dismissed EB-1A Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 30, 2023 In Re : 26842681 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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 satisfied the initial evidence requirements for this classification by 
demonstrating his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by submitting evidence to 
satisfy at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before 
us on appeal. 8 C.F.R . § 103.3 . 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences , arts, education, business , or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 Petitioner has a bachelor of engineering degree in civil engineering and approximately 20 years 
of professional experience with employers in Pakistan and United Arab Emirates, primarily working 
in the construction engineering field. Since 2007, he has worked forl I I lwhere he served as a team leader for advanced and specialized construction systems (from 
2007 to 2018), and, since 2018, as a commercial manager for concrete admixture systems and cement 
solutions. He indicates his intention to continue his work in the same field in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must show that he satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted evidence related 
to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v) and (viii) and concluded that he satisfied only one 
criterion. Specifically, the Director concluded that the Petitioner met his burden to demonstrate his 
performance in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished 
reputation under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also provided evidence of published material in professional 
publications or major media and evidence of his original contributions of major significance in the 
field sufficient to meet the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (v). 1 We will discuss the evidence 
submitted in support of these two criteria below. 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute the Director's finding that he had not established eligibility under criterion (i), 
related to lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards. Additionally, the Petitioner did not claim 
eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (vi), (vii), (ix) or (x) before the Director or on appeal. As the Petitioner provides 
no evidence or arguments addressing these six criteria on appeal, we consider these issues to be abandoned. See Matter of 
R-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657. 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an 
adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 40 I F .3d 1226. 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005). 
citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731201 L 2011 
WL 4711885 at *L *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding plaintiffs claims abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal 
to the AAO). 
2 
In addition, the Petitioner has consistently indicated that he satisfies one of the criteria at 8 e.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3) based on evidence of his "recognition by authorities in his field as an engineer of 
extraordinary ability." However, we emphasize that "recognition by authorities in the field" is not one 
of the enumerated regulatory criteria at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Further, the Petitioner has not 
claimed that he is seeking to have this evidence, which consists of testimonial letters from colleagues 
and business associates and evidence related to the companies that employ them, considered as 
"comparable evidence" under 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). 
In order to succeed on a comparable evidence claim, a petitioner must establish that one of the criteria 
at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) is not readily applicable to their occupation. If a petitioner makes such a 
showing, users will evaluate the evidence to determine whether the evidence provided is truly 
comparable to the criteria listed in that regulation. Here, the Petitioner has not articulated a comparable 
evidence claim. Further, claims that users should accept witness letters as comparable evidence are 
not persuasive. 2 We will consider the submitted testimonial evidence under 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
and note that such evidence would also be properly considered in a final merits determination if the 
Petitioner satisfied at least three of ten criteria at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude the Petitioner has not satisfied at least 
three regulatory criteria and therefore does not meet the initial evidence requirements for classification 
as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field.for which class[fication 
is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner did not specifically claim eligibility under this criterion at the time of filing or in 
response to the Director's request or evidence (RFE) but indicates on appeal that he previously 
provided evidence that meets this criterion. Any published material submitted to satisfy this criterion 
must be about the individual petitioner and relate to their work in the field, and not just relate to their 
employer or other organization with which they are associated. Further the evidence must identify the 
title, date and author of the material, identify the name of the publication, and include evidence to 
demonstrate that the material was published in a professional or major trade publication or other major 
media. 
The Petitioner submitted several articles published m the same January 2016 issue of a print 
publication called which a ears to be a ublication. The three articles 
are titled' 
.__----------------~----------.,-------.-~-----' None 
of the three articles mention the Petitioner or his work as an employee o ~-~ The Petitioner draws 
particular attention to the .________ ____.article, noting that the Petitioner received an award at 
this event, but, as noted, the article does not mention him nor does it mention that awards were granted 
at this event. Even if the Petitioner had established that one or more of these articles is about him, he 
2 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, F.2 Appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (providing guidance for the 
evaluation of evidence submitted under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) and 204.5(h)(4)). 
3 
did not provide evidence thatl lis a professional publication, major trade publication or other 
major media . Evidence of published material in professional or major trade publications or in other 
major media publications should establish that the circulation ( online or in print) or viewership is high 
compared to other statistics and show who the intended audience is. 3 
The Petitioner also states that his employer published a profile about him but does not identify where 
the profile was published or provide the date or author of the publication, as required by the plain 
language of this criterion . Based on the format and contents of the profile, we cannot determine 
whether it was written and published by his employer. For example, the submitted document uses 
several different font types and sizes that appear inconsistent with an official publication and includes 
private information such as the value of the Petitioner's salary and benefits package , the addresses of 
property he owns, and a valuation of this property. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner did not submit evidence to satisfy the published materials 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence ofthe individual'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 satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish not only that they 
have made original contributions, but that those contributions were of major significance in the field. 
For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout 
the field, have demonstrably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of 
major significance. 
In his personal statement the Petitioner laced articular em basis on his role in engineering concrete 
for the construction o notin that he and his team "overcame 
numerous en es and world records to 
.________________________, He also notes his involvement in other 
major projects that involved "innovating various concepts and technologies which help to conserve 
energy, save time in construction with green building systems for mega projects." Finally, he indicates 
that he has "developed innovative new solutions and blazed a trail for other engineers and teams by 
using these new solutions in actual projects." 
The Petitioner primarily relies upon several support letters from business associates and coworkers to 
establish his eligibility under this criterion. The authors indicate that the Petitioner, during his tenure 
atl Icontributed to major building projects, including the construction ofl IThe letters 
support a determination that the Petitioner is a highly experienced civil engineer with advanced 
technical skills and expertise in his field, and that he has offered solutions to engineering problems 
posed by the major building projects to which he was assigned. However, the letters do not describe 
a specific original contribution that has impacted the broader field of civil or construction engineering, 
provoked widespread commentary, or had an influence on subsequent work in the specific field. 4 Nor 
3 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual , supra, at F.2 Appendix. 
4 Id. 
4 
do the letters speak in sufficient detail regarding the "innovative new solutions" the Petitioner 
references in his own statement, or specify how he has "blazed a trail for other engineers." 
A letter from a procurement manager at I Istates that 
the Petitioner, as a representative of I provided "extraordinary services" to I I 
Specifically, he states that the Petitioner has offered services in the area of technical construction, 
chemical application services, various solutions related to advanced construction systems, and "value 
engineering" that have helped I !deliver "various mega projects" in UAE, and that his company 
is "fully satisfied" with the Petitioner's knowledge and expertise. The general manager of another
I I client, I I similarly praises the Petitioner as "technically and commercially 
extraordinarily competent" to solve technical challenges. The general manager of I I 
.___________ _. credits the Petitioner with offering "extraordinary solutions and services," 
reports that his company "is fully satisfied" with the Petitioner's "technical knowledge and 
extraordinary expertise," and refers to him as "a remarkable executive who has been blessed with 
professional genius, leadership and a clear vision of the future of innovation." While these letters 
offer high praise of the Beneficiary's technical and professional skills and ability to provide innovative 
solutions to specific engineering problems, they fall short of identifying with specificity the 
Petitioner's original contributions and their impact or subsequent influence on the engineering field. 
The Petitioner also offered two letters from managers atl IThe country manager for admixture 
systems in UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait confirms that the Petitioner was "technically involved" in mega 
projects that included thel land more than 15 others, that he has received company awards, 
and that he has trained "indirect distribution channels, engineers, and consulting firms" in construction 
and concrete admixture systems. Another manager with I I UAE operations describes the 
Petitioner as an "accomplished expert in various construction segments," and praises his "strong 
technical knowledge of construction materials and techniques," and his "ability to add value to various 
projects." Neither of these letters from the Petitioner's employer articulate how his contributions to 
projects undertaken byl land its clients, or his other contributions to the company, have had an 
impact consistent with original contributions of major significance. We do not doubt that the 
Petitioner's involvement in major building projects has required him to be innovative and to solve 
complex engineering challenges, and that he has been successful in meeting these challenges. 
However, the Petitioner must show that his work has had an impact on the field that extends beyond 
his employer and its clients. The record does not support a finding that the Petitioner developed 
solutions that are now being used by other engineers in the field or otherwise demonstrate how his 
specific contributions have influenced the field. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the authors who provided support letters do not sufficient identify the 
Petitioner's original contributions, nor do they provide specific, detailed information explaining how 
the contributions have been majorly significant in the field. Because the Petitioner has not established 
that his professional achievements are original contributions which have been of major significance to 
the overall field of civil engineering, 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 
5 
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. USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" 
standard. Matter ofPrice, 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 that 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). 
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. 
6