dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 31, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140A, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
field of science. 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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that she meets at least three of the ten 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 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 
Matter of V-K-
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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Petitioner is an electrical engineer. She earned a Ph.D. in engineering from 
I State Technical University in 2012, and at the time of filing was an associate 
~p-r-of_e_s-so_r_a_~-----1 State Technical University. Because she has not indicated or established that 
she has received a major, internationally recognized award, the Petitioner 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 did not meet any of the regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she satisfies three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) directly or through comparable data. She contests the Director's finding with respect 
to the awards criterion and claims for the first time that she satisfies two additional criteria: scholarly 
articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 1 For the reasons 
discussed below, we find that she has not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
1 The Petitioner previously claimed eligibility under the published material, leading or critical role, and original 
contribution criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii),(v), and (viii), respectively. Here she does not contest the Director's 
findings with respect to these criteria. 
2 
Matter of V-K-
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner contends that she meets this criterion as she received both awards and scholarships 
resulting from "scientific activities." Specifically, she notes her repeated receipt of "cash awards" 
from th~ I State Technical University and from the I I Company. 
However, she does not indicate which evidence corroborates this claim, nor does the record contain 
corroborative documentation from either entity showing that they have awarded her cash awards as a 
result of her scientific activities. Moreover, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that any such 
awards received by the Petitioner were granted for excellence in her field, or that they are nationally 
or internationally recognized. 
The Petitioner also asserts that she meets this criterion through her receipt of the Governor of the 
.__ _______ ___, and.__ ______ __, scholarship. The Petitioner provides a copy of the 
former award, along with a foll translation stating that the scholarship was given to "the best dtudent 
[sic] from among indigenous people ... " The Petitioner also indicates that the guidelines for this award 
state that it is given to "gifted children for their achievements in the field of educational activities, 
culture and sport .... "2 This evidence does not establish that the Petitioner received this scholarship 
for excellence in the field of electrical engineering. In addition, the record lacks evidence 
demonstrating that it is recognized beyond the.__ _______ __, and thus is nationally or 
internationally recognized. 
Regarding thq I scholarship, the Petitioner states that it is a "special recognition of 
success in research, education process and social work .... [i]ntended for university and postgraduate 
students - excellent students and authors of scientific research." The record includes a copy of the 
award conferring the scholarship, as well as its distribution among the "higher and medium specialized 
educational institutions of I I" However, the Petitioner did not establish that her 
field recognizes these scholarships as national or international prizes or awards for excellence. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she meets 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). 
The Petitioner asserts for the first time on appeal that she meets this criterion as she has "published 
articles in peer-reviewed journals recommended by thel I 
I I" The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires her "authorship of scholarly 
articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." 3 Furthermore, 
a scholarly article should be written for "learned" persons in the field. "Learned" is defined as having 
or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship. Learned persons include all persons having 
profound knowledge of a field. 4 
2 The Petitioner did not submit a copy of the guidelines to corroborate her statement. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
4 Id. 
3 
Matter of V-K-
The record includes a list of 14 articles provided by the Petitioner as part of her initial appeal, as well 
as copies of the articles and their translations. However, the record lacks evidence demonstrating that 
all but one of these articles were published in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, as required. Notably, although the Petitioner's list indicates that they were published in various 
conference proceedings and other publications, the copies lack identification of any publication in 
which they appeared, and are not supported by copies of indexes or other evidence to corroborate their 
publication in the proceedin s noted on the Petitioner's list. The evidence establishes that the 
remaining article, titled 
appeared in.__ ____ __. State 
Technical University Scientific Journal. Thus the Petitioner has demonstrated that she authored a 
scholarly article in a professional publication. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established that she 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner claims for the first time on appeal that she meets this criterion due to the cash awards 
and scholarships discussed above and submits bank records to support her assertion. She states that 
these bank statements demonstrate "cash receipts above the normal salary amount" given for "high 
achievements in the field of science." 5 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that she commanded a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in her field. However, the 
Petitioner did not establish the total amount of salary or remuneration she has earned. The bank 
account activity report that she submitted reflects varying amounts described as "enrollment of 
salaries" which were deposited at irregular intervals during a three-year period, but does not identify 
the Petitioner as the account holder or the source of these payments. The refard also lacks 
documentation from either! I State Technical University or the_ I I !showing her actual salary or total cash awards received. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not present comparable data showing that she commands a high salary or 
significantly high remuneration "in relation to others in the field," such as electrical 
engineers. Without evidence of the salaries of other similarly situated electrical engineers, we cannot 
determine whether the Petitioner's salary is high, or her remuneration significantly high, in 
companson. Accordingly, she has not shown that she satisfies this criterion. 
B. Comparable Evidence 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to evidence of citations to her published work as comparable evidence 
showing success in her field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of 
comparable evidence if the evidentiary criteria do not readily apply to a petitioner's occupation. In 
general, a petitioner should explain why she has not submitted evidence that would satisfy at least 
5 The Petitioner states that these awards resulted rrom "developments in the field ot ' her scientific .--------~----r-----~ publications, and patents resulting rrom research "in the field of and related software." 
4 
Matter of V-K-
three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the evidence she has included is 
"comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 6 Here, the Petitioner has not shown why 
she cannot offer evidence that meets at least three of the criteria, and in fact claims to meet three 
criteria. The fact that the Petitioner did not submit documentation that fulfills at least three is not 
evidence that an electrical engineer could not do so. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show 
that she is eligible to meet the initial evidentiary requirements through the submission of comparable 
evidence. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not explained or established how the documentation she has 
provided is comparable to the listed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held that even 
athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has received a major, 
internationally recognized award or meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need 
not provide the type of final merits analysis referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Nevertheless, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of her field. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established her eligibility for the classification 
sought. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears the 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 ofV-K-, ID# 4377776 (AAO Oct. 31, 2019) 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 12. 
5