dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-D-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 19, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a testing and comm1ss10ning engineer, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary. See Immigra!ion and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(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 not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. ( 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief~ arguing that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
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 ali~n 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, 
r 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work 111 the area of 
extraordinary,ability, and 
(iii) the aiien'.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 of B-D-C-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for s·atisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioµer 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 Kazar;an v. USCJS, 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 crit~ria, 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. USCJS, 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 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner provides evidence of current employment at and 
1 Because he 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 found that 
the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the initial evidentiary criteria. , 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets six criteria, discussed below. We have reviewed 
all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien ·s receipt of lesser nationally or ;nternationally recognized prizes or 
award s for excellence in the.field o.l endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 20f 5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner offered various certificate s of recognition , achievement , and participation from his 
previous employer s, such as a "Certific ate of Recognition" from for "2008 Most Outstanding 
1 The documentation, in the form of paychecks and paystubs, does not show in what capacity the Petitioner is employed 
or whether he works in his field of expertise as a testing and commissioning engineer. 
2 
.
Matter of B-D-C-
Employee of the Year," 2 "Certificate of Achievement" from for 
"outstanding contribution and support to this organization," and a "Certificate of Participation" from 
for "participation in the construction of coal plans in Quezon." While 
the Petitioner offered evidence showing his receipt of certificates, he did demonstrate that they are 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field.3 · Here, he did 
-not show that his employer certificates are recognized by the overall field as awards for excellence. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the .fieldf?r which classffication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements ol their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner argues_ that he meets this criterion based on membership with the 
In order to satisfy this criterion, membership in the association· 
must be based on being judged by recognized national or inteniation_al experts as having outstanding 
achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 4 He submits a letter from 
who confirms the Petitioner's membership with and claims that "members of this 
society requires [sic] outstanding membership." 5 However, did not include specific, 
detailed, and source-cited information supporting his assertion .. Moreover, according to previously 
offered screenshots from "[a]II persons whose names now appear in the roll of 
professional mechanical engineers, mechanical engineers, and certified plant mechanics ... or those 
who may hereafter be included therein upon registration and payment of the required fees shall 
automatically become members." Thus, automatic membership is bestowed on those who are in the 
profession, register, and pay the required fees, which are not indicative of outstanding 
achievements. 6 In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that membership is judged by recognized 
national or international experts. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills 
~scr~rioo. ' 
( 
2 The record also contains a letter from CEO of confirming that the Petitioner received the 
company award, as well as t~e nomination criteria and screenshots from aagp.ph relating to background and history of 
the company. . . 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-000Y I, Evaluati on (~/" Evidence Suhmilled with Certain Form l-140 
Petitions ; Revisions to th e Adjudicat or·s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2. AFM Update ADI 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010) , 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. . ·· · · · 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted_ based tipon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). . . . . 
5 The Petitioner also provided a "Ce11ificate of Membership" from 
6 Id. at 7 (fin1ing that payment of a fee is not based on outstanding achievement in the field). 
3 
.
Matter of B-D-C-
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel. as a judge oft he work of 
others in the same or an allied.field of .specification for which class(fication is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitionei: claims to satisfy this criterion based on having "been invited, served and participated 
in the of 2011." In order to 
meet this criterion, the Petitioner must show that he participated in the judging of the work of others 
in the same or allied field of specialization. 7 Previously, the Petitioner submitted a "Certificate of 
Participation" from president of the student council for "for sharing [his] knowledge · 
on 2011at" ,2011. On 
appeal, the Petitioner provides a letter from "thank[ing] [him] for judging the Institute 
2011 at ." Here, the Petitioner's certificate 
and brief conflicts with the letter regarding whether'he judged at the 2011. 
Incon~istencies in the record must be resolved with independent, objective evidence pointing to 
where the truth lies .. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). He did not present 
credible, supporting evidence establishing that he participated as a judge at the event. Unresolved 
material inconsistencies may lead to reevaluate the reliability and sufliciency of other evidence 
submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not 
establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fir:, scholarly. artistic. athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
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 ini.pacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. · 
The Petitioner claims that "[ n ]umerous reference letters were submitted that provide contextual 
information about [his] significant contribution in his field." Specifically, the record reflects that he 
submitted three letters. who has an unidentified position at 
thanked the Petitioner for his "hard work and dedication." In addition, 
supervisor at indicated that the Petitioner "has shown 
an exceptional level of understanding and commitment to the construction process" and "is a 
dedicated professional who wins the respect of others through his hard work, integrity, and desire ." 
Further, general manager at 
recommended the Petitioner "for any employment in the field of Testing Engineering" and "fou nd 
that he is a self-driven person and full of initiatives. " · 1 
7 . . . 
See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
4 
.
Matter of B-D-C-
While t~e letters applaud the Petitioner's personal and job abilities, they do not identify original 
contributions that he has made to the field, nor do they explain how his contributions have been of 
major significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance to the field and its impact on subs'equent work add value.8 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 meetii-1g this criterion.9 Moreover, USCIS need not 
accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. The. US All )i..Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). , 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made original 
· contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that he qualifies for this criterion based on his previous employment with 
and The Petitioner references 
letters from and discussed above, as well as letters from 
and As it relates to a leading role, the evidence 
must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help 
to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 10 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must 
demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the 
outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but 
rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 11 
Although the letters corifirm the Petitioner's employment, they do not demonstrate that he performed 
in a leading or critical role for any of the companies. For instance, ch~imed that "[t]here 
is no doubt that [the Petitioner] plays a significant role in our company," without further elaborating 
or supporting his asse,rtions. Moreover, although maintained that the Petitioner 
"contributed to the successful release of LED anchor mastheads underwater · lightning [sic] 
products," he~did not explain significance of the contribution to or how it demonstrates a 
leading or critical role. In addition, indicated that he served as an adviser and mentor to 
the Petitioner and "showed himself as a promising skilled Mechanical testing expert." However, 
did not provide detailed information showing how his role as a testing expert was leading or 
critical to Further, stated that the Petitioner "reported to him when he worked as a 
supervisor in the filter production clean room department" and increased production by 25% in the 
I 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supm, at 8-9. . 
9 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at I 036, 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). 
10 · 
See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at I 0. · 1 
11 Id. 
5 
r 
.
_, 
Matter of B-D-C~ 
department. While discussed the Petitioner's impact on the department, he did not show 
how the Petitioner contributed to the success or stat~ding of overall. Here, the letters do not 
establish that he held a leading position, and they do not contain specific information signifying that 
he was essential to any of the companies. 12 
In addition, the letters do not contain information demonstrating that or have a 
distinguished reputation. 13 Moreover, although the P~titioner claims that the "companies are all 
reputable" and he provided screenshots from their websites, the record contains insufficient evidence 
to support his assertion. As such, the Petitioner did not show that the companies enjoy an ,eminent 
reputation. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign(ficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that he commands a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in his field. 14 He refer~nces a 
previously submitted letter from who indicated the Petitioner's salary was ¥5,500,000 
as a "Testing Engineer" and claimed that it"is I 0% beyond national coverage in Japan·." The record 
also contains a screenshot from payscale.com reflecting that the median wage for mechanical 
engineers in Japan is ¥3,916,083, with a salary range of ¥542,4 79 - ¥8,721,506. 
The Petitioner, however, did not provide comparative wage data of other testing engineers, nor did 
he establish that testing engineers are similar to mechanical engineers consistent with the regulatory 
criterion's requirement of "in relation to others in the field." See Matter ol Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 
954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour 
golfers); see also Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL 
enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 
1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). Regardless, 
even considering the average wages of mechanical engineers in Japan, the Petitioner's wages are not 
at the higher end of the scale. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish that beinK "10% beyond 
. the national coverage in Japan" is indicative of a "high salary." As such, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
12 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). . 
13 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
14 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005. I, supra ; at I I. 
6 
·, 
Matter of]!-D-C-
IU. CONCLhlSION 
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. 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 ofB-D-C-, ID# 2093436 (AAO Feb. 19; 2019)