dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-D-L-A-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 23,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-1~0, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, the president of a manufacturing company, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in engineering management. 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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied 
only two of the regulatory criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, stating that he 
meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(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 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-D-L-A-
(iii) the alien's entry i~to 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 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 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); 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 U.S. 
Citizenship and · Immigration Services (USCIS) 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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner currently serves as president and shareholder for a 
metallurgical company in Venezuela that manufactures raw material for the footwear industry. As 
the Petiti~ner 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 met the published material criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and the' high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the awards criterion under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the original 
contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h~(3)(v), and the leading or critical role criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record of 
proceedings, and the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-D-L-A-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser, nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his selection as one of the top most successful managers 
by magazine in 2006 meets this regulatory criterion. In addition, the record contains a letter 
from a representative of who indicated that 
grants its annual awards to managers that stand out in different fields and who have great impact on 
their companies. Further, a letter from CEO for 
stated that is a publication targeting the local business class and that it annually 
awards managers for their performances in Venezuela. 
Consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the Petitioner must 
demonstrate that his award is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. Although the letters provide brief information regarding the magazine and the award 
criteria, they do not establish that the award is nationally or internationally recognized for 
excellence in the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien'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 Petitioner expresses on appeal that his membership with 
renders him eligible for this criterion. The Petitioner 
submitted a letter from general director for who stated 
that the Petitioner was unanimously elected by the administrative board based on the evaluation of 
his managerial and technical skills, his previous work on committees, and his background and work 
experience. The Petitioner also offered a letter from· standardization 
manager for who provided background information, council structure, and 
functions and purposes regarding the association. In addition, stated that the 
Petitioner was unanimously elected because of "his outstanding role in the Engineering Management 
in his professional career, and expenence m general management and the specific engineering 
disciplines." 
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. Finally, a petitioner's membership needs to be judged 
by recognized national or international experts. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-D-L-A-
Although letter explains the reasoning for unanimous election of 
the Petitioner, it does not establish that requires outstanding achievements as a 
condition for membership in its association. Moreover, the letter does not indicate that membership 
is judged by recognized national or international experts as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Without evidence demonstrating that membership with requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts, 
the Petitioner has not shown that he meets this regulatory 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 classtfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author ofthe material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record includes an article from regarding the Petitioner's receipt of its previously 
discussed award. The article is about the Petitioner and talks about his role regarding his company's 
. productivity. In addition, the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentation demonstrating that 
1s a professional publication. Therefore, the Petitioner established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient(fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he led the development and passage of an anti-smuggling law 
in Venezuela to protect against entry of counterfeit products, that he merged three competing trading 
groups creating a unified voice for the Venezuelan footwear industry, and that he established an 
advisory council to establish uniform measures and quality control standards for the Venezuelan 
. manufacturing business. The record contains a letter from representative of 
who indicated that the Petitioner developed an anti-smuggling bill for the 
Further, the Petitioner presented a letter from president of the advisory 
council for who described the 
Petitioner's successful efforts in organizing multidisciplinary teams to lobby the Venezuelan , 
government and national congress to create an anti-smuggling law. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
demonstrated that his involvement with the anti-smuggling legislation constitutes an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner states 
on appeal that he has performed in a leading or critical role for 
and A leading role should be apparent by its position in the 
organizational hierarchy and the role's matching duties. Further, a critical role is evident from its 
overall impact on the organization or establishment. In addition, a petitioner's role must be for 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-D-L-A-
As it relates to the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
former director of electrical engineering and former dean of engineering at 
stating that the Petitioner was an associate professor at the university for 5 years. 
Moreover, indicated that the Petitioner was in charge of key core courses within the 
engineering department and was invited to participate in the faculty council. We find this letter 
insufficient to show that the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for the university. 
did not provide sufficient information to establish the leading or critical nature of the 
Petitioner's role as an associate professor at In addition, the Petitioner 
did not, for example, compare his role as an associate professor to the roles of other professors and 
faculty members. Moreover, the Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence 'to demonstrate that 
has a distinguished reputation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Regarding the record contains sufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner served 
as its president, which based on the inherent nature of the position, demonstrates a leading or critical 
role. The Petitioner submitted documentation indicating background, mission, and 
features. In addition, the Petitioner presented documentation relating to activities, 
such as tradeshows and political involvement. The Petitioner, however, did not establish that 
has a distinguished reputation. The record, for example, does not reveal that the 
organization 
has garnered any prestigious accolades or is considered the premiere organization in the 
footwear industry in order to demonstrate that enjoys a distinguished reputation 
consistent with this regulatory criterion. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of 
demonstrating his eligibility under this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien 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). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion. Based on a review of the record of 
proceedings, we must withdraw the Director's finding regarding this criterion. At the initial filing of 
the petition, the Petitioner submitted a letter from public accountant, who stated 
that he reviewed documentation regarding the Petitioner's performance as a chief executive officer 
and stockholder for and 
also indicated that the 
Venezuelan Bolivar Fuerte (VEF) 2,374,000
1
, 
managing engineer. In, addition, 
Petitioner is expected to earn a 2015 salary of 
which is 82% above the average earned for a 
included a chart for minimum wages from the 
reflecting monthly salaries from its professional members 
ranging from VEF 25,300 to VEF 96,700, depending on professional experience. Further, the 
Petitioner offered a screenshot from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center, Online Wage 
Library indicating that Level4 Wage civil engineers in the United States earn $11Q,635 per year. 
estimation is equivalent to $376,754. See www.xe.com. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofS-D-L-A-
In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted another letter from 
stating that he projected the Petitioner's. annual 
salary at the moment of his audit in 
October 2015, and explained that he based the Petitioner's field and occupation as an engineering 
manager on the table of wages for Venezuelan engineers because it was "the most reasonable 
refference [sic]." The Petitioner also presented copies of a paystub and third quarter income tax 
statement from reflecting a monthly wage of VEF 155,000 and year-to-date 
income ofVEF 861,000.1 · 
Regarding letters, he indicated that his evaluation was based on the Petitioner's 
position as chief executive officer at three companies. We note that the record does not include 
information or evidence demonstrating that he worked for and 
Regardless, the plain language requires the Petitioner to show that he has 
commanded a high salary "in relation to others in the field." Here, the Petitioner works as the 
president and shareholder of yet the Petitioner submits evidence comparing 
his salary to civil engineers. Although the Petitioner is an engineer by training , he does not hold the 
position of an engineer in the company. The Petitioner has not shown that he commands a high 
salary in relation to other presidents or chief executive officers of an engineering business. See 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's 
earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 
1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers) ; Jvfuni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 
440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL 
defensemen). In the present case, the evidence the Petitioner submits does not establish that he has 
received a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in the 
field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one­
time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had th.e Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories , the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers aH of the filings in the context of 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 field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "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), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we 
need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the 
2 The Petitioner 's monthly and year-to-date income is equivalent to $24,599 and $136,641 respectively . See 
www.xe.com. 
6 
Matter ofS-D-L-A-
record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise 
and sustained acclaim required for the classification sought. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-D-L-A-, ID# 35846 (AAO Nov. 23, 2016)