dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: 
·APR 0 8 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~(:z: 
~ Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
ragt L. 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, on September 13, 2013, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien 
of extraordinary ability as an assistant professor of engineering. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of his sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, 
specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner claims that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page j 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101
51 
Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. !d.; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those 
concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 1122 
(citing to 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
2 
On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed 
in this decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's 
receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field 
of endeavor." Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden to establish that the evidence meets every 
element of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate his receipt of prizes and awards, 
he must also demonstrate that those prizes and awards are nationally or internationally recognized 
for excellence in the field of endeavor, which, by definition, goes beyond the awarding entity. 
In the petitioner's cover letter that he submitted at the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner 
claimed that he received the Young Engineer of the Year Award in from the 
In order to support his claim, the petitioner submitted a certificate 
from the Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference reflectin that he eceived the YoJJru.?: 
Engineer Paper in !Presented by and the 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that he received the Young nngmeer or me rear 
Award; there is no evidence establishing that the Young Engineer Paper is the same award as the 
Young Engineer of the Year Award. Although the petitioner submitted a recommendation letter 
from Dr. who indicated that the petitioner received the Young Engineer Award, Dr. 
Jased his opinions by reviewing the petitioner's curriculum vitae rather than any personal 
knowledge of the petitioner receiving the award. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). The AAO must look to the plain language of the documents. 
See .Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 185 (Comm'r 1998). Moreover, the petitioner did not 
submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that the Young Engineer Paper is a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field consistent with the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Although the petitioner did not demonstrate 
that he received the Young Engineer of the Year Award, the petitioner did submit a screenshot from 
website regarding the nominating requirements. However, the petitioner did not submit any 
documentary evidence beyond the awarding entity to establish that it is a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in the petitioner's field pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Similarly, the etitioner claimed in his cover letter at the initial filing of the petition that he received 
the from the 
~ , The petitioner submitted a letter from congratulating 
the petitioner for his selection "as an to participate in the 
Teaching Workshop at from July 12-17, 2009." In response to the 
director's request for evidence pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(b)(8), the etitioner 
submitted a screenshot from website regarding the m 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that IS the same 
as therefore the petitioner did not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
t'age) 
establish that he received the _ Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). The AAO must look to the plain language of the documents 
executed by the petitioner. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 185. Even if the petitioner established 
that he received the which he did not, the 
petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence beyond the awarding entity to establish that it is 
a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Regarding the based on 
letter, the petitioner was selected to be a fellow in order to attend and participate in a teaching 
workshop rather than receiving a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the 
field. 
The petitioner also claimed eligibility for this criterion based on his receipt of the 
Academic study is not a field of endeavor, 
but training for a future field of endeavor. As such, academic scholarships, student awards, 
postdoctoral fellowships, and financial aid awards cannot be considered nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. Moreover , although they may be 
prestigious, fellowships, scholarships, and other sources of competitive financial support are not 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards because only other students - not 
recognized experts in the field - compete for such funding. Receiving funding for one's research 
and academic training does not constitute receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Such support funding is presented not to established 
researchers with active professional careers, but rather to students seeking to further their research, 
training, and experience. In addition, th{ serves 
as a grant to fund a researcher 's work. The past achievements of the principal investigator are a 
factor in grant proposals; the funding institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of 
performing the proposed research. Nevertheless, a research grant is principally designed to fund 
future research, and not to honor or recognize excellence. Furthermore, although the petitioner 
submitted the eligibility requirements for the fellowship, the petitioner did not submit any 
documentary evidence beyond to demonstrate that the fellowship is considered a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field consistent with the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner did not demonstrate that he received any nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor pursuant to the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Docum entation of the alien 's membership in associat ions in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members,· as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields." 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. 
At the initial filing of the Qetition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on his 
memberships with the 
. . In response to the director's 
request for additional evidence, the petitioner indicated that he was accepting the director 's decision 
that his memberships with these associations did not qualify under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Instead, the petitioner requested that the director consider the petitioner 's 
oarticioation with the and the 
On appeal, the petitioner 
did not claim eligibility for this criterion based on his memberships with . 
Therefore, the petitioner abandoned these prior claims. See Sepulveda v. U.S. 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) (finding the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise 
them on appeal). 
Regarding the petitioner submitted an email from Dr. notifying the petitioner of 
the committee 's aooroval of his request to join the committee . n additiOn, the petitioner submitted a 
letter from Dr. who indicated that "is constituted by the 
Further, Dr. claimed that the petitioner "became a member of this 
important committee because his scientific achievements were judged as outstanding by other 
national experts in this field." However, Dr. did not identify the petitioner 's contributions that 
were deemed to be outstanding and did not identify the national experts. Repeating the language of 
the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner 's burden of proof Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava , 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associat es, 
Inc. v. Meissn er, 1997 WL 188942, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The petitioner also submitted the Official Register for and referred to pages 466-488. 
According to the Bylaws , membership is open to individuals who can demonstrate at 
least one of the following: 
1. A baccalaureate degree in engineering, the physical sciences, the life sciences 
or mathematics; or 
2. Two years of full-time equivalent study in any discipline at a college or 
university plus five years of experience in the geo-industry; or 
3. Eight years of experience in the geo-industry; or 
4. Any ASCE member in good standing who enrolls in the Geo-Institute. 
The requirements to be a member of the do not reflect outstanding achievements as an 
essential condition for membership. The bylaws also reflect that all members in good standing may 
participate on committees. Moreover , there is no evidence reflecting that recognized 
national or international experts judge the outstanding achievements of committee candidates. 
Again, membership requirements based on employment or minimum education or experience do not 
satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. 
Furthermore, the bylaws do not support Dr. ; claims that the petitioner 
was granted membership because of his "scientific achievements." If testimonial evidence lacks 
specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative 
evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). The petitioner did not establish that 
membership with requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields consistent with the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Regarding the petitioner submitted an email, dated March 20, 2012, from Dr. 
about an committee meeting in Oakland, California. The petitioner also submitted 
another email, dated July 2, 2013, from Dr. regarding interest in an 
subcommittee with an attached email, dated June 4, 2013, from Dr. regarding the 
goals and topics of the subcommittee. The petitioner also referred to the Official Register for 
that was discussed above. The petitioner did not submit any other documentation regarding 
The documentation submitted by the petitioner does not reflect that membership in 
requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or 
international experts consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Even if the petitioner were to submit supporting documentary evidence showing that and 
meet the elements of this criterion, which he has not, they are committees, not associations. 
For both committees, the relevant association is The petitioner does not claim that his 
membership in is qualifying. Moreover, section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act requires the 
submission of extensive evidence . Consistent with that statutory requirement, the plain language of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page~ 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires membership in more than one assoctatwn. 
Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, 
the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel 
or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular within the plural, 
it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C .P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience 
must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. 
In a different context, federal courts have upheld US CIS' ability to interpret significance from 
whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. Cf Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-
2158 (RCL) at *1, *12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 
3491005, at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory 
requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
Accordingly, the petitioner did not establish that he meets 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. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. In response 
to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner indicated that he was accepting the 
director 's decision that the citations of his work did not qualify under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and did not further claim eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner did 
not contest the findings of the director for this criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore, the 
petitioner abandoned these prior claims. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 P.3d at 1228 n. 2; 
Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885, at *1 (finding the plaintiff's claims to 
be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). 
Accordingly , the petitioner did not establish 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. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "[e]vidence 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." A review of the record of proceeding 
reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Accordingly , the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
(b)(6)
Yage ':J 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "(e]vidence of the alien's authorship 
of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." 
A review of the record of proceeding reflects that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, 
in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the contextof 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[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien 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) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top 
of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion 
in a final merits determination. 3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. I d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 
103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 
C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) 
(holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.