dismissed EB-1A Case: Computational Fluid Dynamics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-T-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 22, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I -140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) scientist, 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 petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two ofthe regulatory criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief stating that he 
meets one additional criterion. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers.-- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-T-
(iii) the alien's 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 
sustained acclaim and the 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 documtmtation that meets at least 
three of the ten categories 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N De·c. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holdingthat the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality ofthe evidence, to determine whether the fact to be 
proven is probably true") . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner currently works as a research and development engineer at 
where he has developed CFD models to solve fluid flow problems. The Director found that he met 
the scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and the leading or critical role 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) but had not satisfied any of the other criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he has made original contributions of major 
significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). For the reasons discussed below, the record does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain 
language requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
As the Petitioner has not established that he has 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). 
r. 
1 We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence . 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of S._~ .T-
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). 
The Director found that the Petitioner's membership with did not meet the regulatory 
requirements. Specifically, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner did not establish that 
membership requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts. On appeal, the Petitioner does not address the Director's decision for this 
criterion or submit 
documentary evidence. A review of the requirements for this honor society, 
included in the record, does not reveal that it requires outstanding achievements of its members. For 
example, while membership in requires a dissertation and/or a limited number of 
published articles, the Petitioner has not shown that these constitute outstanding achievements for his 
field. Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
\ 
Evidence of the alien'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). 
The Petitioner contends that his research in CFD modeling represents original scientific 
contributions of major significance and points to his citation history and conference presentations. 
Regarding the citation of others to his work, the Petitioner submitted evidence showing that his 
published articles garnered approximately 53 citations. Specifically, other researchers cited the 
Petitioner's article 23 times and the 
article 18 times. In addition, 
the Petitioner presented his research at professional conferences, such as at the 2008 
and others cited this presentation four times. 
Generally, citations confirm that the field has taken some interest in a researcher's work. In this 
case, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the number of his citations, considered both 
individually and collectively, is commensurate with a contribution "of major significance in the 
field." Again, the number of citations reflects that others are aware of the Petitioner's work; 
however he has not submitted sufficient materials to establish those citations rise to the level of 
original contributions of major significance in the field. The Petitioner did not provide examples of 
researchers relying significantly on his findings, as opposed to merely referencing his work as 
background. Similarly, participation in conferences demonstrates that his findings were shared with 
others and may be acknowledged as original contributions based on their selection for presentation. 
The record of proceedings, however, does not show that his presentations are frequently cited by 
other researchers or have significantly impacted the field. Publications and presentations are not 
sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115. In 2010, the 
Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse our discretion in our adverse finding 
relating to this criterion. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of S- T-
The Petitioner also offers several recommendation letters from his peers.2 Although the letters 
praise the Petitioner's work, they do not explain how the Petitioner's contributions are "of major 
significance in the field." Specifically, the letters describe the Petitioner's contributions without 
showing how his work has significantly impacted or influenced the field, so as to demonstrate that 
he meets the plain language of the regulatory criterion. 
For example, a senior researcher at (Czech Republic), described the 
Petitioner's work in wall boiling models and stated that the Petitioner "plays an important role." 
however, did not provide further information showing how these models influenced the 
field at a level of major significance. In addition, 
concluded that the Petitioner's work "has contributed to the advancement of this field 
in numerous ways" without presenting more specifics. Moreover, although 
indicated that he "can say for sure that [the Petitioner] has had a lasting 
impact with his research," did not elaborate or offer examples as to how the 
Petitioner's research impacted the field in a significant manner. 
Some ofthe Petitioner's letters, such as from and 
referred to the Petitioner's published articles as 
"monumental" and "a testament" to the importance of the Petitioner's work. As discussed above, 
the Petitioner's citation history does not support a finding that his contributions have been of major 
significance in the field. Nor does the record include other documentary evidence sufficient to 
support such statements. Again, while the selection of the Petitioner's articles in professional 
journals verifies the originality of his work, it does not necessarily reflect that his research is 
considered of major significance. Neither of these letters explains how the authors have used the 
Petitioner's published findings in their own work. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner offered a letter from 
who indicated that he 
has utilized the Petitioner's wall boiling model at his company. Although 
letter reflects the application of the Petitioner's work by another scientist or company, it 
does not show that his work is being widely applied in the field, so as to demonstrate original 
contributions of major significance. Likewise, the letter from the Petitioner's employer, 
stated that the Petitioner has "greatly contributed" to the success of that company but 
does not establish that contributions to his employer equate to original contributions of major 
significance to the field .as a whole. 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 corroborate her impact in the 
field as a whole). 
In addition, the letter from stated that the 
Petitioner's "work has generqlly been well received by the computational multiphase flow 
community and I expect them to find broad applications." A petitioner cannot establish eligibility 
under this criterion based on the expectation of future significance. Given the descriptions in terms 
2 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of S-T-
of future applicability and determinations that may occur at a later date, the actual impact on the 
field has yet to be determined. Eligibility must be demonstrated at the time of filing. 8 C.F .R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
letter does not provide evidence of past or current contributions of major significance 
to the field. 
Further, the Petitioner's letters praise him as "gifted" and as possessing "diverse" skills and talents. 
Having a diverse skill set is not a contribution of major significance in and of itself. Rather, the 
record must be supported by evidence that the Petitioner has already used those unique skills to 
impact the field at a significant level. 
Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036 aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, the 
Kazarian court reiterated that the USCIS' conclusion that the "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the 
relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. The letters considered above primarily contain 
attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how his 
contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Repeating the language 
of the statute or regulations does not satisfy a petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Moreover, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Without supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not met his burden of 
showing that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in pro_fessional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner documented his authorship of seven scholarly articles in 
professional or major trade publications, such as 
and Thus, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and the record supports that finding. 
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). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's documentation reflected that he, as a research and 
development engineer, performed in a leading or critical role for an 
organization that has a distinguished reputation. The Director's finding is consistent with the record 
of proceeding. 
5 
Matter of S-T-
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record satisfies only two of the regulatory criteria. As a result, 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 listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we 
need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the 
record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise 
required for the classification sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-T-, ID# 8764 (AAO Aug. 22, 2016) 
6