualifying role at the Petitioner highlights the letter from Dr. D-A-M­
J-, who oversees the engineering consultancy arm of the university. Dr. J- notes that the Petitioner, 
since 1998, has conducted several engineering projects for water and sewage systems, building 
sanitation systems, and swimming pools. He lists ten of these projects, and states that the projects 
completed by engineering consultancy "have a significant impact on both helping our 
community and raising fund for our university." Although he states that the Petitioner's "strong 
leadership quality" led to increased work and thus greater funds for the university, Dr. J- does not 
provide specific details on this point or indicate that the extent of the increased project work due to 
the Petitioner was of significant importance to activities. 
In addition, even if the Petitioner had shown that he played a leading or critical role for either 
organization, he has not established that eitherl Ihas a distinguisheld reputation. The evidence 
consisted of rankings showing engineering department ranked presumably among 
universities in the United States, and world university ranking at greater then 1501. Standing 
alone, this evidence is insufficient to show that either organization has distinguished itself amongst 
universities, either on a national or global basis. 
5 
Because the Petitioner has not established that he performed in a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment having a distinguished reputation, we conclude that he does not meet 
this criterion. 
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 have reviewed 
the entire record and conclude that it does not establish that the Petitioner has 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 those 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 ofPrice, 20 T&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. lO1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )( 1 )(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 he is one of the small percentage who have 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6