dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 30, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an architecture and engineering firm, seeks classification of the Beneficiary, a senior 
electrical engineer and project manager, as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had only established that the Beneficiary met one of the ten 
initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that the Beneficiary meets three 
criteria. 
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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter ofS-, Inc. 
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). 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, an architecture and engineering firm, seeks classification of the Beneficiary, a senior 
electrical engineer and project manager, 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 
The Director held that the Petitioner had only established that the Beneficiary met the judging criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary also meets the 
criteria for awards, membership, original contributions of major significance, scholarly articles, 
leading or critical role, and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v), (vi), (viii), and (ix). Here, 
we conclude that the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary meets the criteria for judging, 
scholarly articles, and high salary. 
Specifically, the record reflects that the Beneficiary has judged the work of others in having conducted 
reviews of professional engineering continuing education courses. He has published scholarly articles 
in the Electrical Construction & Maintenance Journal and in the PE Magazine, a publication of the 
National Society of Professional Engineers. And the record contains sufficient documentation from 
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to establish that he commands a high salary in relation to others in 
2 
. .
Matter ofS-, Inc. 
the field. Accordingly, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits 
determination below. 1 
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. 
The Beneficiary is a senior engineer and project manager for the Petitioner. The record shows that he 
received his bachelor's degree in electronics and telecommunications from the University of m 
India m 2005. He received his master's degree in electrical engineering from 
in 2007. As mentioned above, he meets the criteria for judging, scholarly articles, 
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). 
The Director noted that the Beneficiary has won several awards, concluding that they did not satisfy 
the criterion because they were limited to students and early career professionals and did not receive 
national or international recognition. On appeal, the Petitioner has not challenged this conclusion. 
Instead, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not address two awards called the Young Engineer 
of the Year Award in the response to the Director's request for evidence. One of these awards was 
given by the ~~-~-- ' and the other was given 
by the 
Here, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that these awards resulted in national or 
international acclaim to the Beneficiary. The award issued by the is a state-specific award, 
and the record does not contain additional evidence establishing that the Beneficiary received national 
or international acclaim for receiving it. While the Young Engineer Award is awarded by a 
national society, the record does not show that this fact alone establishes national or international 
acclaim. The record contains an announcement about this award in the Albany Business Review and 
on the _ College of Engineering and Computer Science website, but these do not 
appear to be publications that are indicative of national or international acclaim. The Petitioner has 
not submitted sufficient evidence of the acclaim connected to this award to meet the requirements of 
this classification , such as press coverage of a national or international level or other documentation. 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner references the criteria relating to the Beneficiary 's awards, membership, contributions of major 
significance , and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v), and (viii). We will consider the evidence 
relating to these criteria in our final merits determination as we assess whether the Beneficiary has sustained national or 
international acclaim and has risen to the very top of his field. 
3 
.
Matter ofS-, Inc. 
The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provide 
that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is 
reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than 
that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
On appeal, the Petitioner highlights the Beneficiary's membership in but it has not been 
established how this membership has resulted in his national or international acclaim. The record 
contains a letter from Ph.D., the executive director of welcoming the 
Beneficiary to which he identifies as "[t]he Scientific Research Society." He indicates that 
throughout the organization's more than 120 years of history, "scientists and engineers from a wide 
range of disciplines-including over 200 Nobel Laureates-have united ... as companions in zealous 
research." Therefore, he states, ' membership connects [ a member] to both a global scientific 
network and a venerable scientific legacy." While the Beneficiary's membership in is 
notable, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how it is indicative of one of the small percentage who 
has risen to the top of the field. 
The Petitioner references letters from colleagues and other engineers in the record regarding the 
Beneficiary's contributions in the field. 2 While these letters discuss the Beneficiary's contributions 
in 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, 
senior electrical engineer at ,, discusses the 
Beneficiary's work on a railway freight line, stating, "[i]n the nation, there are not many electrical 
engineers who can design a railway electrical system network." further highlights the 
Beneficiary's design of solar-powered hazard beacons for the aviation industry in Vermont, indicating 
that it was "a significant improvement over existing designs" that "greatly reduced maintenance 
costs." While we note the Beneficiary's successes in these fields, the Petitioner has not shown that 
this resulted in national or international acclaim to the Beneficiary. 
Similarly, regional office manager for Inc., discusses several projects 
that the Beneficiary has been involved in, specifically noting his expertise in designing electrical 
systems for hazardous fuel line environments. We acknowledge the Beneficiary's skill set in his 
industry, but the record has not shown that he has received national or international acclaim for his 
work on these projects. 
With respect to the Beneficiary's contributions as a member of the 
. the 
record contains a letter from , a member of the 
discussing the Beneficiary's work in improving standards. 
He states that he recruited the Beneficiary to take part in developing the a 
standard for estimating costs which "is used by power-oriented engineers, particularly by those who 
design large, complicated systems." The letter further indicates that the Beneficiary is now the co­
chair of the group working on the prospective standard, but the record lacks evidence explaining the 
significance of the his role and how it shows sustained national or international acclaim or recognition 
of his achievements that place him at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
2 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
.
Matter ofS-, Inc. 
We note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary has published scholarly material, but the Petitioner 
has not shown that two articles published approximately 10 years prior to the filing of the petition is 
consistent with the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive 
classification. 
The Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's leading or critical role in its organization has 
resulted in sustained national or international acclaim. the Petitioner's senior principal 
and owner, states that the Beneficiary has been "instrumental in [the Petitioner's] ability to grow its 
office, increase profits and create employment opportunities for American workers." Mr. 
states that the Beneficiary designed and managed projects exceeding $4 million, which accounted 
for 15 percent of the Petitioner's total billings for fiscal year 2015. The Petitioner also asserts that due 
to the Beneficiary's work, the company has grown its office from 7 to 14 full-time employees. 
While these are notable accomplishments, the record does not show how these successes have resulted 
in national or international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Finally, although the Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary earns a high salary in relation to 
others in the field. While this may demonstrate some degree ofrecognition of his achievements in the 
field, he has not submitted evidence showing his earnings are at a level reflecting that he is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the 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)(l)(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)(l)(A) of 
the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 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 his 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)(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 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 Petitioner 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. In visa petition proceedings, it is 
5 
Matter ofS-, Inc. 
the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that 
burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-, Inc., ID# 2149550 (AAO Apr. 30, 2019)