dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11823960 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a computer engineer and researcher, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in the 
small percentage at the very top of the field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 in 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a pet1t10ner 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 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 earned a Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering from I I University, and 
underwent postdoctoral traring at Td I from 2016 to 2018. 
His w rk involved communication relating to the Internet of Things (IoT), such as the 
use of to search inventory! I and scannin medical implants powered byB 
=====-=at=h:.:.er=--t=h:.:;an batteries. He is now a senior engineer at where "he is focusing o 
I I networks architecturesj continu[ing] research into.__ ___ ___, network design, as well 
as network I lthrougH~--~_techniques." 1 The Petitioner is named on several U.S. patents. 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he 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 petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have 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. 2 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
1 We note that the Petitioner submits a copy of an approval notice, showing thatl I filed an immigrant petition on his 
behalf in March 2019, seeking to classify him as an outstanding professor or researcher under section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the 
Act. That petition, approved in May 2019, has an earlier priority date than the petition now on appeal. For visa number 
allocation purposes, both petitions fall within the same classification. Therefore, the approval of the present petition would 
not expedite the Petitioner's ability to become a lawful permanent resident. Furthermore, because the Petitioner's 
employment at! !predates the filing ot: and is not predicated upon, the present petition, the dismissal of this appeal 
does not present any legal obstacle to his continued employment there while he pursues adjustment of status incident to 
that employment. 
2 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
2 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner has written scholarly articles and participated in peer 
review of articles written by others. Nevertheless, writing and reviewing such articles appear to be routine 
in the Petitioner's field, rather than a privilege reserved for acclaimed individuals at the top of the field. 
The Director also noted that others have cited the Petitioner's published work, but the Director determined 
that the Petitioner did not establish that only those at the top of the field are cited at a comparable rate. 
The Director concluded that, while the Petitioner "has won the respect of his collaborators, employers, 
and others ... , the record stops short of ... [ establishing] sustained national or international acclaim." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "fail[ ed] to review the substantial documentary evidence 
of record showing Beneficiary to be a top figure within the area of I I network and automation." 
The Petitioner states, for instance, that the Director disregarded evidence showing that the Petitioner ''was 
asked to [participate in] peer review because of his sustained national and international acclaim." 
The evidence does not fully support the Petitioner's assertions on appeal. For example, the Petitioner 
states: 
Because of Petitioner's work and his sustained acclaim, Petitioner was invited to peer 
review 21 different articles for 3 high-impact and internationally circulated journals. 
Generally only those who are at the very top of their area of expertise are invited to peer 
review on these journals, and the submitted evidence includes proof that Petitioner was 
asked to peer review because of his sustained acclaim (see Petition Exhibit 7.2). He was 
also asked to serve on three technical program committees because of his extraordinary 
ability. 
Exhibit 7.2 is a set of email printouts relating to an invitation for the Petitioner to review a manuscript 
submitted for publication in Transactions on Mobile Computing (TMC). The invitation message from an 
associate editor reads, in part: 
I am overseeing the review process of this paper and believe you are one of the experts 
best qualified to judge whether or not this paper should be accepted by the journal. 
TMC relies heavily on expert reviewers such as yourself to maintain the quality and 
relevance of the journal. ... 
If you are unable to complete the review at this time, we would be grateful if you could 
recommend a qualified student, postdoc, or colleague to review this paper. 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 
This message does not support the claim that "only those who are at the very top of their area of expertise 
are invited" to participate in peer review. The letter refers to the Petitioner as an "expert," but one can be 
an "expert" without being "at the very top of [one's] area of expertise." The quoted invitation clearly 
indicates that students and postdoctoral trainees participate in that journal's peer review process, even 
though, by definition, they have not yet completed their training. The Petitioner himself was still a 
doctoral student when he received the quoted invitation in 2016. The record shows that the Petitioner 
received one peer review invitation in November 2011, less than two years after he received his bachelor's 
degree. None of the invitation emails in the record indicate or imply that peer review is a privilege 
restricted for top experts, rather than a responsibility shared by individuals with relevant subject matter 
knowledge. 
The Petitioner states that 20 submitted articles show that "his research was featured in media across the 
world," and protests that the Director inaccurately referred to "merely 'an article."' With the lone 
exception of a 2015 article in al I newsletter, reporting that the Petitioner "won third place in [a] 
Student Paper ComP,etition," all of the submitted articles date from 2017 and 2018, most of them either 
published directly bOor sourced ~ress releases. (The Petitioner acknowledges that several 
such articles were "re-shared" from L_Js website.) This narrow time window does not indicate a 
sustained history of media attention to his work, either before or after his time ac=]_. Because this media 
attention is almost entirely limited to the Petitioner's work aO it bears noting that the Petitioner does 
not show that these projects received more media attention than other computer science projects atD 
Most of these articles do not mention the Petitioner's name, and therefore neither reflect nor contribute to 
the Petitioner's acclaim in the field. Others list the Petitioner among the coauthors of various papers but 
do not single him out or indicate that the entire research team stands at the top of the field. Thus,D 
has not publicly highlighted the Petitioner's contributions to the research that took place there in 2017 
and 2018. 
Regarding the Director's reference to "an article," the one published article that devotes significant 
attention to the Petitioner appeared in the 2018 issue of IEEE Si nal Processin Ma 
The article begins by stating that.__ _______________ ~------...--,-......, 
I t' and profiles three exam les. One of those three exam les was 
development of "a system that allows I I to.__ ____ ----,---------.----____. 
from tens of meters away," so that specific ite!lls can be quickly located.___~-------' The article 
includes several quotations from the Petitioner, whom the article identifies as the lead researcher on the 
project. The article does not indicate that the various projects have already had a significant impact, 
thereby winning acclaim for the main participants. Rather, it describes the various projects as presenting 
"promising" "possibilities." The article does not indicate that the Petitioner is an acclaimed researcher, 
and the Petitioner has not shown that the publication of the article has contributed substantially to his 
recognition in the field. 
In all, the articles in the record indicate that the media attention owes more to the reputation and acclaim 
ofc=] as an institution, rather than to the Petitioner as an individual. Consistent with this conclusion, 
the record contains no articles about the Petitioner's subsequent work atl I 
4 
Letters in the record likewise focus on the Petitioner's work at~ (and, in some instance, on the 
Petitioner's earlier undergraduate research atl I which likewise involved I O I D- These letters are not without weight, and they support the conclusion that the Petitioner has made 
original contributions of major significance. But, while the letters discuss the practical importance of 
certain contributions by the Petitioner, they do not establish that the Petitioner's work has led to him being 
nationally or internationally acclaimed as a researcher at the very top of his field. 
The Petitioner asserts that his published articles are among the "most extensively cited" in the field, being 
"among the top 1 % among Computer Science articles." At the time of filing, the Petitioner documented 
18 articles published in journals or conference proceedings. According to a 2019 table from Clarivate 
Analytics that the Petitioner submitted, 1 % of computer science articles published in 2017 had been cited 
27 or more times. One of the Petitioner's 2017 articles had 30 citations at the time of filing. None of the 
Petitioner's other articles surpassed the 1 % threshold at the time of filing. As such, the submitted evidence 
indicates some degree of influence for certain projects, but does not establish a pattern of heavy citation 
consistent with the sustained acclaim that the statute and regulations demand. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 recognition of his work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates 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 Petitioner 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). Rather, his work at a 
prestigious institution attracted a certain level of publicity that does not appear to have followed him 
in his subsequent career. 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5