dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent ciearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 u.s.c.-8 1153(b)(l)(~) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in you case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 9 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
&! $u L~L 
T o . nssom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences and business. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
established the beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim required for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph 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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification of the beneficiary as an alien with extraordinary ability in the 
sciences and business, specifically as chief engineer and power plant operator. Initially, the following 
supporting documents were submitted: information about the petitioner, U.S. Department of Labor salary 
information about the beneficiary's occupation, the beneficiary's Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers 
("TEEE') membership card and qualifications for IEEE membership, news articles about the petitioner, and 
three letters of recommendation. In response to a Request for Evidence ("RFE") dated July 10, 2007, the 
petitioner submitted the following supporting documents: an analysis of the beneficiary's qualifications, 
engineering designs done by the beneficiary for the petitioner, pictures of the beneficiary at work for the 
petitioner, O*Net wage statements for other power plant operators, and one additional letter of recommendation. 
We address the evidence submitted in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the 
petitioner's case. The petitioner does not claim that the beneficiary is eligibile under any criteria not addressed 
below. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thefield for which classiJication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orjields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the beneficiary's membership in the IEEE. In order to demonstrate that 
membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must show that the association requires 
outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. Membership requirements 
based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or experience, proficiency 
certifications, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. Further, the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is 
membership requirements rather than the association's overall reputation. The background information 
submitted about the IEEE does not indicate that membership requires outstanding achievement in the field. 
Instead, the membership requirements for the IEEE state that membership will be granted to those persons 
who receive an education degree in an appropriate field of study or who have an equivalent level of 
experience in an appropriate field of work. The IEEE information indicates that a second classification of 
member exists, senior member, which "is the highest [grade of membership]." The beneficiary's membership 
card reflects that he has not attained even this higher grade of membership, but is instead a regular member of 
the IEEE. The IEEE's bylaws do not indicate that outstanding achievement is necessary for membership nor 
do they indicate that membership is judged by recognized experts in the field. Finally, it is noted that 
although counsel claims that the beneficiary had an "association with organizations of outstanding 
reputation," this criterion requires actual membership instead of just an association with those organizations. 
For all of the above listed reasons, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in thejield for which classijication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner did not specifically claim that the beneficiary is eligible under this criterion, but submitted news 
articles in support of the petition. The news articles submitted are about the petitioner and its achievements and 
do not mention the beneficiary. Therefore, the published material is not about the beneficiary. 
Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientijic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJcance in thejield. 
Initially, the petitioner stated that the beneficiary was eligible under this criterion by virtue of his design of 
various hydroelectric power plants including the petitioner's. The petitioner cited the letters of recommendation 
as support for this assertion. The letter provided by 
 lead hydroelectric design engineer for 
the petitioner's construction, states that the beneficiary's "extraordinary engineering abilities and his expertise in 
renewable forms of energy were critical to the success of phase one of ih[e] 
 the constructi6n of the 
facility." He further "credited [the beneficiary] with the design, implementation, and operations of the facili 
control protocols and sensing elements" allowing the petitioner to operate at a high level. d 
executive director of a company that buys and resells electricity on behalf of the state of Vermont, wrote that the 
beneficiary is "credited with the successful output of the power generating plant that he manages, and for 
implementing and maintaining the security protocols requested by the Federal government." ~r. wrote 
that the beneficiary could be credited with keeping the petitioner's facility online when all others in the area 
failed. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner wrote that the beneficiary's "engineering design and operation of a hydro- 
electric station . . . [has] been evaluated by nationally recognized experts who have concluded that these works 
identify [the beneficiary] as someone who has reached to [sic] top of this field." The petitioner submitted an 
additional letter of recommendation from , executive director of the 
Mr. 
 wrote that the beneficiary "has designed, specified, and installed control and sensing 
elements in new and existing hydroelectric projects through New England" while at the same time undertaking 
"the day to day operation of [the petitioner's plant]." Mr. ontinues by writing that the beneficiary is a 
"rare and unique individual" who has "the combination of skills and experience to be able to do all of [the] jobs" 
undertaken. The petitioner also submitted an evaluation of the beneficiary as undertaken by - 
president of who wrote that the beneficiary's ability to generate more kilowatts of power than 
the base load that the plant was designed to produce "is truly exceptional." Mr. stated that the plant's 
high production is due to the beneficiary's "effective and well thought out design." In addition, - 
wrote that the beneficiary's ability to manage the facility in "a compliant and innovative manner" with regards 
to environmental demands. 
Although the beneficiary's work may be valued by the petitioner, the petitioner did not submit any evidence 
showing that the work that the beneficiary did was original or was of major significance to the field as a whole. 
For example, the petitioner submitted no evidence that the work that the beneficiary did for the petitioner was 
communicated to other members of his field or that he used different methods or techniques that have since been 
adopted by others in the field. Even if the letters had included information indicating that the petitioner made an 
original contribution of major significance to his field, letters that attest to the importance of the petitioner's 
work cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate 
that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom 
he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an 
immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one 
would expect of an alien who has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. We note that 1 
knowledge of the beneficiary's work is a result of the fact that his company was responsible for reviewing the 
petitioner's application as a low impact facility. Similarly, evaluation of the benefici 's skills 
and abilities appears to have been given as a result of being solicited solely for this petition. Dr. does 
not indicate that he was aware of the beneficiary or his work prior to being contacted for his assessment. 
In addition, duties or activities which nominally fall within a given criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3) do not 
demonstrate national or international acclaim if they are inherent to the occupation itself. Designing and 
operating the plant and implementing and maintaining appropriate security protocols appear to be an inherent 
part of the job description of chief of operations for engineer and safety. In order to establish that the 
Page 5 
beneficiary meets this criterion, the petitioner must further demonstrate that the beneficiary's work made a 
contribution of major significance in his field. Such a demonstration may be made through other evidence such 
as, for example, national media discussions of the engineering work's impact, evidence of the use of the 
beneficiary's methods by other engineers for other companies, or other evidence that the beneficiary's work 
attracted significant attention in his particular field. The petitioner submitted no evidence outside of the letters 
of recommendation and none of those letters stated how these responsibilities either fell outside of the scope of a 
chief of operation's normal duties or made an original contribution to the field. 
On appeal, counsel for the petitioner stated that the beneficiary's three turbine design of the hydroelectric station 
is "highly innovative" and cited the letters of recommendation and the design plans as evidence to support his 
statement. The evidence presented does not show that the beneficiary's designs or his plant operations were 
original, but instead shows that the beneficiary increased the capabilities of the plant in an enviable fashion. 
While the petitioner may be pleased with the increased performance, such pleasure does not amount to an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Without evidence that his means of increasing production or design of the facility were original and impacted 
his field, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has per$ormed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner initially claimed that the beneficiary met this criterion through his work with the petitioner's 
plants and with other companies with which the petitioner does business. Counsel cited eight letters in support 
of this claim, however, only one of the letters cited actually appears in the record. That letter, written August 
beneficiary "provided oncall support and technical services" to the company "for over 13 years" and "help[ed] 
with equipment upgrades and progrdoperation improvements." This letter evidences only a sporadic 
involvement of the beneficiary with - The petitioner submitted no evidence 
regarding the beneficiary's actual role or that such sporadic assistance with 
constitutes a leading or critical role for that company nor was any evidence 
-enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner contended that the beneficiary met this criterion by virtue of his work with 
the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the University of Vermont. The 
petitioner's letter in response to the RFE cited "two letters fiom U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service acknowledging [the beneficiary's] significant contributions to the wild salmon preservation 
program," however, those letters do not appear in the record. Even if those letters had appeared in the record, 
the description provided of the beneficiary's "cooperation" with those entities does not show that the beneficiary 
performed a leading or critical role for these organizations. In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must 
establish the nature of the alien's role within the entire organization or establishment. The petitioner presented 
no evidence that the beneficiary's role as "a principal player in the implementation of the preservation of the 
wild salmon project in the Winooski River" constituted a role within the entire U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Nor did the petitioner show how "the beneficiary's role in promoting the field of sustainable energy" constitutes 
a role within the University of Vermont. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate the distinguished reputation 
of these organizations. 
Page 6 
As it relates to the petitioner, we acknowledge that ample evidence appears in the record of the beneficiary's 
leading and critical role for the petitioner. However, the petitioner presented no evidence of its distinguished 
reputation. For example, no evidence was included regarding the company's background, standing in the 
community or world, or any other aspect of its reputation. While the record demonstrates that the petitioner is a 
partnership 50% owned by 77,. and "is a hydroelectric plant generating 28.4 
million KWyr of environmentally safe electric power," such information has no bearing on the petitioner's 
reputation. ~r. wrote that the petitioner "is one of the most sophisticated computer-controlled hydro 
projects in the world, and a leader in the use of domestic renewable fuels for the production of safe and clean 
electricity." ~r. subjective statement does not speak to the reputation of the petitioner in the field as 
opposed to the capabilities of the facility. The news articles submitted by the petitioner are mostly about the 
construction of the facility and date from the early 1990s. In addition, these articles appear in local publications 
such as the Burlington Free Press, New England Construction, and the Vermont Times. Articles appearing only 
locally and from more than a decade ago are insufficient to establish the petitioner's current reputation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signiJicantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The petitioner claims that the beneficiary satisfies this category by virtue of his salary of $1 00,000. While the 
information submitted from O*Net shows that the salary for power plant operators ranges from $38,397 to 
$68,515, the description offered in describing the job of "power plant operator" does not seem to match the job 
that the beneficiary does for the petitioner: "Chief of Operations, Engineering and Safety" according to Mr. 
letter. The job descriptions provided by O*Net describe a mechanic's duties of "control[ling], 
operat[ing], and maintain[ing] machinery to generate electric power.'' The description of the beneficiary's duties 
in the June 6, 2007 letter l7om states that the beneficiary "designed the control programs for the 
facility, and defmed and implemented the station's operating, maintenance, and safety protocols," helps the 
petitioner meet its "obligations under the Federal Power Act, the Public utilities Regulatory Policy Act, as well 
as permits issued by the Vermont Public Service Board and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources," 
coordinates "relations with State and Federal Inspectors, as well as, cooperative arrangements with the Vermont 
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service," and otherwise has "complete responsibility for [the petitioner's] largest 
power station." This job description encompasses the duties described on O*Net for a power plant operator, but 
also includes more duties and greater responsibilities than that of a power plant operator. The evidence 
presented does not provide information about others in similar position is the benefic& so we are unable to 
conclude that his salary is higher than others in the field. 
Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the pedorming arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Although the petitioner claimed that this category applied in the August 20, 2007 letter fiom, the 
plain language of the criterion requires evidence of commercial success in the perJorming arts. No claim has 
been made that the beneficiary's field involves the performing arts. Even if the category were expanded to 
include commercial success in all fields, the petitioner presented no evidence to show that the beneficiary was 
responsible for the petitioner's revenue. 
Page 7 
Accordingly, the beneficiary does not meet this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The record in this 
case does not establish that the beneficiary had achieved sustained national or international acclaim as an 
engineer or power plant chief of operations, engineering and safety placing him at the very top of his field at the 
time of filing. He is thus ineligible for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.