dismissed EB-1A Case: Environmental Engineering

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OFJ-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 2, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in environmental 
engineering. 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 Petitioner did 
not submit certified English translations of foreign language documents and had satisfied only one of 
the initial evidentiary criterion, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents additional documentation, contending that he meets seven of the 
ten criteria and qualifies for the classification. He maintains that he intends to operate a consulting 
firm in and that "[his] work could address real needs in American society clearly and 
unequivocally." 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to certain immigrants 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of J-L-
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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as qualifying awards, published material in certain media, 
and scholarly articles). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to present 
comparable material if he or she can show that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to his or her occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
submitted material in a final merits determination and assess whether the record, as a whole, 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, 1119-20 
(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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 
2d 1339, 1343 (W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the 
"truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the 
principle that we examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In an August 2016 statement, the Petitioner indicates that he is "an established scientist" with "three 
decades of professional experience." He maintains that he has "devoted all [his] life to 
environmental engineering and related research, especially in water supply and wastewater disposal 
to solve major environmental problems such as water pollution." According to his 2016 "Statement 
Detailing My Plan to Continue Work in the United States," if the petition is approved, he intends to 
work as the "Chief Consultant" for a consulting firm I that he will establish "on water pollution 
prevention and control in America to make the information and technology [he had] gathered or 
developed from [his] previous research in China and Japan available in the United States." 
We have reviewed all the documents in the record, including those not specifically discussed in this 
decision, and conclude that they do not show the Petitioner has satisfied the initial evidence 
requirement of presenting documentation meeting at least three of the ten criteria listed under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
1 According to a letter from a company in China, it "has 
authorized [the Petitioner] to set up a consulting firm .. . in America as its U.S. affiliate." 
2 
.
Matter of J-L-
A. Foreign Language Documents 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) specifies that a petitioner must provide certified English 
translations for foreign language documents. It provides: 
Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS [U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services] shall be accompanied by a full English language 
translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the 
translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English. 
In her decision denying the petition, the Director indicated that the Petitioner had submitted foreign 
language documents, but not their full English translations. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director erred, because she had required translations for documents that were already in English. 
The record does not support the Petitioner's contention. His submissions contain a number of 
foreign language documents, including those related to: ( 1) projects in which he was involved, (2) 
his patents, (3) his research fellowships in Japan, and (4) his information posted on baike.baidu.com. 
On appeal, he presents additional evidence, including printouts from new.wanfangdata.com.cn; a list 
of what appears to be his articles, patents and publications; and a document about the "2017 
These documents either are in a foreign language or contain 
information in a foreign language. 
While the record includes English translations, some of them are not "full" and "complete" 
translations that satisfy the regulatory requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Specifically, some 
translations include ellipses, signifying omissions, and specify that they only translated "highlighted 
parts" of the foreign language documents. In addition, the documents concerning the Petitioner's 
research fellowships in Japan appear to be in Japanese. The certification of the translator indicates 
that he or she had "translat[ ed] the Chinese part of Japanese into English," but did not translate the 
Japanese portions of the documents. In light of these deficiencies, the foreign language documents 
and their partial translations are insufficient to establish the Petitioner's eligibility. We will discuss 
below the other documentation in the record. 
., 
.
Matter of J-L-
B. Initial Evidentiary Criteria 2 
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). 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that his prizes or awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field. He has not made such a showing. His 
accomplishments include his receipt of the following: 
(1) 
(2) 
(3) 
(4) 
(5) 
(6) 
(7) 
a First Prize 
a Second Prize 
two First Prize 
the "2006 
a First Prize 
certificates confirming the Petitioner's completion of academic studies; and 
a qualification certificate of registered environmental protection engineer from the 
Personnel Department of 
The Petitioner has offered letters from other scientists concerning these accomplishments. For 
example, in his November 2017 letter, of 
states that the Petitioner's awards and honors "are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field" because "[ m ]any of them were from national 
government and professional organizations directly." He claims, "[a]s far as [he] know[s], [the 
award from the is the highest honor for a university researcher in the entire 
country ," the "is one of the largest national 
professional associations in the industry," and the publication _______ is "a 
journal of national and international impact in the field ." 
2 The Petitioner has not alleged, and the record does not establish, that he has received a one-time achievement, that is a 
major, internationally recognized award. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We will discuss the evidence concerning the seven 
criteria that he claims to meet. 
4 
.
Matter of J-L-
of the _ offers similar opinions, claiming that the 
Petitioner has "received many nationally and internationally recognized honors and awards." 
of maintains that the Petitioner's 
award from the "is considered the highest honor for academic researchers in 
the entire country," and _ of _____ in Ireland, indicates 
that the Petitioner's awards are "major national awards." 
These letters, however, are insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has received qualifying awards 
or prizes under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Specifically, while several individuals claim that the 
Petitioner's award from the ___ is the highest honor a university researcher could 
receive in China, neither they nor the Petitioner have explained the bases of, or pointed to documents 
in the record that support, this conclusion. While the award certificate states that it is to recognize 
"major contributions in furthering advancement of science and technology," the record lacks 
independent and credible evidence, such as reports from national or international publications 
discussing the level of recognition that the award enjoys in the field of environmental engineering. 
The record also does not specify the nomination or selection process or criteria for the award. 
In addition, information about an issuing entity's prominence in a field, without more, is insufficient 
to confirm that all awards from that organization are nationally or internationally recognized. For 
example, while the is a national governmental agency, the Petitioner has not 
shown that all its awards are nationally recognized for excellence in environmental engineering. 
Similarly, while the and the editorial board of 
might have certain level of impact in the field, without specific 
documentation about their awards, the record is insufficient to confirm that the Petitioner's awards 
from those entities are qualifying under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In his response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner offered an online printout 
from the formerly known as the 
This document discusses the organization's 
activities, referencing that it "organize[s] award programs," but does not provide any details about 
the Petitioner's award or establish that it is nationally or internationally recognized in the field of 
environmental engineering. 
With regard to the other awards and prizes, the Petitioner has not provided specific evidence about 
them or documentation that confirms that they are recognized nationally or internationally in the 
field. Likewise, his teaching awards, academic successes, research fellowships, and qualifications as 
an environmental protection engineer might illustrate that he has the necessary knowledge and 
experience to be a productive researcher , but are not tantamount to his receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of environmental engineering. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
5 
. .
Matter of J-L-
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). 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that the associations in which he is a member 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields. The Petitioner has not made such a showing. The 
record includes the following evidence concerning this criterion: 
(1) a certificate of appointment, appointing the Petitioner to be a member of the 
(2) a certificate, indicating that the Petitioner was elected to be a member of the 
(3) a certificate of appointment, appointing the Petitioner to be a member of the 
(4) certificates, noting that the Petitioner would serve as a member of the 
The record includes letters concerning these associations. For example, provides in his 
November 2017 letter that the organizations in which the Petitioner is member "are among the most 
prestigious in the field" and have "many national and international experts among its members." 
further claims that "only those who have made outstanding achievements are elected to 
[the] national committees." 
In his response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner presented a letter from 
The letter, which is not signed and its author is not identified, 
claims that the Petitioner is a member of "national committees serving as the governing bodies of the 
larger organizations" and that "their memberships require outstanding achievements as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in the field." The letter states that "the individuals who 
review prospective me~bers' applications are recognized as national or international experts in their 
discipline s or fields ." 
While these letters include the exact regulatory language concerning this criterion , they do not point 
to any evidence in the record that substantiates their conclusory statements. The record lacks official 
documents from the and the 
such as their constitutions, bylaws , or other documents that set forth the processes and 
criteria under which they select members or appoint them to committees. Without additional 
6 
.
Matter of J-L-
corroboration, statements from the Petitioner and his references that are not substantiated by 
independent and credible evidence are insufficient to demonstrate that these associations require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied 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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner submits partially translated documents as evidence that he meets this criterion. As 
discussed, partially translated documents do not meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3), and are insufficient to establish his eligibility for the classification. Even if we were 
to consider these documents, we would not find that they satisfy this criterion. Specifically, the 
partially translated documents appear to be three published articles that the Petitioner had authored, 
and each article includes the same, one sentence description of him. He has not shown that one 
sentence constitutes "published material about him ... relating to [his] work," as required under the 
regulation. Even if it did, the documents do not indicate who had authored the sentence, as the 
criterion specifically requires such information. If the Petitioner had authored the description, then 
he has not demonstrated that such self-promotional material satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record also includes several printouts showing that websites have posted the Petitioner's 
information. The Petitioner, however, has not established that these websites constitute 
"professional or major trade publications or other major media." In addition, the record lacks 
information about "the title, date, and author of the material," as required under the regulation. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met 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 specffication for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must offer evidence that he has actually judged the work of 
others, not merely that he has been invited to do so. The Petitioner maintains in his August 2016 
statement that he has "judged the work of others' [sic] in the field nearly 100 times for the 
provincial level governments tanging from 
and various industries." 
as well as 
and 
The Petitioner has offered evidence showing that he was appointed to be the "Deputy Director of the 
Qualification Evaluation Committee for Senior Professional Positions in 
a "Beijing Bid Evaluation Expert" for the 
and an "Expert Judge of __ ~~--~-~-----~ 
., 
.
Matter of J-L-
He has also presented additional documentation, showing that he was 
appointed as an editor or an expert for a number of entities. 
According to the Petitioner "has not only been 
invited to but has actually participated in judging the work of others in the field," and completes "[ a] 
large number of judging duties ... on a regular basis." The record includes reference letters that 
offer similar statements, but they do not point to evidence that substantiates the claims. 
The record lacks evidence of the Petitioner's actual participation as a judge. For example, while he 
claims to be an editor for a number of journals, he has not offered evidence that he has reviewed or 
edited any manuscripts for the publications. Similarly, although he has been named an expert by 
some organizations, he has not submitted documentation relating to the specific duties he has 
performed or confirming that the duties involved judging another scientist's work. Likewise, he has 
not presented statements from any entities that appointed him as an editor or expert that detail the 
work he has completed or explain if his work involved his evaluation of another's work. On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts: "It is ludicrous for the [Director] to think that a person would refuse to 
perform such duties assigned by the national and local government and reject such assignment of 
honor." Notwithstanding this statement, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish he satisfies this 
criterion, which requires evidence of actual participation as a judge. See section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. § 1361. Without additional evidence that credibly illustrates his activities after the 
appointments, he has not established that he has actually participated in the judging of the work of 
others. Accordingly, he has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that not only has he made original contributions 
but that they have been of major significance in the field of environmental engineering. Major 
significance in the field may be shown through evidence that his research findings or original 
methods or processes have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably 
impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner claims he meets this criterion based on his scholarly articles, books, conference 
presentations, research projects, inventions, and reference letters from other scientists. 
The record is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. Although he 
asserts that the publication of his research is evidence of its significance , the record does not 
sufficiently demonstrate that his written work has been considered of major significance in the field . 
He indicates that his findings have been published in Japanese , E nglish , and Chinese, and that they 
"have received more widespread recognition for their originality and significance , and reached a 
much wider audience than those of others in the field published or presented in more limited ways." 
According to printouts from google.com , which the Petitioner offers on appeal , his 1998 article 
has been cited 58 times. 
.
Matter of J-L-
He has not presented additional information on whether his other written work has received any 
citation or how many it has garnered. He has therefore not shown that the level of interest other 
scientists have taken to his work - as illustrated, in part, by the number of citations his work has 
received - supports a finding that he has made contributions of major significance in the field. 
While the reference letters discuss the Petitioner's research and articles, and note generally that his 
work has influenced the field, they do not explain how specifically the work has impacted the field 
in a major or significant way, consistent with a finding of"contributions of major significance." For 
example, , states that the Petitioner "made innovative approaches" and that scientists 
"have applied the [Petitioner's] process to real wastewater treatment in China with great success." 
He also states that the Petitioner "broke new grounds," made "major contributions to [the field's] 
understanding of the key environmental issues involved," and "helped many scientists around the 
world ... in [their] work." provides that the Petitioner's work "demonstrate[s] the 
extraordinary originality and major significance of [his] contributions to the filed, as well as the high 
caliber of expertise he possesses." also indicates that the Petitioner's findings "are 
bound to be far reaching." opines that the Petitioner has "been very productive and 
successful as born [sic] out by his impressive publication record and the awards and honors he has 
won." These letters show that the Petitioner's work has had some impact, which might one day be at 
a higher level, but they are insufficient to confirm that the impact has already risen to the level of 
"major significance." Although the Petitioner has also received awards for his work, the record does 
not specify the award issuing entities' selection process or criteria, or otherwise confirm the impact 
of the work to the field as a whole. 
Similarly, several reference letters provide that the Petitioner has been invited to present his findings 
at conferences. The letters, however, do not explain how his presentation and conference activities 
have impacted or influenced the field as a whole. Participation in a conference demonstrates that his 
findings were shared with others, but being selected to present, without more, is not indicative of the 
major significance of his contributions. Publications and presentations are not sufficient under this 
criterion absent evidence that they were of"major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 
1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. 
In addition, the Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion because he has received funding, 
including from governmental agencies and to conduct his research. An award 
of grants or funding signifies that the award issuing organization considers the research, as proposed, 
to have certain level of importance. But to demonstrate that the Petitioner has met this criterion, he 
must offer evidence that after the completion of the study, or the publication or presentation of the 
findings, the reaction to his work confirms that it has remarkably impacted or influenced the field as 
a whole. He has not submitted such evidence. Every research adds information to the pool of 
knowledge in some way for it to be accepted for publication, presentation, or funding, but not every 
finding that broadens knowledge in a particular field is tantamount to a scientific contribution of 
major significance in that field. 
9 
.
Matter of J-L-
The record also includes evidence that the Petitioner has received patent certificates of invention that 
named him as the inventor. provides that the Petitioner has "at least 32 ... patents 
... range from devices, equipment, facilities, process, to methods, and technologies on prevention 
and mitigation of pollution in water and sludge for environmental protection." Although the patents 
show the originality of the Petitioner's work, without evidence that the invention or innovation has 
been widely used or adopted in the field, or have otherwise influenced the field in a significant way, 
the patents do not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner has submitted reference letters, including two from August 
2016 letter contains multiple passages regarding the Petitioner's contributions to the field that are 
virtually identical to sections in the Petitioner's own August 2016 statement. This raises concerns 
over the letter's authenticity and the source of its contents. For example, claims in his 
August 2016 letter: 
... For decades, [the Petitioner] has led the successful completion of over 40 major 
research projects funded by the government at the national, ministerial and provincial 
levels .... 
. . . [H]is research findings have been selected for publication or presentation in over 
190 journal articles and conference papers, and 9 books, which include monographs, 
handbooks, government industry standard guidelines, and textbooks, and some of 
which won top awards. In addition, [the Petitioner] has made a large number of 
inventions and innovations as demonstrated in his being listed as the first named 
inventor on over 30 patent certifications. The original nature and major significance 
of his scientific contributions are truly indisputable. 
The Petitioner states in his statement: 
... Over the years, I have completed over 40 major research projects funded by the 
government at the national, ministerial and provincial levels . . . . Many of my 
research findings have been selected for publication or presentation, resulting in over 
190 journal articles and conference papers, and 9 books. They include monographs, 
handbooks, government industry standard guidelines, and textbooks, as well as 
award-winning publications. In addition, I have made a large number of inventions 
and innovations, and is [sic] the first named inventor on over 30 patents, making the 
original nature and major significance of my scientific contributions indisputable . 
The similarities between these documents do not support a finding that letter reflects his 
independent observations, or his informed and unbiased opinion, of the Petitioner's 
accomplishments. Regardless , the documents in the record, including those not specifically 
mentioned, primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner ' s status in the field without providing 
specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance. Letters 
that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual ' s contributions have already 
10 
.
Matter of J-L-
influenced the field significantly are insufficient to satisfy this criterion. Kazarian, 580 F .3d at 
1036. Moreover, we need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. United States 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.D.C. 1990). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied 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 Director concluded that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record supports this finding 
because it confirms that he has authored scholarly articles, including 
- .. ~· ~ 
which are published in professional publications Journal 
of Residuals Science and Technology and Biochemical Engineering Journal, respectively. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
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). 
To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must offer evidence that he has performed in a leading or 
critical role for qualifying organizations or establishments. For a leading role, he must show that he 
is or was a leader. 3 For a critical role, he must demonstrate that he has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not his 
title of the role, but his performance in the role that determines if it is or was critical. 
The Petitioner has indicated that he has held the following titles and positions: 
(1) the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of a chapter in 
(2) an editorial board member for 
(3) an Expert of the 
(4) a Technology Expert of the 
J See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-/40 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI /-/4 10 (Dec. 22, 20 I 0), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/defau It/ft les/U SC I S/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-ev idence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf. 
11 
.
Matter of J-L-
(5) a member "of the 
(6) a professor, supervisor of Ph.D. students, and deputy department chair for the 
(7) a research fellow at 
(8) an executive for 
While the Petitioner has offered evidence of his association with the above referenced entities, he 
has not presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that he satisfies this criterion. For most of the 
listed titles and roles, the record lacks sufficient evidence detailing the specific duties that he has 
performed. Without additional corroboration confirming his work and impact on the organizations, 
he cannot satisfy the regulatory requirements by offering conclusory statements that he meets the 
criterion. 
The Petitioner has offered some information about his role as a supervisor of Ph.D. students for the 
claiming that he has "supervised over 50 candidates for the 
doctoral and master's degrees, and over 40 of them have received their degrees." Some of his 
references have provided the same information in their letters, but have not specified the basis of 
their knowledge. The record lacks sufficient evidence detailing what the Petitioner had done as a 
supervisor of students, including his level of involvement, and how his work was critical to the 
university as a whole. 
Moreover, while the record shows that the Petitioner was a research fellow for two universities in 
Japan, it is insufficient to confirm that he was either a leader for the universities or that his work was 
critical to the universities. The Petitioner has also stated that he "played the leading or most critical 
role or both in ... projects [that led to publication of articles or presentation of findings] in 
comparison to others in the same research group." He, however, has not shown that "projects" 
constitute "organizations or establishments," as specified in the criterion. 
Furthermore, the record contains insufficient evidence showing that some of the entities for which 
the Petitioner claims to have performed a qualifying role have a distinguished reputation. For 
example, evidence that studies had led to publication of scholarly articles or periodicals that had 
published articles, without documentation of the studies and periodicals' standing in the field, is 
insufficient to show they have a distinguished reputation. Similarly, while the Petitioner is an 
executive at 
and has presented information about the companies and their executives, the 
record does not include sufficient documentation , such as independent media reports, confirming 
that they have a distinguished reputation. Accordingly , the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
12 
Matter of J-L-
C. Comparable Evidence 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that he has presented evidence concerning "two comparable 
categories." He, however, does not specify what documentation in the record falls under these "two 
comparable categories." Regardless, the regulation allows for the submission of comparable 
evidence if the listed criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the 
Petitioner's occupation. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.l, supra, at 12. He, 
however, has not demonstrated that the criteria do not readily apply to his intended occupation as the 
chief consultant for an environmental engineering firm. In fact, on appeal, he claims that he has met 
seven of the ten criteria. As such, the Petitioner has not established that he may submit comparable 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
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 criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, upon a 
review of the record in its entirety, we conclude 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 who are 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 academic, scholarly, research, and 
professional accomplishments 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; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-L-, ID# 1856846 (AAO Jan. 2, 2019) 
13