dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-W-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 27.2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. an electrical engineer. seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1 )(A). 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(I )(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 two of the initial evidentiary criteria. of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional documentation. He claims that he meets at 
least three criteria. and maintains that he has established eligibility for the classification. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(I )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified immigrants vvith 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 benelit 
prospectively the United States. 
.
Afafler l!fY-W-
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 tor satisfying this classification 's initial evidence 
requirements. First a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major. 
internationally recognized award). Alternately. he or she must pwvide 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, 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 detennination and assess \vhether 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. USCJS .. 596 F.Jd 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then. if fullilling the 
required number of criteria. considered in the context of a final merits detem1ination): see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers. 4 F. Supp . 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013): R!jal v. USCIS. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 201 I). 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 n1ct to he proven is 
probably true." :Heater o(Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369.376 (AAO 2010). 
Jl. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an electrical engineer. 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 ten 
criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the 
Petitioner met the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the authorship of scholarly 
articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), but that he tailed to meet a third, required 
criterion. 
On appeaL the Petitioner maintains that in addition to the judging and authorship criteria. he meets 
the lesser awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i), the published material criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(iii). 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). We concur with the Director's 
finding that the Petitioner has met the judging and scholarly articles criteria, but conclude that the 
record docs not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least 
three criteria. 
Documentation olthe alien ·s receipt o(lesser nal ionally or infer nationally recognized prizes or 
mrard1·.tor excellence in thefield olendeavor 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from the indicating that he 
received an $8,000 monetary scholarship for technical project of the year in 2013. According to the 
2 
.
Mauer 4Y-W-
association's website, the purpose of the scholarship is to support students working on projects of 
interest to electric utilities, rather than an award tor excellence in the tield. 1 Therefore. the Petitioner 
did not establish that his scholarship qualities as a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the tield. Moreover, he has not demonstrated that the scholarship received 
national or international recognition. 
The Petitioner also submitted a copy of an email message from 
which stated that his name would be included on the list of' in the 2016 
issue of and published on its website. Although this document 
recognizes the Petitioner's participation as a reviewer, the record does not establish that such 
recognition is for excellence in the field of endeavor. The Petitioner did not submit evidence 
demonstrating that this form of recognition constitutes an award that is recognized beyond the 
presenting organization, or that it is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in the field. Thus, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Published material ahou/ the alien in professional or major trade publications or olher major 
media. relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor 1-vhich classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title. date. and author (~f'the material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submitted one article relating to his software tool that allows utilities to analyze 
power system security and safety during hurricanes. Specifically, the article presented appeared in 
which appears to be the magazine of the He did 
not, however, submit sutlicient documentation to demonstrate that this article appeared in a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence. the Petitioner submitted an excerpt hom 
Wikipedia, self-described as ''the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" as evidence of the 
circulation data of magazine. There are. however, no assurances about the reliability 
of the content from Wikipedia, an open, user-edited wcbsite. 2 See Badaw v. Mukasc>y, 540 F.3d 909 
1 
https://www. 
1 Online content from H'ikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VAUDJTY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia: that is, a voluntary association of individuals and gmups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an 
Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been 
reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable 
information . 
. . . lf'ikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The 
content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose 
opinion does not correspond w·ith the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
http:lien.wikipedia.orgiwiki!Wikipedia:General_disclairner, accessed on January 18, 20 J 8. a copy incorporated into the 
record of proceedings. 
3 
.
J'l-fafler of'Y-W-
(8th Cir. 2008). Additionally. two of the letters in the record describe as a major trade 
publication, but the record Jacks corroborating evidence. Therefore. the Petitioner has not satisfied 
this criterion as the record lacks sufficient documentation confirming that the magazine qualities as a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic. scholarly. artistic, athletic. or business-related 
contrihwions qlmajor sign{ficance in thefie!d. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v). 
The Petitioner submits numerous letters 1rom colleagues in support of his original contributions of 
major significance in the fteld. 3 Ph.D .. and f>h.D., were both graduate 
students with the Petitioner at the commended his doctoral 
thesis work and the models he created during that time. praised the Petitioner's sothvare 
programs and the associated and concluded that he has had a 
significant impact in the area of electrical system modeling and power grid analysis. 
While the Petitioner has earned the admiration of his references, there is no evidence demonstrating 
that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. For example. the record 
does not indicate the extent of the impact the Petitioner" s cascade outage models have had on other 
electrical engineers working in the field. nor does it show that the field has significantly changed as a 
result of his work. 
While such letters are important in providing details about the Petitioner"s role in various projects 
and developments . they cannot by themselves establish the Petitioner"s acclaim beyond his 
immediate circle of colleagues. Letters from colleagues that do not specitically identify 
contributions or detail how those contributions intluenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian \'. 
USCIS. 580 F.3d at 1036: c~f('d in part 596 F.3d 1115. In 20 l 0, the Kazarian court reiterated that our 
conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to fthe alien's] contributions in the field'. 
were insufficient was ·'consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The Petitioner submits a letter from Assistant Professor in the Department of 
Electrical and Computer Engineering at the stated that his 
research is outstanding. and that she '"envision[ s] that more and more scholars and practitioners \Viii 
learn from and utilize !the Petitioner's] models to benefit the L.S. economy and the further 
understanding in disaster relief:" Future prospective benefits that the Petitioner's findings may have 
in the field, however, are not elements that will quali1Y him under this criterion. The regulation 
requires that the Petitioner has already made major and significant impacts within his field. 
' It is not erroneous that a USCIS deci sion does not cite from each and every letter in support of a petition. tvoroo::i r. 
Napoli/uno. 905 F.Supp.2d 535.545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Chen~·. US. Dep't of'.!ustice. 471 F.Jd 3 l5. 338 n. 17 (2d 
c ir.2006)). 
4 
.
Matter <![ Y-W-
Close Professor of Electrical Engineering at the also 
discu ssed the Petition er's cascade outage models , noting that they have "signific antly impro ved 
accurac y," and that his '·approach to this modeling was truly revolutionary." claimed 
that the Petitioner's resea rch paper. · 
has been cited several times since publicati on and '"is quickly becoming a 
staple in the canon of research summ aries in this highl y complex niche area of electrical 
engineering. did not, however. explain how this field is applying the Petition er's 
work. Rather. he referred generall y to the citations of the Petitioner" s work. 
Although he submitted a citation index demonstrating that his body of publi shed work has been cited 
64 times , the record lacks evidence that this number indic ates a signifi cant influence within the field . 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated how his citation record shows his o riginal contributions have 
had a signific ant impact on the tield at large. 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made original contributi ons of major 
signific ance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1.formed in a leading or crilical role .fiJr organiza tions or 
estahlishm enfs that have a distinguished reputati on. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204 .5(h)(3)(viii) . 
The Petitioner submitted letters from his cutTent and former employer s. Ph.D .. Senior 
Mana ger of claim ed that as a fotmer Power Market 
Analyst, the Petitioner was emplo yed in a critical capacity. stated that the Petition er perfom1cd 
a critical function tor the company by creating model s tor forecas ting short and long tem1 power prices 
and deve loping of tools tor advanced electricity load forecasting, and that such work resulted in 
increased revenue and profit tor the company. 
The Petitioner has not established how his role in the capacity of Power Marke t Anal yst was critical to 
For instance. the record lacks evidenc e conoborating assertions about the 
economic impact of the Petitioner 's work and his measurable level of success lor the company. 
Further, the Petitioner 's evidence does not clarify how his role differentiated him from simil arly­
employed individual s a t the compa ny during that time. Moreover, the Petitioner has not established 
that as an organizat ion possesses a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner submitt ed two letters from Ph.D .. Managing Director and Head of 
Trading at his cuncnt employer. 
claimed that the Petitioner was recruited as an Strategist based on his work and 
reput ation in the field of electrical grid analysis. stated that his research in the field and his 
development of a model to analyze cascading outages of power has been pivotal to his e mployment at 
and that his work has resu lted in a profit of approximate ly $ 15 million tor the compan y in 20 16. 
The reco rd does not estab lish that his role as an Strategist is in a critical capaci ty. doe s 
not corrobo rate his claims regard ing the impact and criticality of the Petitioncr·s wo rk. and his 
5 
Matter of Y-W-
letters fall short of specifying how the Petitioner contributed to the organization in a way that is 
significant to the organization's outcome or what role he played in the organization's activities. ,\ee 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 at 135. Additionally. the regulation requires that the 
organization have a distinguished reputation. which the Petitioner has not established with 
independent. objective evidence. 
In light of the above. the Petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. As a result. we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian. 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless. we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate. concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For the foregoing 
reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualities for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of Y-W-. ID# 889978 (AAO Feb. 27, 2018)