dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-D-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 26,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computer engineering researcher, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits documentation and a brief, stating that he meets at least three 
criteria. 
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, 
.
Matter ofS-D-P-
(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 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 documentation 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 it fulfills the required number of criteria, is 
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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
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 of the 
evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifYing evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a computer engineering researcher who has worked in the electrical and 
engineering department at Because the Petitioner has not indicated or 
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). In denying the petition, the 
Director found that the Petitioner satisfied the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On 
appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and the display criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). We have reviewed all 
of the evidence in the record of proceedings, and it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
.
Matter ofS-D-P-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
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 Director found that the Petitioner's letter from associate professor at 
attested to the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance in the field. Based on a 
review of the letter and the record of proceedings; we must withdraw the Director's decision for this 
criterion. / 
briefly discussed the Petitioner's two research areas, polymorphic embedded systems and 
meta-execution frameworks. Regarding polymorphic embedded systems, he stated that the 
Petitioner "looked at network-on-chip" and "developed some preliminary models" and "integrated 
application[s] ... into ... routing protocols." As it pertained to meta-execution frameworks, 
indicated that, towards the end of his thesis, the Petitioner was able to develop monitoring 
schemes and repurpose a hardware unit to flag return-oriented programming attacks. Although he 
identified the Petitioner's original research, he did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's research has 
been of major significance in the field. 
Moreover, while pointed out that the Petitioner's research was used in three grant 
proposals submitted to the and the 
he did not establish that the proposals resulted in their implementation in the field. 
Although he indicated that' recently awarded us a contract on based security," an email 
from stated that "[w]e have been notified by that our proposal has 
been recommended for selection." The Petitioner also provided copies of the proposals and a white 
paper, however, he did not show that his research eventually led to the proposals' enactment. A 
petitioner cannot establish eligibility under this criterion based on the expectation of future 
significance. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration 
benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). As the Petitioner's research appears to be in the early stages of its actual application 
in the field, he has not shown that his work rises to the level of original contributions of major 
significance consistent with the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
In addition, letter primarily contains 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. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field do not meet this criterion. 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. 
1 
We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
3 
.
Matter of S-D-P-
Moreover, users need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. V. The us. Att 'y 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
The record also contains screenshots from that show seven of the Petitioner's 
research papers have been cited, but only one paper has been cited more than once; that paper has six 
citations. Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a 
petitioner's work. In this case, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the references to his work, 
considered both individually and collectively, are commensurate with a contribution of major 
significance in the field. 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 had the impact 
required to meet this criterion. 
Similarly, the Petitioner offers evidence of his presentations at various conferences, such as the 2013 
in Mexico. 
Participation in conferences demonstrates that his findings were shared with others and may be 
acknowledged as original based on their selection for presentation. The record, however, does not 
show that his presentations have been frequently cited by other researchers or that they have 
otherwise significantly impacted the field. Publications and presentations are no{ sufficient under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of"major significance." Kazarian v. USCJS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), ajf'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. 
Without supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. For these reasons, we withdraw the decision 
of the Director for this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner authored articles that were published in professional journals, 
such as and the 
Accordingly, the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the .field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner argues that he meets this criterion because "researchers display their work in the form 
of posters and demonstrations of prototype." In order to demonstrate eligibility for this criterion, the 
he must show that his work was on display, and that the venues were artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 2 Here, the Petitioner is a computer engineering researcher who presented his work at 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
4 
.
Matter ofS-D-P-
scientific conferences. He has not established that his presentations were of an artistic nature, or that 
the events themselves constituted artistic venues. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122 (upholding our 
conclusion that scientific presentations and lectures are not relevant under this criterion). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he qualifies for the plain language 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). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion based on his determination that the 
Petitioner performed in a critical role for 
the Director's decision for this criterion. 
Based on a review of the record, we must withdraw 
In general, a critical role is one in which a petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of 
the organization or establishment. 3 As a basis for his decision, the Director references 
recommendation letter and the proposal excerpts discussed under the original contributions criterion. 
Although he stated that the Petitioner "has been instrumental in submitting three research grant 
proposals," he did not provide details explaining how the Petitioner was instrumental or what role he 
played in the grant proposals. The proposals themselves indicate that is the technical 
point-of-contact and performs in a far more essential role than the team members. For instance, in 
the proposal for ' the team organizational chart 
shows the Petitioner below the other four members but above the five graduate students, indicating a 
lesser role compared to the other key members. 
Further, the Petitioner has not shown how his involvement 
with these proposals means he has played 
a critical role in the university at large. As mentioned above, the Petitioner did not show that the 
proposals have been approved or implemented, with only one proposal having been recommended 
for approval as of the date of the filing of the petition. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that his efforts in the civil engineering department demonstrate a critical role to or 
that he has contributed to the success or standing of the institution. For these reasons, we withdraw 
the Director's decision as the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he satisfies this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record only satisfies one 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 ofthe ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) 9 (Dec. 22, 2010), http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda. 
3 
A leading role is generally evidenced from the role itself. The Petitioner does not indicate, nor does the record reflect, 
that he has performed in a leading role for 
5 
Matter ofS-D-P-
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of evidence 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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-D-P-, ID# 390953 (AAO Apr. 26, 2017) 
6