dismissed EB-1A Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 16, 2024 In Re: 31221986 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a quality control engineer for a major automotive company who seeks classification 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act ( the Act) section 203 (b)( 1 )( 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the Petitioner did not show that the totality of the evidence demonstrated his 
eligibility in a final merits determination. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears 
the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de nova. Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N 
Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify under this immigrant classification, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys 
extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 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-step analysis. In the first 
step, 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 move to the second step to 
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, 
1121 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-step 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 Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
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). He made that demonstration before the Director, who decided that the Petitioner 
satisfied three of the criteria relating to judging, authorship of scholarly articles, and performing in a 
leading or critical role. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he satisfies one additional criterion, and his aggregate evidence 
establishes his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. Because the Petitioner has already 
shown he fulfills the minimum requirement of at least three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of 
the evidence based on the documentation presented to the Director in the context of the final merits 
determination below. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20). See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (stating that USCIS officers 
should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if 
a petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of 
the immigrant classification). 
The Petitioner earned a Ph.D. in industrial engineering from a U.S. institution of higher education in 
2019, and he filed this petition in 2022. He specializes in chemically bonded sand systems utilizing 
specialized materials used in the foundry industry for casting metal molds. In this case, the molds are 
2 
utilized for vehicle parts. The Petitioner currently works as a quality control engineer for ___ 
As indicated above, the Petitioner judged others in his field, authored scholarly articles, and performed 
in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization. The record, however, does not 
demonstrate that his overall personal and professional achievements rise to a level of a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). Instead, it appears the Petitioner is a specialized industrial engineer at the outset of his career, 
who has demonstrated one achievement early in his professional journey. 
In the appeal, the Petitioner contends that he offered extensive documentation through 35 pieces of 
evidence consisting of approximately a dozen opinion letters, his publications, and letters from those 
in management at his current employer. On the issue of extensive evidence, the Petitioner states the 
Director failed to explain how the evidence in the form of opinion letters "does not constitute the 
requisite 'extensive evidence[.]' Indeed, in cases with much less evidence, the denial of an EB l A 
petition has been reversed or remanded. See e.g. Muni, supra at 444--45 (Error to find evidence 
including 'eight affidavits' of experts, was insufficient support for EBIA petition)." 
Regarding the Muni decision (Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444--45 (N.D. Ill. 1995)), that district court 
stated that the appellate authority had "completely ignored" the affidavits. By contrast, in the matter 
currently before us, the Director discussed several of the testimonial letters. As a result, it appears the 
manner in which the Petitioner relies on the Muni case is inapplicable to his own. Equally as important, 
in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of U.S. circuit courts of appeals, we are not 
bound to follow the published decision of a U.S. district court in matters arising even within the same 
district. See K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715, 719-20 (BIA 1993). 
And on the issue the Petitioner highlights in Muni pertaining to other cases with less evidence being 
reversed, the regulation repeatedly reflects that an eligibility determination on a benefit request will be 
based on information contained in the record of proceeding. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l0), (11), (14), 
( l 6)(i)-(ii). Each case must be decided on its own facts with regard to the sufficiency of the evidence 
presented. See, e.g., Matter ofH-C-R-C-, 28 I&N Dec. 809, 812 (BIA 2024). Throughout the USCIS 
Policy Manual, it repeatedly states that agency officers will adjudicate numerous case types on a 
"case-by-case basis," and that is the method we will utilize here. See, e.g, 6 USCIS Policy ManualF.5(D), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Or, stated differently. A determination on the facts properly rests 
on what is implicated within each particular record of proceeding. See Loper Bright Enterprises v. 
Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2277 (2024) (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (stating that "different facts and 
different legal arguments might dictate different outcomes"); Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471, 
507 (2023) (Jackson, J., concurring) (stating: "Other cases presenting different allegations and 
different records may lead to different conclusions"). 
When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will 
not be required to specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address 
every piece of evidence the Petitioner presents. "Nothing is to be gained by a laundry-list recital of all 
evidence on the record supporting each view on every issue." Puerto Rico Mar. Shipping Auth. v. Fed. 
Mar. Comm 'n, 678 F.2d 327, 351 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (finding claims to be unpersuasive that a trier of fact 
"did not consider the evidence because it did not catalogue every jot and tittle of testimony" or evidence). 
The lack of a direct discussion of factors does not mean that the Director ignored it; it instead may mean 
that they considered it and concluded it was unpersuasive. See United States v. Teixeira, 62 F.4th 10, 25 
3 
(1st Cir. 2023) (concluding a trier of fact is not required to articulate their conclusions as to every aspect 
of evidence when making an adjudication). 
Now to discuss the Petitioner's achievements and whether they measure up to what this immigrant 
classification requires. Aside from his contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner's 
remaining accolades are not adequate to rise to the level necessary to approve this petition. This can 
be inferred from the appeal brief that extensively discusses his contributions of major significance, but 
regarding his remaining achievements he effectively only mentions that he satisfied the three 
additional regulatory criteria in step one of the adjudicative process. Here, the Petitioner does not 
advance substantive arguments describing how his experience judging, authoring scholarly articles, or 
performing in a leading or critical role should be considered in a final merits determination. 
We note the Director's request for evidence specifically sought evidence and commentary 
demonstrating his achievements place him among that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of the field. "While a person may be stronger in one particular evidentiary area than in others, the 
totality of the evidence must establish that the person is extraordinary." See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual, supra, at F.2(8)(2). Below, we evaluate whether his arguments about his contributions of 
major significance are adequate to counterbalance his less persuasive remaining achievements in his 
favor. 
Regarding the Petitioner's judging experience, we agree with the Director's findings that although the 
Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of that criterion in step one, he has not shown that his 
experience is indicative of "that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). As the Director noted, the Petitioner's judging performance has resulted in an 
insignificant amount of manuscript review in a single year. Even though the journal in which he was 
asked to perform peer review carries a certain level of prestige, the Petitioner did not establish that these 
two instances contribute to a finding that he has a career of acclaimed work in the field or that this 
performance is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723 at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Peer review is a routine element of the process by which articles are selected for publication in literary or 
scholarly journals or for presentation at literary conferences. Occasional participation in this process does 
not automatically demonstrate that an individual has sustained national or international acclaim at the 
very top of his field. Without evidence setting the Petitioner apart from others in his field (e.g., evidence 
that he has received and completed independent requests for review from a substantial number ofjoumals 
or conferences, served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, or chaired a technical committee 
for a reputable conference), we cannot conclude that he is among that small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. For instance, one reference letter author has served as 
Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal ofMetalcasting (IJMC), and another served as a reviewer of 
more than 60 articles or papers. Thus, their level of judging suggests that the Petitioner's limited peer 
review experience does not place him within the small percentage at the top of his field. 
Similar to the Petitioner's judging experience, his publication record falls far short ofthe standard required 
here. The Petitioner did not sufficiently explain how his limited publication record of: (1) authoring a 
few articles in American Foundry Society (AFS) Transactions, which features papers presented at the 
organization's annual meetings; or (2) authoring two papers in IJMC is consistent with having a career 
4 
of acclaimed work and sustaining national or international acclaim. This is far less than those listed 
within some opinion letters who published well above 50 or 60 scholarly works. Such a limited 
publication record is not out of the ordinary considering the Petitioner completed his Ph.D. less than three 
years before he filed the petition and the letter authors' careers have spanned decades in the field. As the 
Director's decision noted, the Petitioner did not submit evidence showing the significance of his 
authorships or how his publications compare to others who are viewed to be at the very top of the 
field. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Moving to his claims relating to his performance in a leading or critical role for distinguished 
organizations, while the Petitioner claimed such a performance for two organizations, he only 
demonstrated one of those entities enjoyed a distinguished reputation. The Director decided his 
performance for his current employer was not commensurate with the type of acclaim that places him at 
the very top of his field of endeavor. In the appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's findings stating 
the Director "erroneously disregards or misapplies other evidence of Petitioner's extraordinary ability, 
including the ripple effect of his lead and/or critical role at These errors render its final merits 
analysis fatally flawed." 
As it relates to the Petitioner's role at he does not offer additional analysis to explain what evidence 
the Director might have disregarded or misapplied, nor does he offer more information on any ripple 
effects that his role at might have in the industry. He mostly discusses his leading and critical role 
fore=] as a form of contributions of major significance to the field, and we will consider those aspects 
in that context below. But as it stands, the role he occupies with his current employer is notable, but not 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. The Petitioner does not explain how 
his performance for has somehow impacted the broader field of endeavor, nor does he expand on 
how the claimed-but unsubstantiated-ripple effects compare with those in the upper echelon of his 
field. 
Turning to the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance, his claims primarily relate to his 
research that led to "a methodology that for the first time allows for accurate and real time detection 
of casting defects that routinely occur in production due to the variations in the composition of sand 
during the casting process." We will first touch on that aspect and then we will address his claims 
relating to his work atl I 
Not only did the opinion letters the Petitioner offered describe his original research as a significant 
improvement over previous methodologies, but Professor I I included the statement 
that that the AFS has endorsed the Petitioner's testing protocols and they are included in the 
standardized protocols the AFS recommends to the entire U.S. casting industry through the AFS Mold 
and Core Test Handbook. The professor noted that inclusion in these standardized protocols has 
benefited the U.S. casting industry and industrial sector as a whole, as American foundries and 
factories are now implementing the Petitioner's methodology resulting in cost, time, and material 
savmgs. 
Professor! I statements are corroborated by other letters as well as some objective material 
in the record; for instance in the letter from Dr.I Ias well as in a letter from the director 
of an international alloy steel casting company. We conclude that as a whole, the evidence is sufficient 
5 
to demonstrate the Petitioner's quality control methodologies have been widely accepted and 
implemented, resulting in improved efficiencies, and have been sufficiently influential in the field that 
they satisfy the regulatory criterion in step one of this adjudicative process. 
In the appeal, the Petitioner claims the Director failed to consider the letters he submitted. As it pertains 
to the Petitioner's contributions, the only letter he names or discusses in the appeal is the correspondence 
from I I Principal Consultant at A review of Mr. I I 
letter reveals that he offers extensive analysis relating to each of the relevant regulatory criteria pertaining 
to this immigrant classification. Mr. I I describes how the Petitioner's achievements meet each 
criterion's requirements and proclaims he is a foreign national who clearly qualifies as one with 
extraordinary ability. 
But when describing his credentials, Mr. I ldoes not indicate that his expertise lies in any area 
associated with the immigration laws of the United States. While those authoring opinion letters are free 
to express their perspective, the decision of whether the evidence satisfies the requirements of a regulation 
or meets the burden of proof lies with USCIS. See Matter ofCaron International, 19 T&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988) (finding that the appropriate entity to determine eligibility is USCIS); see also Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (2012). We will therefore evaluate his letter as it describes 
the Petitioner's achievements and what impact those accomplishments have caused in the field. 
Mr. I !discusses the Petitioner's development of a new quality control protocol that largely mirrors 
Professor! !account. He further states that the Petitioner became known in the field swiftly 
in what appears to be Mr.I I acknowledgment that this foreign national is in the early stages of 
his career. As the remainder of the letters in the record express much of the same as Mr. I I letter, 
it is unnecessary that we offer extensive analysis of them here. It is sufficient to say that each of them 
describes the adoption of the Petitioner's methodology in the AFS Mold and Core Test Handbook as 
influential throughout the industry. 
Finally, the Petitioner states that his casting quality control methodology has facilitated 
development of its novel and influential I !production. However, the Petitioner does not 
indicate, nor does the evidence support, that he was responsible for creating the I !process at 
I I only that he was relevant to the continued improvement in quality of a class of large casting 
dies at the company. The Petitioner has not offered claims or evidence demonstrating that other 
entities in the industry have implemented the improvements to the I I process at that 
can be attributed to him. In fact, Mr.I !indicated within his letter that the groundbreaking work 
the Petitioner is conducting al lwill no doubt be studied and built on by an emerging generation 
of engineering specialists focused on design and launch of electric vehicles that integrate similar 
I I 
As Mr. I I account here is speculative, it does not show that the Petitioner's work at 
amounts to contributions that have already been realized within the field. A Petitioner must establish 
the elements for the approval of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). A 
petition may not be approved if the Petitioner was not qualified at the priority date, but expects to 
become eligible at a subsequent time. See Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1971). And as such, his claims relating to his work at constituting a contribution of major 
significance in the field are not supported in the record. 
6 
Although the Petitioner's work may have brought him some rapid attention, he lacks a career of 
acclaimed work at a sustained national or international level. We place the Petitioner among those 
who achieve interest once early in their career, but who have not yet emerged among that small 
percentage at the very top of the field. 
While the USCIS Policy Manual provides that a foreign national "may be very young or early in his 
or her career and still be able to show sustained acclaim" and that "[t]here is also no definitive time 
frame on what constitutes sustained," we conclude the Petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate 
that he "continues to maintain a comparable level of acclaim in the field of expertise since [he] was 
originally afforded that recognition." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(A)(l). 
Instead, it appears the Petitioner's situation is more akin to the Policy Manual's closing sentence in 
the Sustained National or International Acclaim section: "A person may, for example, have achieved 
national or international acclaim in the past but then failed to maintain a comparable level of acclaim 
thereafter." Id. For those whose careers are in the beginning stages, they must still demonstrate that 
overall they have built a career worthy of this classification's high bar. The fact that they are in the 
nascent stages of their career is not "a pass" to lower the standards associated with this highly restrictive 
immigrant classification. 
Despite the Petitioner's claims to the contrary, he has not contributed extensive evidence for the record 
on par with the rigors of this immigrant classification. In summary, the Petitioner seeks a highly 
restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather 
than for those progressing toward that goal. 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). The Petitioner's evidence confirms that he has 
contributed to the field through his quality control methods. However, considering the full measure of 
his ability and achievements, the level of his national or international acclaim and the extent to which his 
achievements have been recognized in the field, these aspects are not indicative of a record of sustained 
acclaim. Also, he has not submitted extensive documentation exhibiting he has attained a level of 
expertise placing him among that small percentage that has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that 
burden here. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7