dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-S-F-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 1, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an engineer, seeks classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability" in the 
sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). 
This classification makes visas available to foreign nationals 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 Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), which necessitates 
either 1) documentation of a one-time major achievement, or 2) materials that meet at least three of ten 
regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence, and 
asserts that the Director erred in concluding he did not meet the original contributions of major 
significance criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). In addition, he states that he has risen to the 
very top in the field of control theory, "an interdisciplinary branch of engineering and mathematics," 
and dynamic systems, a concept that "has its origins in Newtonian mechanics," and that he has 
sustained national or international acclaim through his work in the field. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate his extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in his field through extensive documentation. 
Specifically, section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
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, 
Matter of H-S-F-
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in 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 has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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 Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 
1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming the proper application of Kazarian by U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS)), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 
3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); 
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 users 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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record supports the Director's findings that the Petitioner meets the participation as a judge 
criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Although the Petitioner has documented the originality of his research and 
shown some impact in the field, we have concerns about the level of significance in the field. 
Ultimately, in a final merits determination, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established his 
eligibility for the classification sought. Specifically, he has not demonstrated sustained national or 
international acclaim or submitted extensive evidence confirming that his achievements have been 
recognized in the field. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-F-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner, as initial evidence, may present a one­
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner has 
not asserted or shown that he is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to that of the 
Nobel Prize. As such, he must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation listed under 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or file comparable evidence establishing his eligibility under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4), to meet the basic eligibility requirements. As acknowledged by the Director, the 
Petitioner's peer review of manuscripts for publication and authorship of scholarly articles meet the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient documentation to show that he 
met the nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), or the published materials about the Petitioner criterion under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The Director also found that the Petitioner did not file qualifying comparable 
evidence demonstrating his eligibility under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). On appeal, the Petitioner has 
not specifically challenged those findings. Accordingly, he has abandoned these issues, as he did not 
timely raise them on appeal. Sepulveda v. United States Att 'y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th 
Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 
2011) (the United States District Court found the plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal). On appeal, as relating to the criteria listed under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), 
the Petitioner challenges only the Director's finding on the original contributions of major 
significance criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the .field. 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion, because of his patent entitled 
his authorship of scientific materials, 
his participation in conferences, other scientists' citations to his written work, his involvement in 
research projects, and reference letters that discussed his contributions in the field. 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner's contributions must be both original and of major significance in 
the field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase "major significance" are not 
superfluous and, thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28,31 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoted inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2d Cir. 2003)). The 
plain language of the criterion dictates that a petitioner's contributions must be original, such that he 
is the first person or one of the first people to have done the research in the field, and that his 
contributions must be of major significance in the field, such that his work significantly advanced or 
impacted the field as a whole. Regardless of the field, the phrase "contributions of major 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the Petitioner has filed and will address those criteria he asserts he meets or for 
which he has submitted relevant and probative documentation. 
3 
Matter of H-S-F-
significance in the field" requires substantiated impacts beyond one's collaborators, employer, 
clients or customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom 
dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
In addition, it is insufficient to document one's potential influence; rather, the criterion requires a 
showing that a petitioner's scientific findings have already significantly impacted the field. See id. 
at 134-36. 
While the Petitioner has shown the original research he performed on projects with major funding 
from U.S. government sources has had some impact in the field, we question the level of 
significance in the field. As this issue relates to the quality of the evidence, however, we prefer, in 
this case, to address it in the final merits determination. As discussed below, we will consider the 
record as a whole to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated he is an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In the final merits determination, we consider the totality of the record to determine if a petitioner has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim,2 and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 3 making him one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. If so, a petitioner has met the requisite burden of proof and established eligibility for visa 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." See § 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. 
The documents we consider in the final merits analysis may include achievements that were not directly 
applicable to one of the criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and comparable evidence 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). Also, a petitioner may request that submissions that do not meet any of 
the enumerated criteria, and do not qualify as comparable, be considered within a final merits analysis. 
In a final merits analysis, we first discuss and analyze the foreign national's accomplishments to provide 
a framework to perform an overall, final determination. We then weigh all of the filings together to 
determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the respective 
field of endeavor. See § 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at1119-20. 
In this case, the Petitioner's judging experience does not exhibit national or international acclaim, nor 
does it reveal a high level of recognition in his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the 
2 "Sustained" means to support or maintain, especially over a long period. Black's Law Dictionary 1585 (9th ed. 2009). 
Therefore, the foreign national must have maintained the national or international acclaim over a period of time through 
the date of filing to demonstrate his eligibility. 
3 While the statute requires extensive documentation, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of the filings 
alone but by their quality. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). 
We "examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the 
context of the totality of the evidence." !d. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-F-
Petitioner maintains that he has served as a peer reviewer for 13 journals and conferences. The record 
does not support this assertion. In his initial filing, the Petitioner submitted email correspondence 
inviting him to serve as a reviewer for conferences and publications, such as the 
The correspondence confirmed that the Petitioner reviewed three articles: 
In his letter, a professor at the 
verified that the 
Petitioner reviewed three scientific papers, noting that he was impressed with the Petitioner's review 
capability. 
In addition to these three articles, the Petitioner maintained in his initial filing, specifically in his 
curriculum vitae, that he had served as a reviewer for other articles, journals and conferences. The 
record does not support this assertion. The Petitioner submitted authors' responses to reviewers' 
comments and scholarly articles that he indicated he had reviewed. The materials, however, do not 
specifY who reviewed these articles. The record does not verifY that the Petitioner has reviewed articles 
in addition to the three referenced above, or that he has accepted all invitations to serve as a peer 
reviewer. Similarly, although he provided in his curriculum vitae that he was an editor for 
- -
and a reviewer for other journals and conferences, he did not substantiate his 
associations with these publications or organizations. 
The nature of a petitioner's judging experience is a relevant consideration as to whether he has sustained 
national or international acclaim. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Examples that might set a petitioner 
apart from others in his field include evidence that he has received and completed independent requests 
for review from a substantial number of journals or conferences, served in editorial positions for 
distinguished journals, and/or chaired technical committees for reputable conferences. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner has not shown that reviewing three articles is indicative of his national or 
international acclaim in the field. Peer review is a routine element of the process by which scientific 
journals select articles for publication. An individual's participation in this process, in this case, 
reviewing three articles for two publications, does not confirm that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim or that he is at the very top of his field. Multiple other scientists who have 
provided reference letters for the Petitioner are editors, are on the editorial board, or have performed 
peer review for a dozen or more scientific journals. For example, a professor in the 
reviewed manuscripts for more than 21 international journals, was an associate editor for several 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-F-
publications, and reviewed proposals for the 
and other governmental agencies. a professor in the 
peer reviewed over 2,000 articles and was an associate editor for various journals. The 
Petitioner's limited peer review and judging experience is not commensurate with one who is within the 
top percentage in his field. 
Moreover, although the Petitioner has engaged in original work 
that has had some influence in the field, 
he has not shown that the impact of his research has resulted in national or international acclaim or 
recognition. When he was a Ph.D. candidate, the Petitioner worked as a graduate research assistant at 
laboratory and was involved in projects that the 
funded. One of the projects studied which "are 
complex physical systems controlled by means of emerging technologies such [as] sensor and 
communication networks." explained that the Petitioner "derive[ d) a novel class of low­
complexity and economic algorithms that can overcome the problems associated with the security 
implementation of time-triggered control methods." Another project 
stated that the Petitioner "solve[ d] a problem of particular interest that 
ensures the functionality of an oscillator network despite presence of switching interactions among 
them." She provided that the research shed "new light on the robustness event triggered control of 
highly complex synchronization dynamics," and "can help assess the limitation of time-triggered 
controlled methodologies for the A third project dealt 
with power maximization in a noted that the Petitioner 
supervised a Master of Science (MS) student's thesis, which offered 
a result with "real­
world" applicability. Although verified that these projects and the Petitioner's findings 
have "real world applications of crucial strategic interest," she did not specify how his results were 
being used or considered for use or have garnered him national or international acclaim in the field. 
The record shows that the Petitioner 
was a research intern at the and 
the in Switzerland. Since obtaining his Ph.D. degree, he has worked with 
a professor in the and President of 
to develop "unique, more cost effective solutions for water filtration and 
purification for commercial and residential applications." 
The Petitioner and several of his references asserted that his contributions are significant because they 
led to the publication of scholarly articles, conference papers and technical papers, and participation and 
presentation in conferences. Publication and presentation illustrate that the research is original and 
worthy of dissemination in the field. To demonstrate impact, the Petitioner must submit evidence on 
the field's reaction after dissemination. The Petitioner has not shown that there has been wide 
acceptance or implementation of his research findings in the field, or that many scientists in the field 
have relied on his research findings in their own studies or that they have deemed his studies as crucial 
in their own projects. 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-F-
Similarly, while the Petitioner's patent application might prove the originality of his idea, it does not 
illustrate that he has made a contribution of major significance or has had a high level of influence in the 
field through the development of his idea. The record lacks information that the Petitioner's patent has 
been broadly utilized in or significantly impacted the field. While the reference letters, from people 
who have worked with the Petitioner, confirmed that his research is original and contributes to the 
general pool of knowledge, the letters do not establish that his impact in the field has garnered him 
national or international acclaim. 
In addition, the record does not indicate that many people in the field, beyond those who have 
collaborated directly with the Petitioner, know and are familiar with the Petitioner or his research. In 
his letter, who is the Petitioner's employer, explained he and the Petitioner conducted 
research "to develop a residential and commercial water quality monitoring and control system." The 
record lacks proof that any individual, company or government entity has used the system, or that the 
Petitioner has sustained acclaim through this research. In addition, although the Petitioner has been 
involved with projects funded by the and the U.S. military, the funding was awarded to 
and her laboratory, not specifically to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's association with these 
research grants was due to his employment at laboratory. 
Also, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is an established figure in the field. Rather, many 
reference letters noted that he has the potential and the capability to one day become an influential 
scientist in the field. For example, , an associate professor in the 
said that the Petitioner "has the 
potential to achieve wide impact across multiple application domains" and that his research "will have 
significant impact both in the controls-engineering domain and in its application to cyber-physical 
systems." similarly stated that the Petitioner' s "continued contribution ... will provide a 
substantial benefit to the United States," and indicated that the Petitioner holds "very high 
promises as a 
rising star in the future." To meet the eligibility for this classification, the documentation 
must reflect that at the time of filing the petition, the Petitioner has already reached the very top of his 
field. The Petitioner has not made 
such a showing. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites Matter of Skirball Cultural Center, 25 I&N Dec. 799 (AAO 2012), 
asserting that "once the credentials and consistency of the expert have been established, his or her 
testimony regarding the beneficiary and his or her contributions to the field is to be granted substantial 
deference." Skirball Cultural Center involved a P-3 nonimmigrant petition that sought to classify a 
beneficiary as an entertainer in a culturally unique program. See§ 101(a)(15)(P)(iii) ofthe Act. A P-3 
nonimmigrant petition is governed by statutory and regulatory requirements that are distinct from those 
relevant to the instant immigrant petition. Specifically, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(6)(ii)(A), 
which relates to P-3 nonimmigrant cases, expressly lists expert letters as qualifying documentation that 
can demonstrate eligibility. This regulation, however, does not apply to the immigrant visa 
classification that the Petitioner seeks here. Ultimately, we may, as this decision has done above, 
evaluate the content of the expert letters to determine if they support the Petitioner's eligibility. See 
Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm 'r 1988); Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(BIA 2008) (noting that expert 
opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-S-F-
Furthermore, although the Petitioner meets the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
through his journal articles and conference papers, and has authored technical papers and a book 
chapter, his writing does not demonstrate his national or international acclaim or a high level of 
recognition in his field. Authoring scholarly articles is inherent within a scientific researcher's 
occupation. We may consider the field's response to the articles in a final merits determination. 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. As such, the Petitioner's citation history may be a factor in evaluating his 
publication record. According to the initial filing, he had coauthored 10 journal articles, some of them 
were published, while others were under review for publication. The Petitioner provided 
search results, reflecting that each of his published articles had garnered five or fewer citations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that he had coauthored one book chapter, three peer-reviewed journal 
articles, and five conference papers and proceedings. He submits additional search 
printouts, revealing that the citation frequency to his published work has remained unchanged during 
this proceeding. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his articles have been cited 92 times by scientists and researchers. 
In a footnote, he indicates that due to "a bug," did not pull citations from and, 
thus, only shows 27 citations. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence in support of these statements, 
such as citations that appear on and information about that website. While the Petitioner also 
provided citations registered on other websites, and , these sources 
include no additional cites than the ones from Going on record without supporting 
documentation is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). The printouts do not verity 92 or 
27 citations to the Petitioner's work. Of the multiple articles referenced in the printouts, only some 
listed the Petitioner as an author, and none of those articles received more than five citations. The 
Petitioner coauthored his most cited article, 
confirms that the 
article is available on and has garnered five citations as of June 2015.4 The 
Petitioner files noting that the 
average citation per paper in the engineering field, over a ten-year period, is 5.37. The Petitioner has 
not established that the citation frequency of his most cited article, which received five citations, is 
indicative ofhis national or international acclaim, or that the impact of this article is significantly higher 
than that of other published engineering papers. 
The Petitioner also coauthored a chapter with for the book 
published by the _ r explained that he included the chapter 
in the book, because the peer reviewers of the chapter "were all strongly impressed by the significance 
and thoroughness of the work." The publication of the book chapter, thus, appears to be similar to the 
publication of a peer reviewed article. Its publication signifies that the material has value in the field, 
but as the record lacks information on who has read the book chapter since publication, or what impact 
4 On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that an article with the same title has been submitted to 
consideration. 
for publication 
Matter of H-S-F-
it has had in the field, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he achieved national or international 
acclaim through its publication. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner's accomplishments in the aggregate include his participation in the 
widespread peer review process utilized by scientific journals, his original findings that have practical 
applications, and his authorship of both scholarly articles and technical reports. These achievements 
confirm that he is an experienced engineer who has worked on government funded projects and gained 
the respect of his circle of colleagues. They do not, however, demonstrate that he has sustained national 
or international acclaim or that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of his field. 
C. Summary 
In summary, the full measure of the Petitioner's accomplishments, including his educational 
background, ability and achievements, the level of his national or international acclaim and the extent to 
which his achievements have been recognized in the field, are not indicative of a record of sustained 
acclaim. Also, he has not submitted extensive documentation exhibiting that he has attained a level of 
expertise placing him among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he is an individual of 
extraordinary ability. A review of the record in the aggregate does not confirm that he has 
distinguished himself to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The filings do not 
prove that the Petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a 
national or international level. The Petitioner, therefore, has not established eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. § 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 
128 (BIA 2013). The Petitioner in this case has not established that he is an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofH-S-F-, ID# 15698 (AAO Mar. 1, 2016) 
9