dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe: 10767610 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 26, 2021 
Form I-140 , Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an engineer , seeks classification as an alien 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had received a one-time major award or that he met any of the alternate 
regulatory criteria , of which he must meet at least three . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
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) 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 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 have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F. R. § 204 .5(h)(2) . The implementing regulati on at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(3) sets fort h a multi -part analysis . First, a pet itioner can demonstrate internationa l 
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 he 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). 
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). 
(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 
The Petitioner is anl I engineer who previously was employed withl 
I I and ...:I ======!....:.::!2.=-:,1 The record reflects that he holds a m .... a_s-te_r_o_f_s_c-ie-n-ce-in---,.l-----1 
eng
1
eering I from thPI m , , 1 l'\nd a master of business administration 
from University. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has 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 Director found that the Petitioner had not met any of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the evidentiary 
criteria relating to published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, artistic 
display, and leading or critical role at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and (viii), 
respectively. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner does not 
satisfy at least three of these criterion, as required. 
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) 
On appeal, the Petitioner again claims his eligibility for this criterion through numerous articles 
already in the record. First, he asserts that a Bimco Bulletin article satisfies this criterion becaµs.cit, 
features an in-depth discussion about a newl I system that he developed foL_J 
However, the record does not contain evidence sufficient, by the preponderance of the evidence, to 
corroborate the Petitioner's assertion that he developed this system, and that the article is about him 
and his work foQ As the Petitioner acknowledges on appeal, this article does not reference the 
Petitioner by name, nor it does discuss the Petitioner's contribution~e development ote=J's 
---------~I system. Instead, another document from L_J in the record notes the 
2 
Petitioner's role as a project manager in ensuring that "the project was successfully delivered with 
low-maintenance costs" among others but does not attribute development to the Petitioner. The 
Petitioner does not offer evidence explaining how the delivery of these systems equates to his 
development of them, as asse1ied. Fmiher, a letter froml I D's chief executive officer, 
referenced by the Petitioner in the appellate bri~aises the Petitioner's "technical and functional 
gifts" and notes that these gifts play a "key role inL_J s research and development efforts." However, 
I I does not fmiher desc1ibe how the Petitioner played a 'kel role' or identify these efforts, 
and does not establish that the Petitioner developed theisystem. In order to satisfy this 
criterion, the published material should be about the petitioner, relating to his work in the field, not 
just about his or her employer or another organization that he or she is associated with. 1 As this aiiicle 
is about his former employer, and absent evidence sufficient to corroborate the Petitioner's assertion 
that he led the development of the.__ _______ __. system referenced in the article, this 
document does not satisfy the c1iterion. 
Next, the Petitioner arJues tlat a U.S. Coast Guard Forum article, aboutc=Js work with the U.S. 
Coast Guard to have regulation issued and how □ benefited from this rule, satisfies this 
criterion. In the appellate brief, the Petitioner asserts that benefited because the company is "one 
of very few companies, thanks to [the Petitioner], who is able to sell this type of technology." He 
therefore argues that this article is about him related to his work. As discussed above, the record lacks 
evidence sufficient to establish that the Petitioner is directly responsible for the development of1 I I I systems forc::J....1:!ie record further lacks evidence establishing the Petitioner's role 
in the publication of this rule orl__Js ability to sell this technology. In order to satisfy this crite1ion, 
the published material should be about the petitioner, relating to his work in the field, not just about 
his or her employer or another organization that he or she is associated with. 2 Here the Petitioner has 
not submitted evidence sufficient to cmrnborate his asse1iion that he is directly responsible for D's 
ability to sell its.__ _______ ~ system, and that this article is about him rather than his 
employer. Accordingly he has not shown that this article meets this criterion. 
In addition, the Petitioner refers to a Florida Tech TODAYarticle as evidence ofhjf eligibility. 
This article, is a discussion wit~'-----~- a professor 
of.__ ________ _. enginee1ing at about his work testing and evaluating! I 
coatings. Although the article includes a photograph of the Petitioner with the professor, the article 
does not discuss the Petitioner's work in the field and it is not about the Petitioner. Articles that do 
not pertain to a petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-
CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show 
are not about the actor). 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that "he was the subject of multiple articles published by Foreign 
Policy and ABC7! News [sic]." The record includes an article published in Foreign Policy and is about 
the Petitioner related to his work. However, this criterion requires not only that the published material 
be about the Petitioner and related to his work but also that it be in a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. Here the Petitioner does not provide evidence, such as on-line 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordina1y Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
2 Id. 
3 
circulation statistics or other relevant data, for Foreign Policy to show that its circulation is high 
relative to others, or information about this publication, to show that it is a professional or major trade 
publication, or other major media, as required. 3 
The ABC7 News document referenced by the Petitioner also is about him and related to his work. 
However, the Petitioner also provided a printout from www.abcnewswire.com indicating that this 
article is a press release published byl I a company owned by the Petitioner according to 
registration documents in the record. This ress release directs readers to a website 
with the Petitioner's phone number, the text 
and a button reading "Book an 
Appointment." 4 Therefore, it appears that this evidence is designed to promote the Petitioner's 
services. Marketing materials created for the purpose of selling the petitioner's products or promoting 
his or her services are not generally considered to be published mate1ial about them. 5 Even if we view 
this document in the most favorable light, the Petitioner does not provide information about or on-line 
circulation statistics forABC7 News to show that its circulation is high relative to others, demonstrating 
that it is a professional or major trade publication or other major media as required. 6 
Finally, the Petitioner states that he was "interviewed by Warlock Asylum International News which 
published a full featured interview and Q&A" about him and his expe1tise. The record reflects that 
this interview was published in November 2019. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing 
through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Here, the instant petition was filed in March 2019. As 
this material was published afterthe filing date, it does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for 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 specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts eligibility for this criterion as he "regularly reviews the work of his 
peers and the employees he oversees" and notes that "[ c ]opies of employee reviews and training 
provided by [the Petitioner] as well as work product reviews are enclosed." Upon review, we note 
that the record does not contain emP,lo ee reviews. The record includes a PowerPoint slide deck 
att1ibuted to the Petitioner entitled ~---------------------~ but 
the Petitioner does not provide the duties he performed as a trainer or offerother evidence establishing 
that this training equates to his participation as a judge of the work of others his field. 
The record also contains several photographs of the Petitioner inspecting equipment or in front of 
vessels with captions such as "Judging their work and teaching them the professional regulatory 
methods," and "Judging the work and training them with the new regulatory mate1ials." Repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. F edin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
3 See 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
4 See ~----<last visited May 26, 2021) and incorporated into the record by reference. 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manua/F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
6 Id. 
4 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). The Petitioner does not identify 
whose work he is judging, list the duties he performed as a judge, or offer evidence allowing us to 
determine if the actions shown in these photographs satisfy this criterion. Without this information, 
these photographs are not sufficient to show that he meets this c1iterion. 
The record also includes certificates of compliance and invoices signed by the Petitioner as project 
manager, a copy of a technical agreement bearing his signature, and a PowerPoint presentation 
authored by the Petitioner in his capacity as a project manager forl I The PowerPoint 
presentation explains that as a project manager, the Petitioner "contacted vendors," "negotiated the 
pricing and selected the vendors who can complete international shipping," and has "successfully 
completed many equipment installations." However, the Petitioner does not submit evidence showing 
how these actions equate to the participation as a judge of the work of others in his field. Further, as 
noted by the Director in his decision, the phrase "a judge" implies a f mmal designation in a judging 
capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Petitioner 
does not submit evidence indicating that his employer designated him '"as a judge" in his capacity as 
a project manager or otherwise establishing that his role as such is consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. Without further documentation, this evidence is insufficient to meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires the Petitioner's "authorship of scholarly articles 
in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." 7 The Petitioner asserts 
eli ibilit for this criterion based on his authorship of the book entitled.I . I 
and published byl I in 2008, and 
through the publication of '~-----------------------~ 8 
Although the Petitioner does not identify this evidence by title, we note that in his decision the Director 
indicated that the Petitioner previously submitted four books entitled I I 
I . 11 l I I andl I to demonstrate 
his eligibility for this criterion. 
Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how authorship of these books qualify as scholarly articles in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. As books may be published independently or self-published, mere publication does not 
establish that a book is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. Moreover, 
scholarly articles should be written for "learned" persons in the field. "Learned" is defined as having 
or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship. Learned persons include all persons having 
profound knowledge of a field. 9 However, the Petitioner does not offer evidence showing that these 
books were w1itten for "learned" individuals and contain the characteristics of a scholarly aiticle. 
7 See 6 USCIS Policy ManualF.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. ~-----~ ~---~ 
8 We note that the Petitioner also claims that "two other papers published ml I and I I,,, satisfy 
this criterion but does not indicate where in the record these papers are found, or otherwise identify them. Accordingly 
we do not address whether they meet this criterion. 
9 See 6 USCIS Policy ManualF.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinaty Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/po licy-ma nua 1/vo !um e-6-pa rt-f-chapter-2. 
5 
Even if the Petitioner's books equate to scholarly articles, he did not submit any documentary evidence 
to establish that these books are professional or major trade publications or other major media. He did 
not, for instance, provide statistics or other evidence establishing the major standing of these books. 10 
In addition the Petitioner claims this work "led to further publications such as Market Watch: The 
Wall Street Journal, Yahoo! News The Ritz Herald, Daily Country News, Foreign Policy and many 
more." With regard to the Foreign Policy article, as we note above, the record lacks evidence 
demonstrating that it is a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major media. 
Pertaining to the remainder of the publications identified by the Petitioner on appeal, we note that 
these articles appeared in these publications in October and November 2019. However, the Petitioner 
filed the instant petition in March 2019. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements 
for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Documentation published after the filing date is not sufficient 
to satisfy this criterion. 
The Petitioner, therefore, has not provided documentation sufficient to meet this criterion. 
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 Petitioner also claims eligibility for this criterion through his presentations at scholarly 
exhibitions. He argues that his presentations are comparable to a display of work at artistic exhibition, 
and therefore evidence establishing that he has presented at such scholarly exhibitions should be 
"admissible to satisfy the 'display' criterion under the 'comparable evidence' regulation." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not 
readily apply to the petitioner's occupation. A petitioner should explain why he has not submitted 
evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as 
why the evidence he has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3). Here, 
the Petitioner has not shown why he cannot off er evidence that meets at least three of the criteria. 
General assertions that any of the ten objective criteria do not readily apply to an occupation are not 
probative and should be discounted. The fact that the Petitioner did not submit documentation that he 
fulfills at least three is not evidence that an engineer could not do so. For these reasons, the Petitioner 
did not show that he fulfills this criterion through the submission of comparable evidence. 
As discussed above, we find that the Petitioner does not meet the four criteria relating to published 
material, judging, scholarly articles, and artistic display. Although he claims to meet two additional 
criteria on appeal, relating to contributions of major significance and to performance of a leading or 
10 See 6 USCIS PolicyJ,1anualF.2(B)(2), Appendix: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2, (providing that evidence of professional or major trade 
publications or in othermajormedia publications should establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is high compared 
to other circulation statistics and the intended audience). 
6 
c1itical role, we need not reach these additional issues. As the Petitioner cannot meet the initial 
evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve these issues. 11 
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 c1ite1ia. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 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. 
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. USCIS 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 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)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and 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 and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11 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 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BI A 2015) (declining to reach a ltemative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7