dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

MATTER OF I-G-K-
Non-Precedent Decisi~n of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 3, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a professional 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 petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not sa~isfied any of the regulatory criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, stating that he 
meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
(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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.P.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 qualifyi11g documentation that meets at least 
three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x) (including items such as awards, 
published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). ' 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by 
the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a professional engineer with the 
focusing on storm water and erosion control for the southeast region of the state. As 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the alternate criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that he meets the awards criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the 
membership criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published material criterion under 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the judging criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the original 
contributions criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the leading or critical role criterion under 8 
C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the high salary criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 2204.5(h)(3)(ix). We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record of proceedings, and we find the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Drcumentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field o.f endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner contends that his "Professional Engineer" title is an award as demonstrated by his 
licenses issued by Michigan and Wisconsin. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
the Petitioner to document his nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards foe 
excellence. Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his professional title amounts to an award 
or prize. Rather, the Petitioner's documentation reflects that in order to be licensed and regulated as 
a professional engineer in a state, an ipdividual must meet the minimum requirements, such as 
graduating from an accredited college or university with a degree in engineering, completing written 
examinations, and accumulating engineering experience. Although the Petitioner's Michigan and 
Wisconsin licenses show that he complied with the respective state statutes and is authorized to 
practice as a professional engineer, he has not established that his title and licenses are nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class~fication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of 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 claims eligibility for this criterion based on his membership with the 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that his professional 
engineering license is an outstanding achievement, and that he only qualified for membership based 
on his license. He cites a U.S. District Court decision in which the court noted, in part, that less than 
1 0 percent of engineering graduates and about 17 percent of licensed engineers are members. 1 
Furthermore, the Petitioner states that was later involved in a case before the U.S. Supreme 
Court, and that this fact "by itself indicates members are recognized national or international 
expert[ s]." 
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, 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. 
Although the Petitioner submitted historical information and promotional material, including 
code of ethics, he did not establish membership requirements. Moreover, even if 
1 United States v. 389 F. Supp. (D.D.C., 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
holding a professional engineering license is a stipulation for membership, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that possessing a professional license is tantamount to an outstanding achievement. 
Furthermore, the plain language of this regulation requires that the petitioner's membership be 
judged by recognized national or international experts. The association's prior involvement with an 
unrelated \antitrust lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court does not satisfy this requirement. Without 
evidence establishing that membership with requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class(fication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted two articles from the 
The articles are about students working on 
models to predict flooding in the The Petitioner is not mentioned in first 
article entitled, ' In the second article, entitled 
students continue to study area flooding," the Petitioner is credited with 
others in the accompanying photograph caption as part of the 
team, but he is not discussed in the article. 
In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be about the petitioner and, as stated in 
the regulations, be published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. As 
neither article is about the Petitioner, but rather students studying flood models, they 
do not meet the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Furthermore, regarding the publication 
status of the Petitioner claims on appeal that the circulation statistics from 
Wikipedia indicate an approximate readership of 11,000- 15,000. Notwithstanding that the record 
c,ioes not contain the information from Wikipedia, the Petitioner did not establish that such 
~irculation is reflective of a major medium. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed, he did not 
demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied.field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that his position with entails overseeing storm water and 
erosion control practices in the southeastern portion of the state. In addition, as indicated in his job 
description, the Petitioner provides advice, guidance, and methods on environmental and storm 
water policies, rules, regulations, and guidelines, as well as performing environment review, 
analysis, and coordination of transportation improvement projects. The Petitioner provided emails 
of his invitations and comments from review meetings for various water projects. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence that the petitioner has served as "a 
judge" of the work of others. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging 
capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The 
documentation mentioned above indicates that the Petitioner served on review committees that made 
recommendations regarding compliance with relevant rules and regulations. The Petitioner, 
however, did not demonstrate that he actually served as a judge consistent with the plain language of 
this regulatory criterion. Not every instance of reviewing work as part of one's job duties falls under 
this criterion. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the .field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
i 
The Petitioner states that his work on a team to assist Michigan, in creating a 
model to predict flooding · meets this criterion . In addition, the Petitioner references the two 
newspaper articles previously discussed under the published material criterion and submits the 
which is co-authored by the Petitioner. Although the documentation 
shows that the Petitioner was part of the team that worked on the model, he did not establish the 
impact of the model or project in the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a 
fihding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact 
in the field). In fact, the record does not indicate whether the model was ever implemented in 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate, for example, that the model has been widely 
applied or th_at his report has been extensively cited by others. Without supporting evidence, 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 indicates that his role as an assistant regional storm water and erosion control 
engineer for in the southeast region meets this criterion. The record contains 
organizational structure showing that it has three executive offices and five divisions, includingthe 
in which the Petitioner is employed. 
Under there are four offices, in which the Petitioner works in the southeast region sub­
office under the regional office section. Within the southeast region, there are 1 0 positions, 
including 1 supervisor, 2 leads, and 2 engineers, one of which is the Petitioner. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the organizational hierarchy and the role's 
matching duties. Based on the Petitioner's position within the organizational structure, he has not 
established that he performed in a leading role for or its component offices. When 
compared to other positions identified in the hierarchy, the Petitioner's role as an engineer falls short 
of a leading role consistent with the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
Further, a critical role is evident from its overall impact on the organization or establishment. 
Although the Petitioner submitted evidence of his participation on-~review committees, he did not 
demonstrate how his position is critical to or the southeast region sub-office. 
The Petitioner, for example, did not show how his role as an assistant engineer in a sub-office 
influenced or impacted overall. 
Finally, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the organizations 
or establishments to have a distinguished reputation. While the Petitioner submitted a screenshot 
regarding an overview of including its background and objectives, the submitted 
documentation does not demonstrate that the organization enjoys a distinguished reputation. For 
these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating his eligibility under 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). 
The record contains copies of the Petitioner's paystubs from the reflecting an 
approximate bi-weekly salary of $2,200. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires the Petitioner to show that he has commanded a high salary "in relation to 
others in the field." The Petitioner, however, did not compare his salary to other professional 
engineers. See Matter of 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 ofNHL defensive player 
to salary of other NHL defensemen). In the present case, the evidence the Petitioner submits does 
not establish that he has received a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services 
in relation to others in the field. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, 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 listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) 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," and (2) that the individual "has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we 
need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the 
6 
I 
\ 
Matter of 1-G-K-
record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise 
required for the classification sought. 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of 1-G-K-, ID# 11965 (AAO Oct. 3, 2016)