dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 12, 2024 In Re: 31527284 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an automotive glass manufacturer, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual 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 ofthe Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Beneficiary 
satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, the Petitioner did not show the 
Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa '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 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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established the Beneficiary's receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award, the Beneficiary must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined the Beneficiary met three of the 
claimed evidentiary criteria relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), original contributions of 
major significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Director's decision simply indicates the Beneficiary's satisfaction of the three criteria mentioned 
above without explaining his determination. Although the record shows the Beneficiary's experience 
in reviewing a research grant proposal and a journal article and authoring scholarly articles in 
professional publications, thereby meeting the judging and scholarly articles criteria, the record does 
not reflect the Beneficiary's achievement of making original contributions of major significance in the 
field. Again, the Director did not explain, including identifying the evidence, which original 
contributions the Beneficiary made and how he determined them to be majorly significant. While we 
do not concur with the Director that the Beneficiary fulfilled at least three criteria, we will evaluate 
the totality of the evidence since the Director conducted a final merits determination, including the 
documentation relating to the original contributions of major significance criterion. 1 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As indicated above, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim, 2 he is one of the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and his achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, we analyze an individual'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 1119-20.3 In this matter, we 
determine the Petitioner has not shown the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
In the initial cover letter, the Petitioner described the Beneficiary's education and employment 
background: 
In 1994, [ the Beneficiary] obtained a Bachelor of Science with Honors in Electronics 
and Communication Engineering from ______ in Egypt. He later obtained 
a Master of Science in Electronics and Communication Engineering from I I 
I I in Egypt. . . . [The Beneficiary] then obtained his Doctor of Philosophy in 
Electrical and Computer Engineering from the 
[The Beneficiary] was em lo ed as a Customer Su ort Electrical En ineer from 1996 
to 1997 with the 
He also served as Graduate Teaching Assistant at the __________ 
Department of Computer Science, from 1999 - 2003. Contemporaneously with this 
teaching experience, [the Beneficiary] worked as a researcher in antenna engineering 
with the Egypt, from 1997 to 2004. 
Upon relocating to Canada, [the Beneficiary] worked as a Teaching Assistant, Research 
Assistant, and Post-Doctoral Fellow at the ranging from 2004 
to 2014. Following this experience, [the Beneficiary] worked as an engineer at 
I lin 2015, and as an Antenna Design Engineer with 
I Ifrom 2015 to 2017. In October 2017, [the Beneficiary] joined 
[the Petitioner]. Currently, [the Beneficiary] serves as the leader of the Antenna and 
Connectivity Group, as well as the Group Leader for the Regional Connected Systems 
Group. 
As discussed further below, the Beneficiary has conducted some review work, authored material, and 
shared his original works. However, in considering the totality of the evidence, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary's achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(A)(l) (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and providing Black's 
Law Dictionary's definition of"sustain" is "to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time ... To persist in 
making (an effort) over a long period of time"). 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (instructing that USCTS officers should consider the petition in its 
entirety to determine eligibility according to the standard- sustained national or international acclaim and the achievements 
have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the person is one of that small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor). 
3 
field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Furthermore, the 
Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary has risen to that small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations 
implementing section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provides 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). Here, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
enjoys a career that meets this very high standard. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. The Petitioner 
provided two instances of the Beneficiary's judging experience - a paper review for the I I 
______________ (2017) and a research grant review forl I 
(2023). Here, the Petitioner did not establish that these two judging instances contributed to a finding 
that the Beneficiary has a career of acclaimed work in the field or indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. 
The Petitioner did not show, for example, how the Beneficiary's limited experience in reviewing the 
works of others compares to others at the very top of the field. In addition, the Petitioner did not 
establish, for instance, that the Beneficiary garnered wide attention from the field based on his 
evaluation work. Moreover, serving as a judge or evaluator does not automatically demonstrate that 
an individual has extraordinary ability and sustained national or international acclaim at the very top 
of his field. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (stating that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard). 
Without evidence that sets the Beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has 
a consistent history of reviewing or judging recognized, acclaimed experts in his field, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the Beneficiary's narrow judging experience places him among that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 
Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Likewise, authorship and publication do not automatically place one at the top of the field. The record 
reflects that the Petitioner presented evidence showing that the Beneficiary authored two book chapters 
and over a dozen journal/symposia articles from 2003. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary's publication record is consistent with having a career of acclaimed work, 
sustaining national or international acclaim, and being among the small percentage at the very top of 
his field. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
Petitioner, for instance, did not show the significance of the Beneficiary's authorships or how his 
publications compare to others who are viewed to be at the very top of the field. 4 
4 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra. at F.2(B)(2) (providing that an example where evidence in the record may help in 
determining whether in a totality analysis that considers all of the evidence, the person is among the small percentage at 
the top of the field and has sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of written work can be an indicator 
to determine the impact and recognition that his publications have had on the field and whether such 
influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by 
the Beneficiary may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that others have 
been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate 
pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the Petitioner provided evidence of material 
downloads, views, and citations. However, the Petitioner did not offer evidence demonstrating the 
significance or relevance of those figures. For instance, the Petitioner did not compare the 
Beneficiary's numbers to those among the very top of the field or to show the Beneficiary's work 
received a level of interest in the field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's 
metrics represent attention at a level consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top 
of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Similarly, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary's presented material garnered him any 
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate the significance of the Beneficiary's presentations or how they impacted the field 
consistent with a very high standard requiring the petitioner to submit more extensive documentation 
than that required for lesser classifications. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Furthermore, at initial filing, the Petitioner submitted a letter claiming the Beneficiary "has been 
contributing meaningful to several technical development projects" and "has been listed as an inventor 
on three recently-filed United States Patent applications." However, the Petitioner did not provide 
corroborating evidence to support its assertions. In response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE), the Petitioner provide evidence showing that one of the patents, which listed the Beneficiary 
as one of the inventors, was approved after the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be established at 
initial filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Regardless, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's involvement with three recent patents with the Petitioner reflects a career of acclaimed 
work, sustaining national or international acclaim, and being among the small percentage at the very 
top of his field. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner, for instance, did not show the significance of the Beneficiary's patents and pending 
patents, how they compare to others who are viewed to be at the very top of the field, or whether the 
Beneficiary garnered attention throughout the field consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided several recommendation letters that summarized the Beneficiary's 
work. Although they praise the Beneficiary's work and personal traits, they do not contain sufficient 
information and explanation to show that he is viewed by the overall field, rather than by a solicited 
few, among the upper echelon or that he has garnered recognition on a national or international scale, 
consistent with being among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. In fact, the 
letters speculate on the prospective influence the Beneficiary's work will have on the field rather than 
already having influenced the field in a major way. For example, the Beneficiary's "innovations and 
expertise in antenna technology are poised to have a significant impact on people's lives" (K-S-), and 
"[t]his research will help connect the underserved communities and provide safer roads" (T-A-D-). 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary has made impactful or influential 
contributions in the greater field reflecting a career of acclaimed work in the field, garnering the 
5 
I 
required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish how the Beneficiary's work resulted in 
widespread acclaim from his field, that he drew significant attention from the greater field, or that 
overall field considers him to be at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2) 
and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
The record contains some of the Beneficiar 's student awards, such as a certificate of recognition from 
the Student Conference for best poster (2007) and a certificate 
of appreciation from the ________ Graduate Students' Association for the GSA 
I(2010). 5 However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary's student 
awards place him among that small percentage at the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
There is no indication the overall field recognizes these awards among the upper echelon rather than 
limited to students at the 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." Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. The Petitioner did not demonstrate, 
for instance, that the Beneficiary competed against other accomplished individuals or how his 
academic awards compare to other renowned individuals within his field. 
Further, the Petitioner presented evidence of the Beneficiary's membership with the Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in 2023. However, the Petitioner did not show that the 
Beneficiary's recent membership resulted in sustained national or international acclaim or reflects 
"that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(2) and (3). The record, for instance, does not contain 
evidence showing that the Beneficiary received national or international recognition based on his 
membership with this association. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary 
distinguished himself from others in the field based on his IEEE membership, gaining national or 
international attention or placing him among the upper echelon in his field. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for 
the Beneficiary, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those 
progressing toward the top. Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 ( concluding that even major league level 
athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of 
"extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding 
that the extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of 
Homeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 
2023 WL 1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very 
small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), 
No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at *l (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 
(upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian 
theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals 
fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that 
"arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a 
5 The Petitioner also provided a letter in response to the Director's RFE; however, the letter 
indicates the Beneficiary's receipt after the initial filing of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(1 ). 
6 
baseball coach). In this case, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of the Beneficiary's work 
is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or it is consistent with a "career 
of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59; see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more 
accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary is among the small percentage at the top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's 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. 
7