dismissed EB-1A Case: Geotechnical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12236525 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 31, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an associate professor and general director in the geotechnical engineering field, seeks 
classification as an individual 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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, the Petitioner has not met this burden. 
Accordingly, 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 regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international 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 an associate professor of engineering at[ I in 
Venezuela and serves as the general director ofi I He .__----,---,--r----, 
attended ,__ __ _, where he received his bachelor's degree in civil engineering in 1990 and a master's 
degree in managerial engineering in 1994. 
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 Petitioner claims to meet seven of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x): 1 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published materials relating to him and his work; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles with organizations that have a distinguished reputation. 
1 The Petitioner initially claimed he could satisfy the criterion relating to display of his work at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), but has not pursued this claim on appeal or contested the Director's decision that 
the criterion was not met. We therefore consider this issue to be waived. See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 
(BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). 
See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 
F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 
30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the seven claimed evidentiary criteria, relating 
to judging the work of others in his field and authorship of scholarly articles. The evidence 
demonstrates that the Petitioner has engaged in peer review of publications in his field and that he has 
published his work in professional journals and conference proceedings, and therefore satisfied the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets five additional criteria and contends that the Director 
"failed to consider the importance of the evidence presented" in support of these criteria. After 
reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that he does not meet the initial evidentiary 
requirement of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the individual'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) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate whether he has received lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 
Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was for 
excellence in the field include, but are not limited to: the criteria used to grant the awards or prizes, 
the national or international significance of the awards or prizes in the field, and the number of 
awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 3 
In evaluating this criterion, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's receipt of awards and 
recognition certificates but determined that he had not established that they were nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for excellence. The Director also emphasized that at least one award 
appeared to be awarded to the Petitioner while he was a student and noted awards designed for students 
and early career professionals "inherently exclude established professionals who have already 
achieved excellence in the field." On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director failed to discuss 
each award individually and did not adequately explain why the evidence did not establish the national 
recognition associated with his awards. 
The Petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion, in part, based on receipt of thel I Award 
in 2004. The evidence reflects thatl l an engineering and construction company operating in 
Venezuela, sponsors a "Best Graduation Assignment" competition for students studying engineering 
at Venezuelan universities. Students submit their thesis papers through their university and the 
individuals selected byl I as having the best graduation thesis or assignments receive a 
monetary prize and an award plaque. The submitted rules of the competition indicate that in addition 
to the prize received by the winning students,! I also grants a plaque to the universities that 
submit papers selected for the prize, and to the winning students' "academic and industrial tutors." 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 Id. (indicating that an award limited to competitors from a single institution, for example, may have little national or 
international significance.) 
3 
The evidence reflects that the Petitioner was not the author of the "Best Senior Thesis in Civil 
Engineering □' but rather received his recognition plaque as the academic tutor for thd I 
engineering student who had a winning paper. The student was the mimjry recipient of this award 
and it was his or her written work that was evaluated according td,__ __ _.' s scoring framework; the 
record does not reflect that the Petitioner's contribution as an academic tutor was directly evaluated, 
judged or awarded. 
Further, while the competition rules indicate that thel I Award is open to engineering students 
in certain disciplines at any university in Venezuela, the evidence does not demonstrate the degree of 
national or international recognition associated with the award or otherwise establish its significance. 
The fact that the competition draws its entries from a national pool of student competitors is not 
sufficient to establish that it is a nationally recognized prize for excellence. Here, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate the national or international significance of the award in the field but focused on the 
purpose and background of the competition. The record does not establish, for example, that recipients 
of thel IA ward receive recognition beyond the award ceremony held atl ts offices and 
from their individual universities. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner was the recipient of thel I award in 1992, when 
he was a graduate student at I I The record reflects that this award was created by the 
Venezuelan Society of Soils Mechanics and Foundations Engineering (SVMSIF, now known as the 
Venezuelan Geotechnical Society or SVDG) "with the purpose of fomenting in the students interest 
in the study and investigation in the Geotechni[c] Engineering field." The evidence demonstrates that 
engineering students from Venezuelan universities who have completed special graduation 
assignments or graduation theses in the field of geotechnical engineering are eligible to compete for 
the award. Winners receive a recognition plaque, publication of their work in the SVMSIF Bulletin, 
and the opportunity to present their work at the SVMSIF's bi-annual seminar. 
The Director observed that the Petitioner has been the recipient of a student award, in this case a 
student award limited to engineering students whose thesis research fell within the specific discipline 
of geotechnical engineering. Based on the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
we do not find that student awards automatically disqualify individuals from meeting this criterion. 
However, an award limited by age or student status might be a relevant factor in determining whether 
the overall field acknowledges it for excellence. Ultimately, the issue for this criterion is whether the 
prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that I Is newsletter Noticias published a brief announcement 
about his receipt of the~----~ award in its,__ _____ __. 1993 issue. While this evidence 
shows that he received recognition from the university he attended, he did not submit evidence 
establishing that this award is nationally or internationally recognized in the field. The Director issued 
a request for evidence (RFE) in this matter and the Petitioner was given the opportunity to submit 
additional evidence such as public announcements regarding the awarding of the prize or other 
documentation to establish that the award is recognized nationally or internationally beyond the 
awarding entity. The Petitioner provided evidence that the awarding entity is a national organization 
in the field and that it accepted entries from engineering students from any Venezuelan university. 
However, neither of these facts is sufficient to establish that thd I award is a nationally 
recognized prize for excellence in the Petitioner's engineering field. Based on the plain language of 
4 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), a petitioner cannot meet this criterion solely by establishing 
receipt of an award from a national organization, but must also establish the degree of recognition or 
significance associated with the award itself 
Finally, the Petitioner has submitted evidence of several recognition plaques awarded to him in his 
capacity as an associate professor and academic tutor atl I The evidence reflects that these 
plaques were granted to him to express the appreciation of the university and of the graduating students 
he advised. For example, the recognition plaque granted in 2005 indicates that it was given to the 
Petitioner "as a gesture of appreciation for his support throughout our university career for always 
being an impeccable person as professor, friend, worthy of our respect and admiration." The record 
does not establish that these recognitions from his students are nationally or internationally recognized 
awards or prizes for excellence in his field, or that they should be considered "awards" or "prizes." It 
appears that the Petitioner seeks to rely onl ts ranking among Venezuelan universities in order 
to establish that the plaques he received are "nationally recognized." Even ifwe could determine that 
the recognition plaques are awards rather than tokens of appreciation from students for his work as a 
professor, we note that an award limited to persons from a single institution may have little national 
significance, even if the institution itself is nationally recognized. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that he has received lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field. 
Documentation of the individual'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 claims that he meets this criterion based on his membership in the Venezuelan 
Geotechnical Society (SVDG), the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical 
Engineering (ISSMGE) and based on his admission as a faculty member oti Is Department of 
Building and Sustained Development. In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that 
membership in a given association is based on being judged by recognized national or international 
experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 4 
The Petitioner provided a letter from SVDG stating that he is a member of the society's I 
committee and has been appointed as an advisor "for his career as al IMemberJ,..._......____._ ___ _ 
of this Society and for his work published in National and International Congresses that support the 
recognition of his professional career as a Geotechnical Engineer in our country." The evidence 
confirms that he held the elected Board of Directors positions ofl landl I 
2009 and 2013. 
The Petitioner also submitted an excerpt from SVDG's bylaws which states that the levels of 
membership include Founding Members, Active Members, Senior Members, and Honorary Members. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements). 
5 
The bylaws provide that Active Members are engineering professionals, registered with Venezuela's 
association of engineers, who "express their desire to belong in the society" and "comply with the 
requisites established in the Bylaws and that are accepted by the Board of Directors." The bylaws 
describe! I Members as follows: 
Thel I Members are those Active Members that, by resolution of the Board of 
Directors and in accordance with the respective ruling sanctioned by the Assembly of 
the Society, comply with all the requisites of having: antiquity and relevant trajectory 
in the membership of the Society and in the professional exercise of the geotechnical 
engineering, as well as special merits of an academic, scientific, ethical and 
professional character related to the geotechnical engineering. 
The Petitioner also submitted the minutes from the general assembly meeting at which he was elected 
I lof the SVDG. However, the supporting evidence does not include a description of the 
nomination and election process for Board of Directors positions or the requirements for appointed 
positions such as thel I committee position that the Petitioner held more recently. The 
Petitioner must show that in order to obtain a given level of membership, he was judged by national 
or international experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the field. Although the 
Director requested additional evidence, the Petitioner re-submitted the same supporting documents in 
response to the RFE. 
To the extent that the submitted section of the SVDG's bylaws discuss membership requirements, they 
do not establish that admission as a I I Member requires "outstanding achievements" as a 
condition for membership. The bylaws refer to a "relevant trajectory ... in the professional exercise 
of the geotechnical engineering" and "special merits of an academic, scientific, ethical and 
professional character." However, we cannot determine based on this vague language alone that these 
characteristics equate to "outstanding achievements" in the field. Further, based on the evidence 
submitted, the record does not establish whether "outstanding achievements" are a condition for 
nomination or election to the SVDG's Board of Directors positions or appointment to the society's 
I I committee. Nor does the submitted evidence describe the nomination, election or 
appointment process for these positions, such that we could determine that the selections are made by 
recognized national or international experts. In fact, the Petitioner stated that he was elected "by the 
members of the engineering community during a General Meeting," which suggests that all members 
of the SVDG vote. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director failed to consider the opinions of experts in 
determining whether he satisfied this criterion. For example, he notes that Eng~-------~ 
the .__ _____ __.of PERFOHMESA C.A., stated in his letter that the Petitioner's "high 
qualifications in the Geotechnical area led him to represent, by unanimous vote, in the Assembly of 
the most renowned engineers, asl lof our Venezuelan Geotechnical Society." I I 
I Is statement however, does not indicate that "outstanding achievements" are a formal condition 
of being selected asl I of SVGA or provide~urther objective information about the 
organization's nominating and election processes forL__Jmembers. Overall, while the evidence 
indicates that it was a significant professional achievement for the Petitioner to serve as the SVDG's 
I l he did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that his membership with SVDG meets 
all elements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
6 
The Petitioner also claims that he meets this criterion based on his membership with ISSMGE. 
According to the ISSMGE statutes and bylaws, this international society is composed of member 
societies (including SVDG) which are generally national societies in geotechnical engineering or soil 
mechanics. The bylaws further provide that each national member society "is composed in part or in 
full of individual members who are designated Individual Members of [ISSMGE]." Based on this 
evidence, the record reflects that all individual members of SVDG, including the Petitioner, are 
designated individual members of ISSMGE; there is no evidence that such members must be judged 
by recognized national or international experts as having attained outstanding achievements as a 
condition of being admitted as members ofISSMGE. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion as "a member of the Association of 
Professors" atl I where he is currently an associate professor. The Petitioner submitted 
I Is regulations governing the hiring and promotion of the university's faculty. These 
regulations describe "ordinary members" of the academic staff as instructors, assistant professors, 
associate professors and professors. The regulations state that professors must: commit to the 
university's Code of Ethics, values and mission; possess academic credentials in higher education and 
personal, technical and professional skills required for the fulfillment of university functions; and 
comply with the requirements of the university's internal regulations. Those admitted as "ordinary 
members" must have two years of full-time or four years of part-time employment at the university, 
possess a specialist degree or higher level, and have obtained satisfactory results in evaluations. 
Finally, the regulations state that ordinary members must produce products such as "peer-reviewed 
publications, patents and technological developments, professional works and intellectual creation 
works" that are characterized by "making some contribution to knowledge or its innovative didactic 
nature." 
Based on the foregoing the Petitioner has not established that admission to I I's teaching staff, 
or promotion to associate professor, requires outstanding achievements as judged by recognized 
national experts in the field. The evidence reflects that professors are expected to have an advanced 
degree, teaching experience, satisfactory annual evaluations, and to "make some contribution to 
knowledge" through research and publications. The record does not demonstrate that this typical 
academic career progression amounts to a requirement that the individual be judged to have 
"outstanding achievements." 
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has not established that he meets the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual'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 necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner provided evidence in support of the published materials criterion, but the Director 
determined that none of the submitted articles satisfied all elements included in the regulations. The 
Petitioner submitted an excerpt from the Proceddings I of the D International Conference on Soil 
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering held i in 2013, and the record reflects that a similar 
article was published in the ISSMGE's Bulletin (Volume 5, Issue 2). The ISSMGE conference 
7 
proceedings provide some background information regarding each national society member of the 
ISSMGE, including a brief section about SVDG. This section identifies the Petitioner as the SVDG 
I I at the time of the conference, and it provides information regarding the SVDG and its 
activities. The submitted page from the ISSMGE Bulletin contains essentially the same information 
and mentions the Petitioner in passing as the 1 ! of SVDG. These articles are not "about" 
the Petitioner and do not identify the author of the material as required by the regulation. 
As noted above,I ~s publication Noticias ran a brief announcement about the Petitioner's 
receipt of thel l prize in 1993, while he was a student at the university. However, the 
Petitioner did not provide evidence that this university newsletter is a professional or major trade 
publication or other major medium, nor is there an author attributed to the news brief. 
The Petitioner provided two articles that announce his election asl lof SYDG, One article, 
which appears to be from a newspaler, is titled I I I' and is about the Petitioner and relates to his work. But the 
excerpt submitted does not identify the title or date of the publication in which the article appeared or 
the author of the material and therefore does not satisfy the elements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iii). An almost identical article was published in thel I 2011 issue of 
Maguen-Escado, a publication of the Israelite Association of Venezuela. However, the article is not 
accompanied by evidence that it appeared in a professional or major trade publication or other major 
medium, nor does it identify the author of the material. 
Finally, the Petitioner provided a screenshot of what appears to be a video interview of him that can 
be found on You Tube. He did not provide a transcript of the interview or any additional information 
about it. Based on this limited evidence, he did not demonstrate that it reflects published material about 
him in major media. 
In addressing the published materials criterion on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did 
not consider the expert opinion o~ I university professor! I in determining that 
the submitted evidence "is not within the required criteria." In his letter, I !indicates that 
he reviewed the evidence submitted under this criterion. He concludes that the Petitioner "been 
recognized by respected media outlets in the field" and thus he satisfies the published materials 
criterion. We may, in our discretion, use as advisory opinion statements from universities, 
professional organizations, or other sources submitted in evidence as expert testimony. However, 
where an opinion is not in accord with other information or is in any way questionable, we are not 
required to accept or may give less weight to that evidence. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791 
(Comm'r 1988). I t letter does not address or overcome the specific evidentiary 
deficiencies discussed above and is not sufficient to establish that any of the submitted articles satisfy 
all elements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
8 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. 
In evaluating this criterion, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner documented his scholarly 
publications, academic tutoring responsibilities, and consulting projects and submitted reference 
letters from persons in his field, among other evidence. The Director determined that while the 
evidence shows that the Petitioner is an experienced professional in his field and has made 
contributions, the record does not establish his work has had a remarkable impact or influence in the 
field or is otherwise recognized for its major significance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner emphasizes that the submitted testimonial letters from experts in his field 
establish "the importance of his contribution" in geotechnical engineering. We will consider probative 
analysis provided in opinion letters regarding the significance of the Petitioner's contributions. 5 
However, not all expert letters provide such analysis. Letters that specifically articulate how a 
Petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add 
value. Letters that lack specifics do not add value and are not considered to be probative evidence that 
may form the basis for meetings this criterion. 6 
.__ _____ __.l an associate professor a_.__ ____________ __.and al.__ _____ _. 
of SVDG, states that he is familiar with the Petitioner's teaching career and his contributions to SVDG. 
He notes that the Petitioner, during his tenure as I I for SVDG "participated in activities that 
contributed to the Country's geotechnical engineering union, in the organization of conferences, 
production of up-dating bulletins with technical documents for the distribution among members of the 
Society, study and implementation of standards and tariffs for the execution of geotechnical works." 
~-----~I further states that the Petitioner's background with SVDG and his teaching career 
"make him a candidate to contribute as an advisor or consultant in the geotechnical problems of the 
country," and states that he can "attest that his contribution and participation in these cases can be of 
great importance." 
Whild I describes the Petitioner as an experienced professional in the field, he does not 
clearly describe his specific original scientific contributions or how they have already had a significant 
impact or influence in the field. For example, while he indicates that the Petitioner's work with SVDG 
required him to contribute to "implementation of standards and tariffs," he does not explain whether, 
for example, the Petitioner also developed these standards, what they were or how they were orif nal, I 
or whether that were widely adopted in the field. Another! I of the SVDG, 
.__ ___ ~ __ __, provided a letter that is very similar in content, in that he also discusses the 
Petitioner's responsibilities with the SVDG, and concludes that "he is qualified to contribute as an 
advisor in the country's geotechnical problems." 
While we do not doubt that the Petitioner is well-qualified to advise or consult on important 
geotechnical engineering issues, this criterion requires him to identify his contributions and establish 
that his past contributions has been recognized as both original and majorly significant based on their 
impact and influence. The fact that he has served in elected offices with SVDG and assisted with 
5 While we do not discuss every letter here, we have reviewed all letters submitted in evaluating this criterion. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
9 
organizing its activities does not, in and of itself: demonstrate that he made original contributions of 
major significance in his field. 
In his letter, .__ _____ __.of.__ ______ ___, indicates that the Petitioner has advised him 
on various projects with national and international companies and highlights his work advising 
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) by assisting in geological studies for the location and drilling 
of deep water wells to supply drinking water to underserved communities in South America. He 
further notes that the Petitioner "has been an integral part of the development of social responsibility 
in low-income communities at the request of private companies." The Petitioner also provided a letter 
from a program manager with HIAS, who further describes the consulting work he completed for this 
non-profit organization. While these letters indicate that the Petitioner has made valuable 
contributions to the HIAS project and several other projects, they do not specifically identify an 
original scientific contribution or indicate that his work on these projects has impacted the field, rather 
than the individual projects and the clients for which he served as an advisor or consultant. 
The Petitioner also submits a list oft I students' thesis papers for which he is credited as 
"academic tutor," copies of these papers, and a letter froml I confirming that he serves as 
"thesis tutor" and guides "research from students in the field of geotechnical engineering that 
contribute to the development of engineering in the country (Venezuela)." However, this evidence 
does not establish whether or how he has made an original contribution of major significance through 
his thesis tutoring activities atl I or that these activities have had an impact or influence in the 
field beyond the work of students in his department. The Petitioner has not provided, for example, 
evidence that he has collaborated with students on research that has been widely recognized as 
significantly influential in the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that his published work establishes his original contributions in the field. 
He highlights the opinion ofl I who states in his letter that the Petitioner "has authored 6 
articles that appeared in the proceedings of the Venezuelan Geotechnical Seminar, Venezuela's most 
prominent conference in the field of Geotechnical Engineering." The Director acknowledged the 
Petitioner's publication of scholarly articles in determining that he met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vi). Although published work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish 
that the work is of major significance. Peer-reviewed articles in journals or presentations at academic 
conferences that have, for example, provoked widespread commentary, received notice from others 
working, or have been frequently cited as authoritative in the field may be probative of the significance 
of an individual's contribution to the field. 7 
Therefore, while we acknowledge I I' statement that the Petitioner published his work at a 
prominent conference, the Petitioner has not provided a citation history or other evidence demonstrating 
how often his work has been cited or otherwise establish that his articles and conference presentations 
have provoked widespread commentary. Further, the other reference letters submitted in support of the 
petition do not discuss the Petitioner's published research findings or their significance. 
The evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner has led an active and successful professional career in 
academia, as a consulting engineer in industry, and in Venezuela's association for geotechnical 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
10 
engineering and has contributed to his university, his students, his clients and the SVDG. While the 
Petitioner has established that he is respected by his peers for his work, he has established that he has 
made original scientific contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the individual 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 claims that he can satisfy this criterion based on his performan}e in leading and critical 
rolesforSVDG,ISSMGEJ II _,andl I The 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that these 
organizations have a distinguished reputation and did not further discuss his respective roles or 
whether they were leading or critical. 
If a leading role, the evidence must establish that the individual is ( or was) a leader. A title, with 
appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is ( or was), in fact, leading. If a critical 
role, the evidence must establish that the individual has contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. 8 
The Petitioner submitted letters from Venezuelan firms I~---~[ and.__ _______ ____. 
where he has served as "Sub-Director and Main Assessor" and "General Director," 
~r-e-sp_e_c-t1-.v-e-ly-.-:_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-= Human Resources Director ofl L states that the company is 
"considered among the 5 principal companies with earnings and national contracts, espec1· a)hr in the 
construction private center." I I also provided a letter as a representative of_ I 
I I She describes the firm as "a national renown company" and states that 
during the last decade it has oeen placed "among the first five (5) I Consulting Companies 
in Venezuela and also at an international level, where the concept of our company is very high." 
However, the record contains no independent and objective evidence of the relative rankings or 
national renown enjoyed by these companies and therefore does not establish the distinguished 
reputation of these organizations. 
With respect to I I the Petitioner provided some independent evidence regarding the 
university's reputation, including rankings from two sources. However, while the Petitioner may be 
deemed to perform critical teaching and mentoring duties for engineering students as an associate 
professor in the Department of Building and Sustained Development, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that this department enjoys a distinguished reputation in its own right. Nor has he shown 
how his associate professor position is leading within the university, or that it is a critical role, not 
only to his department, but of significant importance to the outcome of the university's activities as a 
whole. 
Regarding ISSMGE, the Petitioner submitted a letter from its secretary general, who provides 
background information regarding the organization's purpose, confirms SVDG's membership in the 
organization and the Petitioner's former role asl pf SVDG. Based on this limited information, 
the Petitioner has not supported his claim that he performed in a leading or critical role for ISSMGE. 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 10. 
11 
The letter simply confirms the Petitioner's tenure as I I of SVDG; it does not provide detailed 
and probative information that specifically addresses what role he held within ISSGME or how it was 
leading or critical. 
Finally, the record contains ample evidence that the Petitioner held the role ofl lof SVDG' s 
.__ _____ ____.I from 2011 until 2013. As noted, a title, with appropriate matching duties, can help 
to establish if a role is ( or was), in fact, leading. However, the Petitioner has not submitted a 
description of the duties and responsibilities of this position; the letter from this organization only 
confirms his level of membership and elected and appointed position titles. In addition, the record 
includes a description of the history and purpose of the organization but does not include independent 
evidence demonstrating that SVDG is recognized as having a distinguished reputation. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he 
meets this criterion. 
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, 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 )(1 )(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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12