dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 19, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an engineer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. 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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief: stating that he satisfies at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 m 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 
.
Matter ofY-L-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(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. USC!S, 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 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an engineer employed at the where he is 
conducting research on developing control algorithms for next generation power system. 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 ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In 
denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only two criteria: judging under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal , the Petitioner maintains that he also meets original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and conclude it does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
Evidence oft he alien 's participation. either individually or on a panel. as ajudge of the work q{ 
others in the same or an alliedfield o.f :,pec(fication for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director found that the Petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others. The record 
indicates that the Petitioner served as a reviewer of manuscripts for professional publications , such 
as the Accordingly , we agree with the 
Director's determination, and the Petitioner demonstrated that he meets this criterion . 
2 
.
Matter of Y-L-
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions o.f major sign~ficance in the field 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(h)(3 )(v). 
The Petitioner contends that his scholarly articles published in top journals, his high citations to his 
articles, and recommendation letters demonstrate his eligibility for this 
criterion. In order to satisfy 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has he made 
original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example. a 
petitioner may show that the 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. 
Regarding his scholarly articles , the Petitioner claims that the publication of his research in leading 
journals is evidence of its significance , but the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that his 
written work has been considered of major significance in the field. The Petitioner states that his 
published articles are in top ranked journals that are extremely selective with a rigorous peer review 
process, making publication in them a rare accomplishment achieved by only the very best 
researchers in the field. For example, the Petitioner explains that he published in two journals that 
have acceptance rates between 10% and 15%. The regulations contain a separate criterion 
concerning the authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204 .5(h)(3)(vi). In Kazarian v. USCJS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) , the court held 
that publications and presentations are 
not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent 
evidence that they were of "major significance" in the field. In 20 I 0, the Kazarian court reaffirmed 
its holding that we did not abuse our discretion in finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated 
contributions of major significance . 596 F.3d at 1122. There is no presumption that every published 
article in a competitive journal is a contribution of major significance in the field; rather , a petitioner 
must document the actual impact of his articles. Here, although the information provided indicates 
the acceptance rates of articles for these journals. such evidence does not show how his articles are 
considered by the field to be of major significance. 
As further evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner offered documentation indicating that his 
written work has been cited approximately 346 times, including his two articles having 72 citations 
each and a third article having 53 citations . Commonly, citations can serve as an indication that the 
field has taken interest in a petitioner ' s work . Although the Petitioner submitted samples of articles 
that cited to his work, they do not feature his articles or extensively discuss them to signal a 
contribution of major significance in the field. The Petitioner also contends that his articles have 
been cited at a much higher rate than those of other engineers. For example, the record reflects the 
article ' published in the 
garnered 72 citations, and was one of the top one percent most 
cited articles in the field for the year it was published. Even though the Petitioner provides evidence 
that his articles were among the top cited articles by field within the year they were published, he has 
not sufficiently identified the specific contributions he has made through this written work or 
explained their significance to the field. 
3 
.
Matter ofY-L-
On appeal, the Petitioner notes that the recommendation letters "contained detailed discussion of his 
contributions and specifically discussed corroborating documentary evidence and why it showed that 
his work was majorly significant." Upon review of the letters, several of them highlight that the 
Petitioner was asked to present his research findings at conferences and was invited to do the peer 
review for prestigious journals. 1 For example, the letter from assistant 
professor at the stated that "including [the Petitioner] among their reviewing 
staff [of the journal] is a strong endorsement of his status as a leading researcher in mechanical 
engineering and particularly in power system operations." The letter from 
associate professor at the also asserts that since the Petitioner 
"reviews articles for so many journals and conferences [it] shows that his pioneering 
contributions to 
the areas of energy systems research have placed him at the forefront of the field of mechanical 
engineering." However, the authors do not explain how the Petitioner's conferences or peer reviews 
have impacted or influenced the field to establish original contributions of major significance. 
Participation in a conference demonstrates that his findings were shared with others, but being 
chosen to present in-and-of-itself does not indicate the major significance of his contribution. 
Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v) absent evidence that 
they were of "major significance." Kazarian, 580 F.3d at I 036, a.f('d in part 596 F.3d at 1115. In 
20 I 0, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse our discretion in our adverse 
finding relating to this criterion. 596 F.3d at II22. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his 
presentations or peer review rise to a level of original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Further, several letters mention the Petitioner's citation history without specifying how his written 
work is considered an original contribution of major significance in the field. For example, 
stated that "these papers have been cited dozens of times, which clearly demonstrates that 
other researchers from throughout the field of mechanical engineering and its dependent fields have 
relied on his findings and that he has impacted the research community as a whole.'' In addition. 
assistant professor at indicated that "[g]iven the high number of 
citations to his work, it is clear that [the Petitioner's] international peers are frequently engaging in 
this dialogue, testing his results, and incorporating his findings into their own projects.'' Although 
both letters further discuss the Petitioner's original research, the authors have not sufficiently 
explained the 
contributions that were made through his cited works, or established that the citations 
are reflective of a contribution "of major significance in the field." 
In addition, the recommendation letters explain that the Petitioner's research is in the application of 
automation technologies to the improvement of energy etliciency and renewable energy 
technologies, and they discuss his projects and new models. Several of the recommendation letters 
indicate that the Petitioner's research will help with the environment. For example, the letter from 
stated that "his work is also important in etTorts to reduce the negative impact 
that the power grid has on the environment." The letter from noted that the 
"United States government has made the integration of renewable energy sources a major goal," and 
"[g]iven the urgent need for energy solutions that do not contribute to 
global warming, the value of 
1 
While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each letter present in the record. 
4 
.
Matter ofY-L-
[the Petitioner's] research to the United States is plain." Furthermore, the letter from 
stated that "with respect to the wealth of benefits which the United States will enjoy as a result of an 
improved power system, it is certainly in the nation's best interest to allow [the Petitioner's] 
uninterrupted investigations of power systems control algorithms." The assertion that the Petitioner 
may prospectively help the environment does not show that the Petitioner's work has already had 
this effect. The expectation of a few regarding the possible future impact of the Petitioner's work is 
not evidence that his work is considered by the greater field to be of major significance. 
Similarly, several of the letters discuss how the Petitioner's finding "will" shape the course of 
renewable energy solutions that have not yet been implemented. For example, the letter from 
stated that his "findings continue to shape important efforts to develop novel models and 
simulations for improving the efficiency of power systems and reducing their emissions." In 
addition, the letter from senior scientific engineering associate at 
indicated that he utilized the Petitioner's research in his own research 
and "I was able to successfully demonstrate that these methods could be deployed to ensure the 
efficient use of renewable energy." also discussed how another research group used 
the Petitioner's research results and "this group successfully devise a new algorithm 
that can be used 
in HV AC systems to ensure smooth and stable power operation when utilizing solar power sources." 
These statements, however, are prospective and do not show that the Petitioner's work has already 
had this efTect. Again, statements regarding the anticipated impact of the Petitioner's work are not 
evidence that he has made contributions of major significance. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted letters from other researchers who have cited to the Petitioner's 
articles in their own written work. For instance, stated that he "found his studies 
useful to my own research in power systems and cited his paper." professor at the 
also stated that her "work was deeply informed by [the Petitioner's] 
previous methods, and I used his work as a guide for the types of features I would need to implement 
in my own multi-building model." Although the authors indicate that the Petitioner's research has 
helped their own work, they did not show or describe how the research has widely impacted the 
field, so as to demonstrate original contributions of major significance. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 
3d at 134-35 (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). 
The letters considered above do not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's contributions 
rise to a level consistent with major significance. 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. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, a(f"d 
in part 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the USCIS' conclusion that the 
"letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were 
insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. Moreover, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. The US. Att 'y Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
.
Matter ofY-L-
The phrase "contributions of major significance" connotes that the Petitioner's work has 
significantly impacted the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. 
Supp. 3d 126, 135-136 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013). As discussed above, the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently shown that his work, once published or presented, has risen to the level of contributions 
of major significance in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field. in pn?lessional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C. FR.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner authored articles that were published m conferences and 
professional journals, such as and Therefore, 
the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and we agree with that determination. 
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 level of expertise 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 ). In 
the case here, the record shows the Petitioner has served as a peer reviewer, and that he published 
multiple frequently cited articles between 2012 and 2016. Regarding his judging experience, the 
Petitioner has not shown that his manuscript and paper reviews are indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. Without evidence 
that sets him apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has a consistent history of 
completing a substantial number of review requests relative to others, served in an editorial position 
for a distinguished journal or publication, or chaired a technical committee for a reputable 
conference , the Petitioner has not established his peer review requests are reflective of being among 
that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Further. 
the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently demonstrated that his authorship and citation history is consistent 
with being among the small percentage at the top of his field or having a ' 'career of acclaimed work 
in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). While the 
Petitioner and his references emphasize the statistics regarding his citations and the prestige of the 
journals and conferences with which he has been involved, the overall record does not sufficiently 
illustrate or explain the Petitioner's work and its significance to the field. In sum, considering the 
full measure of the Petitioner's ability and achievements, the record does not show his work has 
Matter (~fY-L-
been recognized at a level indicative of a record of sustained acclaim or that he is among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofY-L-, ID# 786137 (AAO Jan. 19, 2018)