dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8469940 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 28, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a wireless engineer, 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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
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 )(1 )(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 petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their 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 
they must provide sufficient qualifying 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). 
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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a doctorate in electrical engineering at the University! I in 2016, and 
is now chief technology officer ofl I a startup company inl.....-'-'--~I W-a-sh-1-_n_g__.ton, that he co-
founded. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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). The Petitioner claims to have met three criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director found that the Petitioner had authored scholarly articles and participated as a judge of the 
work of others, but had not shown that he made original contributions of major significance. Upon 
review, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied all three claimed criteria. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, 
artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. To satisfy this 
criterion, the Petitioner relies on letters, citations to his published work, and other evidence. 
2 
The Petitioner's former Ph.D. advisor at the University! lwho is also a co-founder of0 
I I states that the Petitioner's "development of a working phone and camera that do not require 
batteries is ... an exceptional breakthrough. The phone is powered entirely by using I lsignals 
and tiny solar panels . . . . [The Petitioner's] research represents an enormous step forward in making 
smart devices more efficient and useful." The battery-free devices derive their power from solar cells and 
.__ ______________ ...., from devices such as televisions and cellular phones. 
Heavy citation of scholarly articles can serve as one measure of the significance of a researcher's 
contributions. 1 A Google Scholar printout shows triple-digit citations for five of the Petitioner's 
published articles at the time of filing. One of his articles about.__ _____ ____.had been cited nearly 
500 times since its publication about five and a half years earlier, placing it within the top 0.01 % of 
engineering articles published in 2013, or the top 0.1 % of computer science articles from that year. 2 
Other articles also ranked highly in terms of citations. In the period immediately following publication, 
these percentile figures often say little; a very low number of citations can rate highly during that initial 
period. But as years go by, the gulf widens between the most-cited articles and those with lower levels 
of impact. The Petitioner's early articles have remained near the top of the citation rankings, indicating 
sustained significance rather than a short-lived burst of attention immediately after publication. 
Subsequent submissions show that the citation figures for the Petitioner's most-cited articles continue to 
grow. 
Copies of some of the citing articles emphasize the originality of the Petitioner's contributions, rather 
than representing an early adoption of methods or theories originating elsewhere. These articles cite a 
variety of earlier sources, as is typical of scholarly articles, but a number of them specify that the 
Petitioner's 2013 article "introduced".__ _______ ~ a low-power communications medium. The 
record further establishes that other researchers acknowledge the Petitioner's significant influence on their 
own later efforts. 
Beyond citations in scholarly journals, the mainstream press has taken notice of the Petitioner's work, 
with articles appearing in publications such as Fortune, Forbes, and the Telegraph, as well as the Reuters 
news service. Some of these articles identify the Petitioner by name. These articles do not specify the 
nature of the Petitioner's role in the research described, but other materials in the record serve that 
purpose. 
The record establishes that the Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance. 
As the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the 
evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 8 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
2 At different times, the Petitioner has placed his articles within both of those areas; the record does not establish how Claiivate 
Analytics (which compiled the percentile charts) classifies the Petitioner's specific field of research or the journals in which the 
Petitioner's articles appeared. 
3 
B. Final Merits Determination 
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. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The Petitioner has satisfied three of the criteria, which necessitates a final merits determination. In the 
final merits determination, the crucial issue is not the significance or usefulness of the Petitioner's past 
work, but rather the extent of the acclaim he has earned in the field. 
The Petitioner has peer-reviewed manuscripts submitted for publication in various journals, and for 
presentation at conferences. The Petitioner contends that these journals "enlist the services of only the 
most accomplished researchers," but the Petitioner does not submit evidence to this effect from the 
publishers of the journals in question. 
The Petitioner notes that his "research has been cited by researchers from ... prestigious and widespread 
institutes. . . . These widespread citations are proof of [the Petitioner's] sustained international acclaim." 
Science is inherently an international endeavor, and the Petitioner has not established that only acclaimed 
researchers tend to be cited outside of their home countries, or that researchers at prestigious institutions 
typically cite only top-ranked authors. 
Above, we have given due consideration to the volume of citations that the Petitioner's work has amassed. 
The identities and geographic distribution of the citing authors are not self-evident indicia of sustained 
acclaim. 
The record shows that the Petitioner's work has drawn interest from a variety of observers, ranging from 
fellow researchers who seek technical information about the Petitioner's experiments to a conservation 
group that inquired about using the technology to track endangered rhinoceros. The nature of the potential 
practical applications of the Petitioner's work, however, is not tantamount to sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
Furthermore, the technology at the center of the Petitioner's work appears to be at a very preliminary and 
tentative stage. Documents in the record show thatl I prepared a report for NASA, 
concerning possible avionics applications for the company's technology, but those materials do not show 
that NASA actually adopted the technology. 
3 See also USC1S Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 4 (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). 
4 
Likewise, contracts in the record between ~ and various clients refer to prototypes and feasibility 
studies. Most of the contracted delivery dates occurred before the petition's filing date in January 2019, 
but the record does not establish the extent to which these projects have progressed beyond the prototype 
stage. 
The Petitioner has established his involvement in innovative and important research, but the 
recognition arising from that work does not appear to have risen to the level of sustained national or 
international acclaim. 
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. Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown the required sustained national or international acclaim 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 )(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). 
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