dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

MATTER OF A-8-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUL. 5, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
l 
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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not received a major, internationally recognized award, 
and had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that his evidence met the eligibility requirements for an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 
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 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 of A-B-A-
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). The regulation at 8 C.F:R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary'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 Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 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. 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 is a project assistant engineer at in 
Missouri. Because the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that he received a major, 
internationally recognized award under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 ), and 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 determined that the Petitioner did not meet any of the initial evidentiary 
criteria. 
In addition to his statements . he made on his Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the 
Petitioner indicated that he would be submitting a brief and documentation within 30 days of the 
filing of the appeal. However, as of the date of this decision , we have received nothing further. 
Accordingly, the record is considered complete as it now stands. On his Form 1-290B, the Petitioner 
makes references to the one-time achievement and three criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record of proceedings, and it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has a one-time achievement or fulfills the plain language requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of A-B-A-
A. One-Time Achievement 
The Petitioner claimed that his award at the 
constitutes a one-time achievement. The Director determined that 
the Petitioner's evidence, which included the competition's rules and a letter from 
did not show that the award is internationally recognized as a major award. On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that the Director "did not understand the provided evidences," and he "will 
provide adequate convincing details in the brief which [he] will be sending out to [us] in due time." . 
Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who have 
risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a one­
time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards qualifying 
as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), reprinted 
in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report specifically cited to the 
Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy major, 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic 
Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel 
Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless 
of the nationality of the·awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large 
cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by 
Congress that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the field as one of 
the top awards. 
We agree with the Director's evaluation of the evidence. While the Petitioner's documentation 
related to the rules of the competition and confirmed his participation, it did not show that the award 
is internationally recognized as a "one-time achievement." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(J) 
requires the one-time achievement to be "a major, international [ly] recognized award." The 
documentation, however, does not discuss the international stature or reputation of the event or 
otherwise indicate that the award is recognized as a major, international award. The Petitioner did 
not present, for example, evidence that the competition or award is widely reported by international 
media comparable to other major, globally recognized awards such as Oscar or Olympic medal 
winners. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets the requirements of a one­
time achievement. 
department manager at the confirmed that the Petitioner 
participated in a robotics senior design and "[c]redit was awarded once the design was showcased at the competition and 
the robot has now been donated to Robotics team for educational purposes." 
3 
.
Maller of A-B-A-
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) . 
The Director determined that the Petitioner's ' from the 
in Nigeria, did not fulfill this criterion. The 
Petitioner does not reference or contest the decision of the Director for this criterion. Although the 
Petitioner submitted the eligibility requirements to apply for the scholarship and letters confirming 
the selection criteria and his receipt of it, the record does not demonstrate that the award is nationally 
or internationally recognized for excellence in the field consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). As such, we agree with the findings of the Director that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he satisfies this 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 classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record contains a letter from broadcaster for 
who stated that he interviewed the Petitioner twice on programs in October and 
November 2015 relating to his robotics invention. In addition, indicated that he was 
the publisher for two October and November 2015 articles about the Petitioner and his robotics 
projects that were posted on dandalinvoa.com, and the record includes screenshots of the articles. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the media that published his work is not a local media and has a 
significant national distribution, and he "will articulate the issue in the brief document." 
While claimed that the radio program "had an audience of over 45 million people," and 
website has "over fifty thousand plus," the Petitioner did not provide any supporting evidence, such 
as rating or circulation statistics from independent sources, to demonstrate professional or major 
trade _publications or other major media. Moreover, the Petitioner did not present the transcript of 
the radio interview to establish that it reflects published material about him relating to his work. 
Furthermore, the screenshots reflect quotes by the Petitioner rather than .. published material about 
him. Accordingly , the Petitioner has not shown 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). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's submission of recommendation letters, including one 
from volunteer and outreach manager for did not 
demonstrate that he made original contributions of major significance in the field. On appeal, the 
Petitioner claims that he "did not provide the reference letter as an [sic] evidence to fulfill the criteria 
4 
Mauer of A-B-A-
[sic]," that he "provided other documents to serve as evidence," and that "[t]here is a discrepancy or 
a mistake by the officer who reviewed the case." 
At the initial filing of the petition, the Petitioner specifically indicated that the letter from 
reflected his contribution in the field. Moreover, the record does not contain evidence, 
including his recommendation letters, showing that his contributions are majorly significant in the 
field. Further, the Petitioner has not identified which evidence he claims demonstrates his eligibility 
for this criterion. 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 of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) . 
The Director found that the Petitioner's -participation at the did not qualify for this 
criterion because it was scientific in nature rather than artistic. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that 
"[t]here is a lot more of artistic in it," and he "will detail [his] justification_ in [his] review letter that 
would be sent to [us] shortly." In order to demonstrate eligibility for this criterion, the Petitioner 
must show that his work was on display, and the venues were artistic exhibitions or showcases.2 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the scientific competition constituted an artistic venue that 
I 
displayed his work. Accordingly, we concur with the Director's assessment , and the Petitioner did 
not establish that he meets this criterion. 
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 K:izarian, 596 F.3d at l 119-20. 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 of A-B-A-, ID# 1495269 (AAO Jul. 5, 2018) 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petiti,bns: Revisions to the Adjudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI /-14 9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www .uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html . 
5