dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 10, 2024 In Re: 31507489 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify himself 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 petition, concluding that the record does not 
establish the Petitioner received a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. 
The Director further concluded that the record does not satisfy, in the alternative, at least three of the 
IO initial evidentiary criteria. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b )(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [ noncitizen ]' 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 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their 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 
they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the 10 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). 
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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, the Director concluded the record does not establish the Petitioner received a one­
time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. The Director further determined that 
the record does not satisfy, in the alternative, at least three of the 10 listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) and the Director specifically analyzed the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(vi), 
(viii)-(ix). On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that the Director "did not consider or review the 
submitted evidence" and he resubmits a copy of his brief provided in response to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE). In the RFE response brief, the Petitioner asserted that the record satisfies the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(v), (viii)-(ix). The Petitioner does not assert on appeal that the 
record satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)-(vii) or (x), thereby waiving these criteria. 
See, e.g., Matter ofM-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009) (citing Greenlaw v. US., 554 U.S. 
237 (2008) (upholding the party presentation rule)). 1 The Petitioner does not overcome the Director's 
denial for the reasons discussed below. 
Before turning to the specific eligibility criteria, we first note that, on appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes 
the number of pages of documents he submitted in response to the Director's RFE and he objects to 
"the brief time USCIS took to review [his response]." The Petitioner also emphasizes on appeal that 
his RFE response consisted of "crystal clear evidence in an easy-to-follow 5670-page document and 
appendices," implying that a review of such a volume of information should not be challenging. We 
further note that, at the time the Petitioner submitted the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Workers, he also submitted a Form I-907, Request for Premium Processing Service, "to request faster 
processing of [the] Form I-140." Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, All Forms, https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms/. There is no mechanism 
provided by either statute or regulation for petitioners to request an exact number of processing days 
between a benefit request filing date and the date of the decision on the request. We further note that 
the number of pages of evidence is not an indicator of the probative value of that evidence, and the 
RFE response in general contains the same or similar information already in the record, which the 
Director need not discuss repetitiously. Therefore, we do not agree with the Petitioner's assertion that 
1 We note that, in the RFE response brief, the Petitioner asserted that the record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) twice, without specifically addressing the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)-(vii) or (x). 
2 
the Director erred in "the brief time USCIS took to review" the RFE response. Regardless, as 
discussed below, the Petitioner has not satisfied at least three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria 
required for eligibility. 
Documentation of the [noncitizen '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 acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted copies of the following documents: 
• A W eidmuller Klippon Award from ______ generally dated 
"1990/91"; 
• A Safety A ward from dated 2004; and 
• A Project Excellence Award froml Idated 2010. 
The Director also acknowledged two certificates ofregistration and an academic diploma in the record; 
however, the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) regarding "prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of endeavor" does not contemplate certificates of registration or academic 
diplomas. The Director noted that the Petitioner submitted statements regarding the awards; however, 
the Director observed that the Petitioner "did not submit independent, documentary evidence to 
establish that the awards are nationally or internationally awards [sic] for excellence in the field." 
Therefore, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he received lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor, as 
required by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
As noted above, the Petitioner generally asserts on appeal that the Director "did not consider or review 
the submitted evidence." In the RFE response brief: the Petitioner asserted that his "exceptional work 
and significant contributions to the fields of [ e ]ngineering and [ m ]anagement have been recognized 
with the prestigious one-time Excellence and Achievement Award from widely 
recognized as the pinnacle of [ e ]ngineering and [ m ]anagement excellence worldwide." However, the 
submitted evidence does not establish that the Petitioner received such an award, nor does it 
demonstrate that this award is "widely recognized as the pinnacle of [ e ]ngineering and [ m ]anagement 
excellence worldwide," as he asserts. 
Instead, the Petitioner provided a copy of a Project Excellence A ward given by _______ 
to the Petitioner dated 2010. The Project Excellence Award states that it "is made in recognition of 
[the Petitioner's] outstanding commitment to complete all assigned tasks and projects in time and 
within the scope of work and set cost," not that it recognizes excellence in the field of endeavor, as 
contemplated by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). In tum, the record contains a copy of a 
Safety Award given by I I to the Petitioner "for his continuing outstanding 
performance and commitment towards the health, safety and environment program of the ... 
Construction of _________ ... project." Both the Project Excellence Award and 
the Safety Award appear to be an internal company awards, given by an employer to its employees, 
based on the employee's contributions to the employer and its particular projects and endeavors. 
Therefore, non-employees do not appear to be eligible for either award, and neither award appears to 
be based on objective contributions to the field of endeavor beyond contributions to the particular 
3 
employer. More specifically, the record does not establish how these particular internal employer­
employee awards are "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards," as contemplated by 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record also contains a copy of a W eidmuller Klippon Award given by the ______ 
Division of Technology to the Petitioner in 1991, which indicates that it is "for [t]he student achieving 
best results on the National Diploma in Engineering Course." However, the Petitioner does not 
establish that it is awarded for excellence in the field of endeavor; rather, the record indicates that it is 
given to students for their results in academic coursework relative to other students 
enrolled there at the same time. In tum, the record does not establish through objective, probative 
evidence that the Weidmuller Klippon Award-issued to students, not members of a particular field 
of endeavor-is "nationally or internationally recognized," as contemplated by the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
For the foregoing reasons, the record does not sufficiently establish the Petitioner's receipt oflesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor 
contemplated by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Documentation of the [noncitizen's] membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the Jordanian Engineers Association (JEA), to which 
the Petitioner appears to refer interchangeably as the Jordanian Chartered Distinguished Engineers 
Syndicate. However, the Director observed, "the [P]etitioner did not submit evidence, such as the 
constitution or bylaws of the associations, to establish that the associations require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
field." Therefore, the Director concluded that the record does not contain documentation of the 
Petitioner's membership in associations 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
As noted above, the Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director "did not consider or review the 
submitted evidence." In the RFE response brief, the Petitioner described the ASME and the JEA and 
he asserted that they are "reputable institutions" and his membership therein satisfies the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
As the Director observed, the record does not establish, through objective documentary evidence, that 
the associations of which the Petitioner is a member require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Although the Petitioner submitted a document written in English that purports to be a summary of 
"documents required to register engineers in the Jordanian Engineers Association," neither that 
document nor the remainder of the record reflects that applications to the JEA are 'judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields," as required by the criterion 
4 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Moreover, that document indicates that "academic achievements" may 
qualify applicants for membership in lieu of "exceptional industrial, practical, technical, [or] service 
experiences" and the copy of the JEA membership certificate in the record indicates that the extent of 
the Petitioner's qualifications at the time he was awarded membership in 1995 was "the engineering 
degree certificate [he] obtained from the ______ in the United Kingdom, dated 
06/27/1994." Neither the JEA membership certificate nor the remainder of the record indicates how 
the Petitioner accomplished "outstanding achievements" and what achievements he accomplished as 
contemplated by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Further, this lack of clarity is notable since 
the Petitioner was given membership in the JEA only one year after he completed his engineering 
degree program. 
In turn, the record does not contain evidence of the ASME's membership criteria, and the copy of the 
Petitioner's ASME membership certificate in the record does not elaborate on how he qualified for 
this membership. 
Therefore, the record does not establish that the Petitioner is a member of associations 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 and it does not satisfy the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material about the [noncitizen] in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, relating to the [noncitizen 's] work in the field for which 
class[fication is sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the 
material, and any necessa,y translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted copies of "reports prepared by the 
[P]etitioner in the course of his duties and employment as an engineer," noting that "the plain language 
of this criterion requires that the published material be about the [P]etitioner, not by the [P]etitioner," 
The Director observed that the Petitioner did not submit material about him and his work in the field 
published in relevant media. Therefore, the Director concluded that the record does not contain 
evidence of published material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to his work in the field for which classification is sought, as required by the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
As noted above, the Petitioner generally asserts on appeal that the Director "did not consider or review 
the submitted evidence." In the RFE response brief, the Petitioner asserted that his own published 
documents satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
As the Director explained, the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
contemplates published material about the individual seeking first-preference classification, not 
information that an individual seeking first-preference classification published. Although the 
published material must relate to the work of the individual seeking first-preference classification, and 
the work must be in the field for which classification is sought, the criterion nevertheless contemplates 
"material about the [ noncitizen ]," not merely material published by the individual about the 
individual's work. Because the Petitioner did not submit material about him, relating to his work in 
5 
the field for which classification is sought, published in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the [noncitizen 's] original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted letters of recommendation that discuss the 
Petitioner's skills and personal characteristics; however, the Director observed that the letters of 
recommendation are conclusory in nature and they are not corroborated by independent, documentary 
evidence. The Director also noted that the Petitioner submitted "a screenshot from an unidentified 
source 
However, the Director explained that, 
because the screenshot from an unidentified source excludes both the Petitioner's name and its source, 
it is not evidence of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions 
of major significance in the field. Therefore, the Director concluded that the record does not satisfy 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As previously discussed, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director "did not consider or review 
the submitted evidence." In the RFE response brief, the Petitioner summarized articles he asserted he 
authored in publications he described as "key publications related to published trade work in 
[ e ]ngineering and management industries." The Petitioner also contends that his published articles 
have "major significance in the field." 
Aside from the Petitioner's own statements, the record does not establish, through objective, probative 
evidence, how the articles he authored have "major significance in the field," whether the field of 
engineering, management, or another field. For example, as noted, the Director explained that the 
letters ofrecommendation do not provide objective, probative evidence of how the Petitioner's articles 
have "major significance to the field," as required by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Because the record does not establish how the Petitioner's articles-to the extent that the record 
establishes he authored articles-or any of his other original contributions have "major significance 
to the field" of engineering, management, or any other field, it does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence that the [noncitizen] has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In addressing this criteria, the Director pointed to submitted copies of bank statements and pay stubs 
dated 2022 and 2023 in the record, and the Petitioner's assertion that this evidence reflected high 
salaries. However, the Director observed that "the [P]etitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to 
establish that he commands a 'high salary' compared to other engineers, nor was enough information 
provided about the top engineers in his field," citing Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1994). Because the record does not sufficiently establish, through independent, probative 
evidence, how the Petitioner's salary compares to others in the field, the Director concluded that it 
does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
6 
Again, on appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "did not consider or review the submitted 
evidence." In the RFE response brief, the Petitioner summarized his income during certain months of 
2022 and 2023, and he asserted that his income "has consistently fallen within the high salary range." 
However, as the Director explained, the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) contemplates salaries 
or other remuneration for services "in relation to others in the field." Neither the copies of bank 
statements and pay stubs dated 2022 and 2023 nor the remainder of the record establish the salary 
range of others in the fields of engineering and management, or more specifically among engineering 
project managers with roles similar to the Petitioner. Because the record does not establish the salary 
range of others in the field, it does not establish whether the Petitioner's salary or other remuneration 
for services was high in relation to others in the field, as required by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
We need not determine whether the record satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and(viii) 
because, even if it did, the record would not satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)-(vi). See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established he received a one-time achievement or, in the alternative, evidence 
that meets at least three of the 10 criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As a result, we need not 
provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. See INS 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. Nevertheless, we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with 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 has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that he 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; see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7