dismissed EB-1A Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 9, 2024 In Re: 31824044 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See hnmigration 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 denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 international 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 criteria 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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 stated that he accomplished numerous achievements in his field of expertise which have 
been recognized on both a national and international level. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 
shown 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 Petitioner claims to have satisfied 
eight of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), documentation of the individual's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 
• (ii) membership in associations that require outstanding achievements 
• (iii), published material about the individual in professional or major media 
• (v), original contributions of major significance 
• (vi), authorship of scholarly articles 
• (vii), display of his work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases 
• (viii), evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation 
• (ix), high remuneration for services 
The Director concluded the Petitioner met one criterion pertaining to the display of his work which 
we will not disturb. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his evidence satisfies the applicable legal 
requirements to satisfy the other claimed criteria. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied the other claimed criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he has received lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was for excellence in the 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation ofEvidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
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. 
2 
field include, but are not limited to: the criteria used to grant the awards or prizes, the national or 
international significance of the awards or prizes in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that any of the awards qualify as 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. We agree with 
that determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that he was awarded first place in the selection process for a 
substitute professor position at the public university and a first-place designation for his master's 
degree in civil engineering. The Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that these 
achievements constitute prizes or awards, rather than professional credentials. Regarding the selection 
process for a position as a substitute professor, the Petitioner states on appeal that the selection process 
at public universities in Brazil involve a "comprehensive and competitive process that aims to identify 
individuals with exceptional qualifications in their particular fields," and is open to all Brazilians and 
resident immigrants. The Petitioner further explains that the selection process is published in the 
official gazette of the federal government or state government, and states that the selection process 
will include the judgement of titles and taking tests, and then a selection committee "assesses every 
facet of candidates' performance across various stages of the process." On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits copies of the job vacancy announcements posted in the newspaper. 
However, the record does not contain sufficient information or evidence to support the Petitioner's 
claim that his selection for the position as a substitute professor should be considered a nationally or 
internationally award for excellence in his field. The Petitioner does not sufficiently explain how this 
selection process is an award rather than a job opening advertisement that requires a person to hold 
certain qualifications to fill the position. Even if being selected to fill a job vacancy could be 
considered a prize or award, which in this case it does not, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
documentation regarding the individuals who determine who is selected for the substitute teacher 
position, and the record does not contain official results or other evidence demonstrating the number 
of individuals who applied for the substitute teacher position, and the level of recognition associated 
with this alleged award. On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the substitute teacher position is 
nationally recognized because the job vacancy is posted in the "official gazette" and open to all 
nationals and residents, but the record lacks sufficient evidence verifying that this job position is a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field, or evidence that the 
Petitioner himself received any recognition from outside the issuing organization. 
The Petitioner also asserts that he received first place designation for his master's degree obtained at 
a public university that follows a similar public selection process as noted above. The Petitioner 
asserts that he went through the selection process with national applicants and therefore this award 
represents a nationally recognized prize or award for excellence. The petitioner did not provide 
sufficient evidence regarding the rules and selection process for granting the first-place designation 
for a master's degree, official results for the entire competition, the number of competitors and winners 
in each age and category, or other evidence related to the specific category in which he received this 
2 Id. (indicating that an award limited to competitors from a single institution, for example, may have little national or 
international significance.) 
3 
designation. Further, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to determine that the 
Petitioner's first place designation is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates he received awards when the thesis he wrote in his bachelor's 
program was chosen as "best work" for that year, and when he was recognized as "best professor" 
from three different universities. However, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient information or 
documentation to overcome the Director's concerns regarding these recognitions and whether they in 
fact constitute a prize or award. Again, even if the Petitioner could satisfy the issue as to whether 
these acknowledgements are awards, he did not provide sufficient evidence regarding the rules and 
selection process for these recognitions, official results for the entire competition, the number of 
competitors, or whether these recognitions are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in his field. 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
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 contends eligibility for this criterion based on his membership of the Federal Council 
of Architecture and Urbanism (CAU) and the state board of architecture and urbanism for the state of 
Minas Gerais, Brazil (CAU/MG). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determines if 
the association for which the person claims membership requires that members have outstanding 
achievements in the field as judged by recognized experts in that field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
did not submit documentary evidence demonstrating that outstanding achievements are required for 
membership in this organization, or that it relies on recognized national or international experts to 
determine which individuals qualify for membership. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the Petitioner must satisfy. First, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate that he is a member of an association in his field. Second, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate both of the following: (1) the associations utilize nationally or internationally recognized 
experts to judge the achievements of prospective members to determine if the achievements are 
outstanding, and (2) the associations use this outstanding determination as a condition of eligibility 
for prospective membership. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that CAU is the "most prestigious and exclusive architectural 
organization in Brazil" and to qualify for a CAU license, a person must have a bachelor's degree in 
architecture and must comply with "bureaucratic requirements." The Director noted in his decision 
that it appears the Petitioner is a licensed professional of CAU but not an actual member. On appeal, 
the Petitioner did not provide documentation to show he is a member of CAU and did not submit 
information of the entry requirements to become a member. Further, the record does not show whether 
CAU requires outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts, in 
order to become a member. It is insufficient to allege eligibility through conclusory assertions that are 
4 
not supported by sufficient evidence, which proves the allegation. 3 The record does not contain 
sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate the membership eligibility requirements for the claimed 
association, how members are selected, and whether membership was based on being judged by 
recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field of protective 
services. Therefore, this criterion has not been met. 
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). 
To meet this criterion, the published material must be about the Petitioner and related to his specific 
work in the field for which classification is sought; it must include the title, date, and author of the 
material and any necessary translation; and the publication must qualify as a professional publication, 
major trade publication, or major media publication. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). With the petition, 
the Petitioner submitted online articles from various websites and publications. In his decision, the 
Director indicated that he reviewed the articles submitted and found that none of the articles met plain 
language requirements of the regulation since some articles were not fully translated into the English 
language, some lacked the URL address or the author, some articles were not about the Petitioner, and 
the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that the cited sources qualify as 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The Director's decision noted the material provided regarding the Petitioner's participation as a guest 
commentator of the Radio Vivo Program were given little probative value because the Petitioner did 
not provide a full transcript of the program. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the radio program 
could not provide a full transcript of the program but instead he provided a certificate attesting to his 
participation as a guest commentator. Further, he contends that even though the record lacks the full 
transcript, the titles of the radio programs are directly related to his work as a professor and researcher 
in architecture and civil engineering. Without a full transcript, it is impossible to determine the radio 
programs are about the Petitioner and related to his specific work. In addition, the Petitioner did not 
provide documentation to indicate this radio station qualifies as major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states the articles posted on bheventos.com.br and minasfazciencia.com.br 
indicate the author's name and dates in the URL address. On appeal, the Petitioner provided print-out 
copies of google searches of the articles to indicate dates and author. The Petitioner also submits a 
letter from the "editor-chefe" of Minas Faz Ciencia noting that the magazine has a circulation of 
25,000 copies per edition. The record does not provide sufficient evidence regarding the circulation 
statistics for both websites above and the significance of the statistics compared to other publications 
or elaborate on how that information could establish that the websites are the type of major media 
contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner re-submits an article he authored that was published in O Tempo. However, the 
Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to establish this online article was published in major 
3 Matter ofHo, 22 l&N Dec. 206,213 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998); Fano v. 0 'Neill, 806 F.2d 1262, 1266 (5th Cir. 1987); 1756, 
Inc. v. Att'y Gen, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). 
5 
media. On appeal, the Petitioner re-submits a letter from the general writing coordinator at O Tempo 
who states that the specific article submitted by the Petitioner with this petition was published in the 
print newspaper with a circulation of 3,000 editions, and available in the online portal whereby the 
link received 7,523 accesses. However, the record does not contextualize this statistic, indicate its 
significance, or elaborate on how that information could establish that the website is the type of major 
media contemplated by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The primary requirements here are that the Petitioner's contributions in their field were original and 
rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than having major significance to 
a project or to an organization. See Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022)(citing 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 2013)). The regulatory phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 969 
(2019) (finding that every word and every provision in a statute is to be given effect and none should 
needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate another provision or to have no 
consequence). Further, the Petitioner's contributions must have already been realized rather than 
being potential, future improvements. Contributions of major significance connotes that the 
Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying 
all these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The Petitioner claims to have made original contributions in the field of architecture and civil 
engineering and submitted a statement outlining his accomplishments in these areas, but the 
Petitioner's statements alone is not sufficient if not corroborated by independent evidence. In denying 
the petition, the Director determined that the testimonial evidence did not establish that he has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner also submits letters 
in support of this assertion. 
Upon review of the record, the authors of the letters and articles submitted with the petition attest to 
the talent of the Petitioner, but do not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's methods or 
techniques have influenced the work of other individuals in the field of teaching architecture and civil 
engineering, or otherwise equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. Also, the 
submitted documentation does not include an explanation as to how the Petitioner's choice of methods 
differs from that of other professors in the field of architecture and civil engineering. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion requires that the Petitioner's contributions be "of major 
significance in the field" rather than limited to the person he teaches or mentors or personally 
purchases his art. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer 
had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
While the Petitioner submits letters of support and articles discussing the Petitioner's work as original 
and inventive, it does not necessarily mean that his work as a professor in architecture and civil 
engineering significantly contributed to the field as a whole. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, F.2 (Appendices); see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a 
6 
ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). Publications alone are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they 
were of major significance. The Petitioner did not establish that publication in a popular or highly 
ranked journal alone demonstrates a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Even considering the Petitioner's appellate claims under this criterion, we still conclude he has not 
shown that his work has resulted in a marked impact within the field. In the end, the Petitioner has 
not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien 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). 
To meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have 
performed in either a leading or critical role, and that the role was for an organization or establishment 
(or a division or department of an organization or establishment) with a distinguished reputation. A 
leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through the 
role's matching duties. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help establish whether a role is 
or was, in fact, leading. Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has 
contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2)(Appendices), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. In addition, this criterion requires that the organization or 
establishment be recognized as having a distinguished reputation. USCIS policy reflects that 
organizations or establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation are "marked by eminence, 
distinction, or excellence." See generally id. ( citing to the definition of distinguished, 
Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished). The Petitioner must 
submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The Director's decision addressed the evidence previously submitted and determined that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate he performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner does not provide 
additional evidence to overcome the Director's decision and instead, contends throughout his career 
he performed a critical role as a professor teaching the next generation of architects and engineers. He 
also states his most relevant critical role as a professor was the "education of hundreds of architecture 
and civil engineering graduate and postgraduate students at five renowned universities in Brazil." In 
addition, he reiterates his selection as a reviewer for the National Association of Technology in the 
Built Environment (ENTAC) also reflects his position in a leading and critical role for a distinguished 
organization. 
Upon review, we conclude that the Petitioner's brief consists of conclusory statements that do not 
meaningfully discuss the Director's specific reasoning. Instead, the Petitioner points to the same 
evidence already on record and does not specifically address the Director's grounds for denial. For 
these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
7 
B. Reserved Issues 
As previously noted, the Petitioner also asserts that he meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
and (ix), which relate to authorship of scholarly articles and high remuneration, respectively. Detailed 
discussion of the remaining claimed criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and (ix) cannot change the 
outcome of the appeal. Therefore, we reserve these issues and will not address these criteria. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally 
required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter ofD­
L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n. l O(BIA 2022) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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 lesser criteria. We also need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20, or render a determination on the 
issue of whether the Petitioner's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 4 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate and concluded that it does not support a 
conclusion 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 those progressing toward the top. Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
at 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the extraordinary ability 
designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that EB-1 visas are 
"reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of 
Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at *l (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing 
Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing 
in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly 
accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914,918 (N.D. 
Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not 
qualify for visa as a baseball coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of her 
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 she is 
one of the small percentage who has 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). The record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
4 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
8 
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. 
9