dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24187228 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB . 2, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer , seeks classification 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement s for the classification by establishing 
his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 noncitizen 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 recogni zed in the field 
through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the noncitizen seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the noncitizen'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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, the petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria 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). 
I. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects the Petitioner is an electrical engineer. He obtained bachelor's and master's degrees 
in electrical engineering from the University of I I Because the Petitioner has not 
indicated or shown that he 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 
satisfied three of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Documentation of receipt of lesser nationally or international recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; and 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to establish that he met 
any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional 
evidence and states that he submits "more objective evidence than personal statement." For the 
reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied any of the 
claimed criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that a portable charging device, called !received a Red Dot 
award, and he provides information printed from the internet indicating it received a Red Dot award 
in 2019. In addition, the Petitioner provides a letter from the company that manufactures I I I confirming it will employ the Petitioner as an electrical engineer. The Petitioner contends 
that as a team member helping develop! I he was recognized with the Red Dot award. 
Although the Petitioner states he helped develop the product, the printout he submitted on appeal 
2 
named the designers of the product, and he was not named. Moreover, it appears that the Red Dot 
award was awarded to the product and the company that designed the product, and the Petitioner did 
not provide any evidence to indicate that he also received the award. Nor does the Petitioner submit 
sufficient information regarding the Red Dot award itself such that we can ascertain whether the 
process of winning that award aligns with this category's eligibility requirements. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied.field of specification for which classification is sought. 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides photographs of his "light and objective specs" as proof of his ability 
to make "better lights and my capacity to evaluate others work." The Petitioner provides photographs 
taken of what appears to be a machine, but he did not describe the photographs or the machine they 
depict. The photographs are not sufficient evidence that the Petitioner judges the work of others in 
the same or an allied field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also provides email correspondence he exchanged with an "industry" 
company "asking comments from me and my reply to them." The Petitioner also provides an online 
google translation of the email correspondence, since parts of it took place in the Mandarin Chinese 
language. It is not sufficient to carry the Petitioner's burden. First, we have no context of the 
conversation and the line of questioning for the Petitioner, and without additional information it is 
impossible to determine the Petitioner's role with this company. Moreover, any document prepared 
in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and 
accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. 
Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language translation of the 
document, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus 
supports the Petitioner's claims. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The primary requirements here are that the Petitioner's contributions in their field were original and 
rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an 
organization. Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
at 134). The regulatory phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. 
Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 969 (2019) (finding that every word and every provision in a statute 
is to be given effect and none should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate 
another provision or to have no consequence). Further, the Petitioner's contributions must have 
already been realized rather than being potential, future improvements. Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The Petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
On appeal, in support of this criterion, the Petitioner submits two letters written by companies that 
were used to support H-1 B petitions filed on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that he 
3 
assisted in inventing thel I a portable charging device. The Petitioner claims that the H-lB 
support letter from [ I stated the Petitioner "contributed intensively and extensively towards 
__ cutting-edge wireless charging products." Although the support letter outlines the duties the 
Petitioner will perform as an electrical engineer withl I it does not provide sufficient information 
regarding the level of the Petitioner's involvement in the development of this charging device. In 
addition, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of the significance of this product in the 
field. Thus, the Petitioner did not demonstrate any original scientific contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also describes portable fusion as an invention, and wrote "unique pattern 
from experiment in I I City showing a huge impact on fusion industry" and provided 
photographs of a machine without any explanation. It is 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). The Petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
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 do not need to provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
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 that goal. United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services 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 their 
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 )(1 )(A). Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and they are 
one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated their eligibility as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4