dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 4925539 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 6, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a researcher in electrical engineering, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that although the Petitioner 
satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria , in which he has to meet at least three , the Petitioner 
did not show his sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 his or her 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 he or she 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicated employment as a research scientist wit~ lin 
~---~!New Jersey. 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met three of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), original contributions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and 
scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner reviewed 
papers for journals. In addition, the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in professional 
publications. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and 
scholarly articles criteria. However, for the reasons discussed below, we do not concur with the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner fulfilled the original contributions criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion without identifying the original 
contributions of major significance and explaining his determination. To satisfy this criterion, the 
Petitioner must establish that not only has he made original contributions but that they have been of 
major significance in the field. 1 For example, a petitioner may show that his contributions have been 
widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have 
otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. The Petitioner claims he meets this 
criterion based on his scholarly articles, conference presentations, research projects, patent 
applications, and reference letters from colleagues and other scientists and researchers. Because the 
record does not reflect that the Petitioner demonstrated that he meets this criterion, we will withdraw 
the findings of the Director for this criterion. 
1 See USCTS 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 ADJJ-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
2 
Within the Petitioner's initial submission, he provided letters from colleagues and other scientists and 
researchers. Although the authors discuss the Petitioner's research findings, their letters do not 
demonstrate that his work resulted in a contribution of major significance in the field. I I I I a professor in electrical and computer engineering at the I I Institute of Technology, 
indicates he met the Petitioner at multiple international conferences and workshops in the field. He 
describes the Petitioner as an extraordinary scientist based upon his work in the area ofl I 
.__~-----------' systems, specifically, his having designed a solution to greatly reduce the 
number of power system blackouts with ,, 
'r-------.------' a professor atOUniversity and the Petitioner's colleague at the University of 
----~=~~ states that the Petitioner has made a "significant contribution tol I 
and its application in energy systems." He credits the Petitioner with "designing '---..--------'-~ 
a controller for highly complex systems and consensus networks" and pioneering '--------,------'-------, 
"the research on.__ _____ ____, control of inter-area oscillations in power systems" to enhance the 
stability of the power grid. 
The Petitione~vided an advisory opinion letter froml I a professor at the 
University ofL___J who praises the Petitioner's research onl I 
design as an innovative approach that is useful in many modem applications, and describes the 
Petitioner as "a rising star in h r f for large-scale networks." 
However, '-----------,1-'-----..--~ and '------~ do not explain how, specifically, the 
Petitioner's solutions and.__ __ ___.have impacted the field in a major or significant way, consistent 
with a finding of "contributions of major significance." 
The record also contains a letter from the Petitioner's masters and doctoral 
advisor at the University of He asserts that the Petitioner's research provided "significant 
contributions" to the I I systems and I I systems fields, proposing the "ground breaking 
framework" of I l for systems with symmetries, consensus, and 
synchronization networks. He discusses possible applications of the Petitioner's research findings, 
and notes that the Petitioner brought his research results "into industrial applications" during his 
internship and employment withl I 
.__ ____ ~I of .... l --~I states that since January 2017 the Petitioner has been working on the 
company's "projects to develo evaluate and demonstrate innovative and transformative 
technologies to boost in the power system from 40% to 100%." He 
describes the Petitioner's work on severa pro·ects, such as the.__ ________ __. 
project. He indicates the Petitioner also worked o ovemment-fonded ro·ects with the 
I I, developing algorithms for the to 
improve the stability and resiliency of1 l and with the 
developing! I algorithms for energy .... st_o_ra_g_e-an_d_p_o_w_e_r_g_e_n_e_ra_t-io-n~. 
While the evidence shows that the Petitioner contributed tol l's activities, the Petitioner did not 
show the unusual influence or great impact of his research work in the overall field beyond his 
employer.I lalso indicates that the Petitioner's research work forl lhas resulted in 
six patent applications, and he asserts that the Petitioner will be "able to bring his innovative ideas into 
real world applications that would significantly benefit the scientific, industrial, and economic 
3 
development of the United States." In general, a patent recognizes the originality of an invention or 
idea but does not necessarily establish it as a contribution of major significance in the field. D 
I I however, did not explain how the Petitioner's methods or patent applications have already 
significantly impacted or influenced the field. Without evidence that the invention or innovation has 
been widely used or adopted in the field, or have otherwise influenced the field in a significant way, 
the patent applications do not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion . 
.__ ______ ____, a professor at the University of.__ ________ ____, indicates that he met 
the Petitioner at multiple international conferences in the field. He asserts that the Petitioner was "the 
first researcher to propose a framework that is able to identify and 
design a~ I while preserving the original powerr"""s"--'--"s"""te=m=-------,__ __ ___J 
structure," and that the Petitioner "proposed a novel methodology to us .__ ______ ___, to study 
and control I I systems." He provides that the Petitioner's 
"innovative" approach "could be used as an effectj·ve means for prevention of power outages 
nationwide," and by control engineers to "better design I to guarantee more robust systems." 
He states that the Petitioner's control design framework has been shown to be effective "in detailed 
simulations" and predicts it "will greatly improve the performance of the power grid and reduce power 
outages." 
.__ ___ ~I an assistant professor atl !university, met the Petitioner at multi le international 
conferences in the field at which the Petitioner resented his research on of 
power systems. She describes the al orithm that the 
Petitioner developed as "an effective method for handling th .__ ______________ ___, 
resources in modem power systems," and predicts that the Petitioner's approach "will prove very 
beneficial to industrial automation." 
The letters of1 I andl ldid explain how the Petitioner's proposed methods are viewed in 
the field as having been of major significance. Instead, their letters speculated on his work's potential 
influence and on the possibility of it being majorly significant at some point in the future. 
Within the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence, he provided letters from 
additional colleagues and experts.I I an associate professor at 
University, states that the Petitioner's research work onl I pow~e-r-gr_i_d_'-'p_r_o_v-id_e_s_a~ 
new and innovative perspective." He states that the Petitioner "has produced an exceptional amount 
of original scholarship, disseminated his original work in some of the top journals and conferences in 
his field, and he is leading multiple cutting-edge research projects." 
I l a program director at the .__ ________________ ___,of the 
I I, indicates she is familiar with the Petitioner's work through his presentations 
at various international conferences and worksho s. She indicates that the Petitioner has developed 
L_ ____ --.-_J--U-L-"-'-'.L..U.JL.1.LLJ....,_......._.__ ____ -, _____ __J in power systems," and states that 
his "proposed .__ ____________ _. approach is an innovative, yet practical method for 
reducing the number of power outages." 
4 
an associate rofessor at niversity, claims that the Petitioner's research 
regarding,__ ____________ ~ can have many different applications, such as in social 
networks and power and communication systems . 
.__ ______ ___,r""-a_sc_i---,entist at the I I Labo~atory, {s currently working with the 
Petitioner's team at~-~ on a three-year project funded b He assen;s that the Petitioner 
and his team developed a "control scheme for real-time control and supervision of\ I I I hydropower plant and ener stora es" and "[t]he [U.S.] power grid will ultimately 
benefit from [the Petitioner's] ideas of~- ...... -....----~systems." He provides that the Petitioner's 
technology will be implemented in a future~~project in I l Alaska, with the involvement of 
the Petitioner's team atl I 
While the letters may show promise in the Petitioner's research findings, they do not establish how 
his work already qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field, rather than prospective, 
potential impacts. Here, the significant nature of his work has yet to be determined or measured. 
In addition, although the Petitioner asserts that the publication of his research is evidence of its 
significance, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that his written work has been considered of 
major significance in the field. Within his initial filing, the Petitioner provided evidence from Google 
Scholar reflecting 106 cumulative citations to his 10 published articles. Specifically, the record shows 
that his two highest cited articles received 41 (IEEE Transactions on Power Systems) and 29 
(American Control Co11ference) citations, respectively. 2 
This criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that he has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Thus, the burden is on the Petitioner to identify his original contributions and 
explain why they are of major significance in the field. Generally, citations can serve as an indication 
that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's research or written work. However, the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently shown that his citations for any of his published articles are commensurate with 
contributions of major significance. Here, the Petitioner did not articulate the significance or relevance 
of the citations to his articles. Although his citations are indicative that his research has received some 
attention from the field, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his citation numbers to his individual 
articles represent majorly significant contributions in the field. 3 
The Petitioner also submitted articles that cited to his work. A review of those articles, though, does 
not show the significance of the Petitioner's research to the overall field beyond the authors who cited 
to his work.4 For instance the Petitioner rovided an article entitled, '1 I 
~------------------------~ (Renewable and Sustainable Energy 
Reviews), in which the authors cited to his highest cited article (IEEE Transactions on Power 
2 The Petitioner's remaining 8 a11icles received between 1 and 9 citations, with 1 article garnering no citations. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or 
entries (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite the individual's work as authoritative in the field. may 
be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
4 Id. See also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer 
had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
5 
Systems). 5 However, the article does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's written work from 
the 131 other cited papers. In the case here, the Petitioner has not shown that his published articles 
through citations rise to a level of "major significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Further, several reference letters provide that the Petitioner has been invited to present his findings at 
conferences. The letters, however, do not explain how his presentation and conference activities have 
impacted or influenced the field as a whole. Participation in a conference demonstrates that his 
findings were shared with others, but being selected to present, without more, is not indicative of the 
major significance of his contributions. Publications and presentations are not sufficient under this 
criterion absent evidence that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 
1036 (9th Cir. 2009), affd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. 
Here, the letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high 
impact the Petitioner's work has had on the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate how a 
petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add 
value. 6 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, 
and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 7 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the finding of the Director for 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 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 the top. USCIS 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 his 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 )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
5 Although we discuss a sample article, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
7 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, affd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
6 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner has reviewed papers for journals and has authored scholarly articles, the 
Petitioner has not established that his professional accomplishments have placed him among the upper 
level of his field. 
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, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7