dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 14442636 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 21, 2021 
The Petitioner, a computer hardware and software development company, seeks classification of the 
Beneficiary as an individual 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the Petitioner 
had established that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidence requirements, he did not demonstrate 
his eligibility for the classification. The Director determined that the record, as a whole, did not 
establish the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim or confirm that he was among 
the small percentage at the very top of the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the Director's determination and maintains that the Beneficiary 
qualifies for the classification . 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a beneficiary's one-time achievement (that is a 
major, internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that 
meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including 
items such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
Where a beneficiary 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner! a computer hardware and software development company, seeks classification of the 
Beneficiary, a I engineer, as an individual of extraordinary ability. As the record 
does not establish that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfies at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary 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). The Director found that the Beneficiary met three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to his authorship of scholarly articles, his performance 
in a leading or critical role, and his receipt of a salary that is high in comparison to others in his field. 
We agree with the Director that the Beneficiary fulfilled those criteria. 
Since the Petitioner has shown that the Beneficiary fulfills at least three criteria, we will evaluate the 
totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination. 1 On appeal, the Petitioner 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form T-140 Petitions; 
2 
asserts that the Beneficiary also meets the evidentiary criterion related to original contributions of 
major significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . However, because the Petitioner has already 
established that the Beneficiary meets the requisite three evidentiary criteria , we will consider this 
evidence along with the totality of the record in the final merits determination below . 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary meets the requisite initial evidence, we will 
evaluate whether it has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. In a final merits determination, we analyze a beneficiary's accomplishments and 
weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he 
has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2)-(3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility . 
As a preliminary matter, we will address the Petitioner's claim that the Director's decision improperly 
considered evidence in the record regarding the Beneficiary's accomplishments - specifically, that in 
the final merits analysis the Director "only considers each criteria in a vacuum, instead of a whole ." 
The Petitioner asserts that the Director misapplied Kazarian, arguing that the Director erroneously 
"reviewed each piece of evidence in isolation and was looking for each category of evidence to 
demonstrate international acclaim ." Within the final merits analysis, however, we note that the 
Director's decision discussed the evidence relating to the Beneficiary's engineering contributions, 
publication record, salary, and the work rendered to his current and fonner employers , and explained 
why that evidence, as part of the entirety of the record, was insufficient to demonstrate the requisite 
sustained acclaim at the national or international level, or that the Beneficiary has risen to be one of 
the few at the very top of his field. Regardless of the Petitioner's concerns, we exercise de nova review 
of all issues of fact, law, policy, and discretion. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 
2016). This means that we look at the record anew and are not required to defer to findings made in 
the initial decision. Furthermore, our decision may address new issues that were not raised or resolved 
in the prior decision . 
The Beneficiary is ~ I testing engineer for the Petitioner. The rathat he received 
his bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering fromOUniversity i India in 2006, and 
his master's degree in mechanical engineering from the University in 2010. As 
mentioned above, he meets the criteria for scholarly articles, leading or critical role, and high salary. 
At issue is whether the record establishes that he is one of that small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of his field and that he has sustained national or international acclaim under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2)-(3) . 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https ://www.uscis .gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act). 
3 
Regarding the Beneficiary's authorship of scholarly articles, the record reflects that the Beneficiary 
has authored six papers/articles in his area of expertise. We note, however, that publication of a 
beneficiary's research alone does not place one at the very top of the field. The Petitioner emphasizes 
that the publication of the Beneficiary's papers and articles in peer-reviewed journals have been cited 
25 times, and that he has presented his findings at national conferences. The record does not show 
that conference presentation is a privilege reserved for those at the very top of the field. Nor has the 
Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary's publication record is consistent with having a "career 
of acclaimed work." See H.R. Rep. No. at 59. As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the 
work of scientists and researchers, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of the 
Beneficiary's papers and articles can be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that his 
work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. For example, numerous 
independent citations for an article authored by the Beneficiary may provide solid evidence that his 
work has been recognized and that other researchers have been influenced by it. Such an analysis at 
the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. 
The Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's Google Scholar citation history, reflecting 25 cumulative 
citations to four publications authored by him between 2008 and 2015. Specifically, the record shows 
that his highest cited article, published in Structural Dynamics, received 16 citations, with the 
remaining articles receiving four, three, and two citations, respectively . The remaining two articles 
authored by him in 2010 and 2015 garnered no citations. The Petitioner also notes that the total 
citations include independent citations from ten countries, which it claims establishes the Beneficiary's 
international recognition in the field. While the citations show that the field has noticed his work, he 
did not establish that such rates of citation are sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim in his field. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the Petitioner did not show that the citations to the Beneficiary's research 
represent attention at a level consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of his field. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
In addition to submitting evidence related to his publications, the Petitioner provided letters from four 
individuals it claims are "renowned experts" who have weighed in on the importance of the 
Beneficiary's research and methodologies, and asserts that the Director should have given more weight 
to letters from various individuals in the Petitioner's field.2 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements from universities, professional 
organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 
I&N Dec . 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding a foreign national 's eligibility. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. The Petitioner's selection of 
individuals who are familiar with the Beneficiary's work does not necessarily demonstrate that his 
work is sufficiently well known so as to be consistent with national or international acclaim. 
The letters submitted appear to be from former colleagues and other engineers regarding the 
Beneficiary's contributions in the field. While these letters discuss his contributions to certain 
projects, showing how highly regarded he is among those who have worked with him, this evidence 
does not establish that he has national or international acclaim in the field. For example,! I 
2 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
I I Senior Technical Advisor/Director forl la client of the Beneficiary's former 
employer, discusses the Beneficiary's work on a pro/· ect related to the development of the I ~ 
I I of I I engines. According tol . the Beneficiary and his team were tasked with 
developing a solution to remedy.__ _____ __, in engine test cells, noting that the Beneficiary 
conducted structural testing and developed a methodology that solved the "critical restraints" that were 
hindering its testing efforts and potentially damaging its testing facility. I I concludes that 
without the Beneficiar 's contributions, the continued development ofthel . t engines, 
used in the indust , would have been delayed and potentially catastrophic. I I I I Director of.__ _______ ___,, states that he previously supervised the Beneficiary 
during the Beneficiary's employment with the company in the position of I I 
engineer. 3 I I states that the Beneficiary and his team conducted structural analysis for 
various power plants during his tenure with the company, noting that his work led to the identification 
of the root-cause of various within th;,,........i..!.Ll.l.LI..I.IJ~:l..LLILl<.U.....ld..lJ.l..lJ~.L...J.u,•eir continued 
operation. l....,....-___,,,,....-r-----1--__J retired Space Shuttle S stems and 
Safety Engineer for notes that the Beneficiary's paper entitled 
presented at the .__ _____ _. 
'----~ 
Conference and Exhibition in 2015, addressed a critical gap in the engineering work flow, 
and was the first of its kind to discuss the complexities of the engine test cell. He further states that 
the paper is "a valuable reference," and that the Beneficiary "will undoubtedly continµe to produce 
significant work that will influence other researchers in academia and industry." Finally,L I I l Research Engineer (2008-2019) fo~ I 
in Denmark, discusses his collaboration with the Beneficiary on various projects in the field of 
structural dynamics, noting that he mentored the Beneficiary during his master's level studies. 
According td I he co-authored three papers with the Beneficiary, which formed a major 
part of the Beneficiary's master's degree thesis work at the University I I and "laid the 
foundation for his career." I I concludes that these papers validated his own doctoral 
research work, and notes that the Beneficiary has "consistently been making groundbreaking finds in 
his field." 
Overall, the evidence related to the Petitioner's publications and contributions to his field demonstrates 
that he is an accomplished mechanical engineer, specializing in the field ofl I 
engineering, who garnered a level of recognition in the private sector for implementation of 
appropriate solutions to remedy structural I I issues for various clients. While the letters 
summarize and praise the Beneficiary's research and original contributions, the authors do not explain 
how the Beneficiary's research, contributions, and publications in this area have resulted in his being 
recognized as among the small percentage of similar engineers in his field who have achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim as evidenced through extensive documentation. While we 
acknowledge the Beneficiary's skillset in his industry, the record has not shown that he has received 
national or international acclaim for his work on these projects. The letters do not provide sufficient 
information and explanation, nor does the record include sufficient corroborating evidence, to show 
that the Beneficiary is viewed by the overall field as being among that small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
3 According to the Beneficiary's resume, he was employed by from February 2010 to July 2012. '--------~ 
5 
Further, although the Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary has made contributions of major 
significance in the field of engine test cells, it did not demonstrate that he has had remarkable influence 
in the overall field. While it appears that the Beneficiary's work in the private sector proved beneficial 
to the various clients for whom he rendered solutions, the record is devoid of evidence that such 
solutions and methodologies have been widely accepted and implemented beyond the individual client 
projects to which he was assigned during the course of his career. Although the recommendation 
letters summarize the Petitioner's research and findings, they do not sufficiently establish that his 
original contributions are already recognized as majorly significant, nor do they demonstrate that he 
is among that small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor or that he has sustained national 
or international acclaim. For instance,! Is letter indicates that he co-authored three of the 
Beneficiary's six publications, and notes that these papers formed the basis of the Beneficia~ 
master's thesis while simultaneously validating I l's doctoral research findings. LJ 
I ~oes not address whether the Petitioner's findings have been utilized by other engineers or 
researchers in the field, and if so, the extent of their application. Further, his letter does not explain or 
justify how the Beneficiary's research in this area has resulted in his belonging, as he asserts, "to the 
special group of extraordinary researchers in the multidisciplinary field of structural dynamics." 
In addition, the Petitioner has not shown that the or critical role in its 
organization or for his former employer, L....r-------,.._ _______ ____...1 has resulted in 
sustained national or i,,_u.<.1...U.~I.LLIJ~~""""""-LLLLo...l....----..,___J, a company principal and mechanical 
engineer specializing i '-------------~ states that the Beneficiary worked as Lead 
I I Engineer for the company from 2012 to 2015, during which time re worked OD more than 
20 projects at several major engine manufacturers across the United States. I states that 
the Beneficiary used his technical ex ertise "to develo a com rehensiv strategy for 
the company, termed as '-------------------~' which was "successfully 
implemented in several ongoing projects." As a result of this plan, and his work on various client 
projects during the course of his employment,! I states that the Beneficiary's efforts 
"resulted in reduced equipment failures at engine manufacturing facilities, thereby! savinf, hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in repairs and downtime for the clients and warranty costs for ' While these 
are notable accomplishments, the record does not show how these successes have resulted in national 
or international acclaim for the Beneficiary. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Regarding his critical role with the Petitioner, the record reflects that the Beneficiary is currently 
employed in the position ofl I engineer. According to the Petitioner's U.S. 
Immigration ManagerJ I the Beneficiary applies his background in structural analysis 
and system integration to "com lete root cause analysis of structural issues across all [Petitioner] 
designed hardware." farther states that the Beneficia was one of the first hardware 
en ineers at the com an to ' 
________ ___,~--7----------.----.----~ and that his work has been used "year 
over year to improve th.__ __ _.performance of~_~devices and tune thd , l to provide 
an optimal user experience." She concludes by stating that the Beneficiary's "work on unreleased 
future projects and technology is critical in the development phase of these new products." Again, 
while the Beneficiary's contributions are noteworthy and undoubtedly are beneficial to the Petitioner's 
operations, the record does not show how these accomplishments have resulted in national or 
international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
6 
The Petitioner farther points to the Beneficiary's high salary in his field, and the signing bonus and 
restricted stock units it extended to him upon his hiring, noting that such compensation was awarded 
to him on "on the basis of his extraordinary ability and expertise." While a high salary may 
demonstrate some degree of recognition of his achievements in the field, the Petitioner has not 
submitted evidence showing that his earnings are at a level reflecting that he is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. 
In summary, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of the Beneficiary's 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for the Beneficiary, intended for individuals 
who are already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals 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 of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of the Beneficiary's academic, 
scholarly, research, and professional accomplishments 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 )(1 )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Beneficiary has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he 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; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The record does not establish that the Beneficiary qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will therefore be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7