dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF I-G-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 2, 2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE 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 )(1 )(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, Nebraska S~rvice Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
met the initial evidenc~ requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires 
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least 3 of 10 listed regulatory 
criteria. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal. 
The matter is now before us on a joint motion to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner maintains that 
he meets more than three criteria based on his awards, association memberships , published material, 
judging, original contributions, leading role, and high salary. In addition, he submits a self-
published book and information about We will 'deny the motion. 
I. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions or legal citation to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. A motion to 
reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). 
The Petitioner maintains that his Professional Engineer (P.E.) title and license are nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor under the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i). He cites to various state and federal court decisions , but the cited 
decisions are not relevant to the immigrant visa classification so~ght by the Petitioner. Furthermore, 
none of the cases he identified found that a P.E. title and license are nationally or internationally 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. While the Petitioner's credentials 
demonstrate proficiency in his occupation and authorize him to practice in Michigan and Wisconsin, 
he has not established that they constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
With respect to the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the Petitioner repeats earlier 
arguments that his membership in the meets this 
criterion. He cites to several U.S. Supreme Court and district court decisions, but again, the cited 
decisions are not relevant to this regulatory criterion or the immigrant visa classification he seeks. 
These decisions, which relate to prior involvement in litigation in U.S. federal courts with 
no discussion of the society's admission requirements, do not demonstrate· that the Petitioner 
satisfies the elements of this ,criterion. Without evidence showing that requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts, the 
Petitioner has not established 
that he meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner contends that we erred in our analysis of two articles he 
submitted under the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) by requiring that they be about 
him. The plain language of the regulatory criterion requires "published material about the alien." 
Articles that are not about the Petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See. e.g., Negro­
Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that articles 
about a show are not about the actor). The articles in are about 
students working on models to predict flooding in the 
The Petitioner is not mentioned in first article entitled, ' 
study to help predict flooding." In the second article, entitled ' students continue to 
study area flooding," the Petitioner is one of several individuals named in an accompanying 
photograph caption as part of the team, but he is not discussed in 
the article. 
As support for his contention that our analysis under the criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) was in 
error, the Petitioner cites Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995). In Muni, the court 
specifically stated that "all [the individual] need show is that there is '[p ]ublished material about 
[him] in professional or major trade publications or other major media, relating to [his] work in the 
field for which classification is sought.' 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii)." !d. at 445. In addition, the 
court noted that the articles need not reference the individual as a "star" as long as they are "about" 
him. !d. No part of Muni indicates that articles do not have to be "about" the petitioner, a plain 
language requirement set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Accordingly, the holdings in Muni do 
not contradict our finding that the submitted articles are not "about" the Petitioner. 1 Furthermore, 
1 We also note that, in contrast to the broad precedential authority ofthe case law of a United States circuit court we are 
not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising within the same district. See 
Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be 
given due consideration, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. !d. at 719. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
we determined that readership numbers of 11,000 to 15,000 did not elevate the 
newspaper to a form of major media. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires evidence of an individual's participation, either 
individually or on a panel, as the judge of others in the field. The Petitioner contends he meets this 
criterion based on his position with in which he 
provided advice and guidance on environmental and storm water policies, rules, regulatiOJ1S, and 
guidelines, as well as performing environment review, analysis, and coordination of transportation 
improvement projects. In our appellate decision, we found-that, although the Petitioner served on 
review committees that made recommendations regarding compliance with relevant rules and 
regulations, he did not demonstrate that he actually served as a judge of others consistent with the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion. We noted that "not every instance of reviewing work as 
part of one's job duties falls under this criterion." 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that the judging criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) "does not 
require the selection and participation process for serving . 
. . be indicative of national or 
international acclaim." Our appellate decision, however, did not mention or impose such a 
requirement under this criterion. In addition, the Petitioner notes that his reviews did not involve 
"internal 1review of students (professor) or coworkers (supervisor)." He further argues that his 
activities are consistent with Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0); Buletini v. INS, 860 
F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994); and Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). In 
contrast to aforementioned legal decisions, our findings under the judging criterion in this matter 
were not based on the Petitioner's inability to demonstrate that his participation "was the result of his 
having extraordinary ability" or indicative of "national or international acclaim." The Petitioner has 
not demonstrated error in our finding regarding this criterion. 
The regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence of the alien's original 
scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the 
field. The Petitioner argues that his work on a team to assist Michigan, in creating 
a model to predict flooding meets this criterion. The Petitioner states that his work "laid down the 
foundation of coming up with a flood prediction model that would give ' ... residents and 
more information to better handle the flooding.'" While 
the Petitioner was part of the team that worked on the model, he did not establish the impact of the 
model or project beyond For example, the record does not demonstrate that the 
model has been widely applied in the civil engineering field, that his report has been extensively 
cited by other engineers, or that his work otherwise rises to the level of an original scientific 
contribution of major significance in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown that our 
determination for this criterion was incorrect. 
With 
regard to the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the Petitioner 
maintains that his role as an assistant regional storm water and erosion control engineer for 
in the southeast region meets this criterion. We determined that, based on the Petitioner's position 
within the agency's organizational structure, he had not established that he performed in a leading 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
role for or its component offices.2 In response, the Petitioner offers the dictionary 
definition of the word "leading" as "providing direction or guidance." He contends that overseeing 
storm water and erosion control practices; providing advice, guidance, and methods on 
environmental and storm water policies, rules, regulations, and guidelines; and performing 
environment review, analysis, and coordination of transportation improvement projects are duties 
consistent with the definition of leading. When compared to other positions identified in 
hierarchy, however, the Petitioner's role as an engineer falls short of a leading role consistent with 
the plain language of this regulatory criterion. Furthermore, although the record includes evidence 
of the Petitioner's 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. 
Lastly, while the Petitioner submitted a screenshot regarding an overview of including its 
background and objectives, the submitted documentation does not demonstrate that the organization 
has a distinguished reputation. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Finally, the Petitioner contends that we erred in our interpretation of the regulatory criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), and that we did not consider his supplemental pay rate of $1 per hour. 
The record contains paystubs indicating that the Petitioner is compensated at a rate of $27.97 per 
hour, including his supplemental pay. Our appellate decision noted that this rate reflected "an 
approximate bi-weekly salary of $2200." . As the Petitioner did not compare his salary to other 
professional engineers, we determined that he had not shown a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services in relation to others in the field. On motion, the Petitioner cites to Buletini 
v. INS, 860 F. Supp. at 1232, n.l2 , which stated that USCIS "must intend that the salary of the 
[petitioner] be judged in relation to others who are in comparable circumstances." We do not contest 
this principle; however, in the present matter, the record does not include occupational wage data or 
salary survey results for professional engineers demonstrating that the Petitioner's salary was high 
relative to others in his field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not .shown that our determination for 
this criterion was incorrect. 
With 
regard to the regulatory criteria discussed above, the legal citations offered by the Petitioner do 
not establish that our appellate findings were based on an incorrect application of law, ,regufation, or 
USCIS policy. In addition, the motion does not establish that our latest decision was incorrect based 
on the evidence of record at the time of the decision. Therefore, the motion to reconsider is denied. 
2 The record contains organizational structure showing that it has three executive offices and five divisions, 
including the 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 I 0 positions, including I supervisor, 2 leads, and 2 engineers, one of 
which is the Petitioner. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of 1-G-K-
B. Motion to Reopen 
According to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
With the current motion , the Petitioner submits information from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia 
stating that has a circulation of 11 ,439 on weekdays , 11,855 on Saturdays, and 
14,723 on Sundays. We note that there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from 
this open, user-edited website. 3 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 
2008). Nonetheless, the aforementioned readership numbers do not elevate to a 
form of major media relative to other newspapers, nor do the circulation figures affect our finding 
that the articles in question were not about the Petitioner. Accordingly, the information provided 
from Wikipedia does not overcome our previous findings that the Petitioner does not meet the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In addition, the Petitioner provides a copy of a self-published book he authored entitled 
He contends that the book satisfies the regulatory 
criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The Petitioner's book 
was published in 2016 afte.r the filing 
date of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on January 5, 2015. Eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter o.fKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Regardless, the Petitioner has not offered supporting evidence indicating that 
his book constitutes an original scientific contribution of major significance in the field of civil 
_engineering. Therefore , the Petitioner has not overcome our finding that he does not meet the 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As the evidence does not demonstrate eligibility, the motion to reopen is denied. 
II. CONCLUSION 
As the evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome the grounds underlying 
our previous decision and the motion to reconsider does not demonstrate our latest decision was based 
3 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer : 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure ofthe project allows anyone with an 
Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been 
reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable 
information . 
. . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The 
content of any given article may recently have been changed , vandaliz~d or altered by someone whose 
opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http://en. wikipedia .org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_ disclaimer , accessed on January 3 I, 2017, copy incorporated into 
the record of proceedings . 
5 
Matter of 1-G-K-
on an incorrect application of law or USC IS policy, the motions are denied. The Petitioner has not met 
his burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of 1-G-K-, ID# 194293 (AAO Feb. 2, 2017) 
6