dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20215990 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 13, 2022 
Fonn I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, anl !engineering manager, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner bad satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that his entry would substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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(b)(2). The 
implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate international 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 be or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three 
of the ten criteria 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 evidence if they are 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 the initial evidence requirements (through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria), 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. USCIS, 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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
After earning a Bachelor of Engineering degree, specializing inl I engineering, from the 
Universit: ofl I in Australia, the Petitioner has worked since 2000 as an engineer in 
I IFollowing employment forl I and later as a consultant, the 
Petitioner began working for in 2011. Since 2013, he has worked for in the United States 
in various capacities. When he filed the petition in May 2021, he was ac=J engineering manager at 
I I Office in I I Texas, holding nonimmigrant status as an L-lA 
intracompany transferee in a managerial or executive capacity. The Petitioner states that has 
offered him "the position of Engineering Manager 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied four of these criteria, and to have submitted comparable 
evidence relative to a fifth criterion, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles ( comparable evidence); 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner established a leading or critical role for a distinguished 
organization and high remuneration. We agree with the Director regarding these two criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts: "For his [petition] to be granted, [the Petitioner] needs to establish 
just one of the three [ remaining claimed] criteria ... and to demonstrate his entry will substantially 
benefit prospectively the United States." But under the Kazarian framework, meeting three 
evidentiary criteria does not automatically or presumptively establish sustained national or 
international acclaim. The final merits determination must show that the record as a whole establishes 
such acclaim. The Petitioner asserts that he has established the required acclaim, but he does not 
elaborate beyond asserting that he meets three or more of the initial evidentiary criteria, which is 
insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof in this matter. 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that he has met a third criterion through participating as a 
judge of the work of others. Because the satisfaction of three criteria is sufficient for us to proceed to 
a final merits determination, we need not discuss other claimed criteria at length. Nevertheless, the 
2 
final merits determination will take into consideration the evidence that the Petitioner has submitted 
regarding his claims of original contributions of major significance and comparable evidence of 
scholarly articles and leading or critical role. 
Because the Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not established eligibility. 
Much of the evidence in the record concerns the Petitioner's role and reputation withinl I The 
Petitioner holds a position of significant responsibility at earning compensation in excess of half a 
million dollars per year. But, while we acknowledge thar==J is a majorl I company, that fact 
alone is not sufficient to establish national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner asserts that his "ideas have also left a lasting impact on thel I industry, given that 
many of the world's topl I companies are shareholders in nearly all of I projects." But the 
Petitioner has also repeatedly argued that much of his work is confidential. For example, the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) calls for evidence of authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. The Petitioner has asserted that internal 
L__Jmaterials constitute comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), because it cannot be 
published outside the company owing to its proprietary nature. 2 
There is an obvious tension between the two assertions that, on the one hand, the Petitioner has an impact 
throughout the industry, while on the other hand much of his work product cannot be disseminated outside 
of These conflicting perspectives complicate any attempt to show that the Petitioner has earned 
acclaim beyond the company that employs him. The assertion without evidence that I success has 
a "ripple effect" among other companies, and that the Petitioner's innovations have spurred rival 
companies to make improvements to their own practices, does not translate to wider recognition of the 
Petitioner individually, which is what the statute and regulations require. 
1 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that USCIS officers should then 
evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
2 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of comparable evidence in instances when the 
regulatory criteria do not readily apply to the occupation. If professional or major trade publications exist in the field of 
I I engineering, then the "scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) should readily apply to the 
Petitioner's occupation. The Petitioner contends that there are few such publications, but nevertheless they do exist. The 
Petitioner submits a web printout listing several hundred journal titles, only one of which has a title 
that clearly relates to the industry. This list of journal titles is not comprehensive; rather, it is a list of journals 
issued by one publisher, identified only by the copyright notice attributed to "Open Access Publisher." The several hundred 
titles on the submitted list amount to only a small fraction of the "28,100 active scholarly peer-reviewed English-language 
journals" mentioned elsewhere in the record. The available evidence, although incomplete, is sufficient for us to conclude 
that the "scholarly articles" criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) readily applies tol I engineering. 
3 
Letters intended to show how the Petitioner has impacted the field include qualifiers that appear to limit 
the scope of his contributions. For example, they may indicate that particular safety and efficiency 
initiatives are used on numerouQprojects in the I which does not indicate adoption 
throughout the field. Assertions of wider impact, influence, or setting an example for the industry lack 
specificity and corroboration. 
The Petitioner asserts that he "developed a plan to enable a crane to continue working safely [ during] 
helicopter operations," whereas prior practice was to "shut down all crane operations prior to landing a 
helicopter" onl I The Petitioner contends that "[t]his is a major change in the 
industry," but he does not show that the practice has been adopted outside I I Rather, the Petitioner 
describes a pilot program that has only recently begun implementation on a small number of SSuch 
innovations may present important cost reductions for the Petitioner's employer, but he has not shown 
that they have resulted in sustained national or international acclaim. 
Furthermore, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether the Petitioner personally devised certain initiatives 
and projects, or, rather, promoted and shepherded ideas that originated elsewhere. For instance, the 
operations manager of I I one ofl I contractors, states that the Petitioner led "the 
collaborative development and implementing of ___________ procedures for 
and I I Used in other parts of the industry, [ the Petitioner] led the implementation of these 
processes/or collaborations between and (Emphasis added.) The record does not 
establish that this is the Petitioner's original contribution. The letter's phrasing suggests that processes 
were already "[u]sed in other parts of the industry," in which case the Petitioner's adoption of those 
methods "for collaborations between andl may have benefited those two companies, 
but it would not have amounted to an original contribution on his part. 
The record shows that the Petitioner has served on various committees and review panels involving other 
companies and government agencies. But the record does not establish how common or uncommon it is 
for high-ranking engineers in the Petitioner's field to serve in this way. Furthermore, while some of these 
bodies included individuals from different companies and government agencies, the above-mentioned 
general manager states that the Petitioner "was selected b leadership for participation in teams and 
committees." Thus, his selection does not inherently demonstrate recognition outside the company. 
Without evidence to provide a broader context, the Petitioner's participation in these bodies is not 
inherently an indication of sustained national or international acclaim. The Director acknowledged the 
Petitioner's apparent prominence within finding that he performs in a leading or critical role for an 
organization with a distinguished reputation, fulfilling the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii); the 
question is not whether the Petitioner's work is important td I but rather, whether he has achieved 
the broader recognition, rising to the level of sustained national or international acclaim, that the statute 
and regulations demand. 
For the above reasons, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established the sustained national or 
international acclaim required for eligibility. Therefore, we need not consider the separate question 
of whether his entry would substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 3 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the recognition of his work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
We will dismiss the appeal, because the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5