dismissed EB-1A Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-S-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 18, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an industrial engineer, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized award or met 
the requirements of at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the requirements of a third criterion in addition to the 
two that the Director determined he meets. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) 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 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 S-S-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 implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
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). 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently employed by~------------- as a principal engineer. 
The Director found that he met two of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating 
to the authorship of scholarly articles and a high salary. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also 
meets the evidentiary criteria relating to a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that he does not meet the requisite three 
evidentiary criteria. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In his decision, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's patent, as well as several reference letters 
from experts in his field, but concluded that the evidence established only that he is a productive 
member of his research team. The Petitioner does not challenge this conclusion, and we agree that the 
evidence does not establish that he meets 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 evidence establishes that the Petitioner authored two scholarly articles which were published in 
the journal Quality Engineering, and we therefore find that he meets this criterion. 
2 
Matter of S-S-L-
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) 
We first note that the Petitioner correctly indicates in his appeal brief that this criterion requires two 
determinations; whether the foreign national has played a leading or critical role, and whether the 
organization or establishment has a distinguished reputation. The evidence is sufficient to establish 
the distinguished reputation ofl I 
In his analysis of the evidence submitted in support of this criterion, the Director found that the 
Petitioner's role was not critical to an entire organization or establishment such that he was responsible 
for its success or standing. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that this is not the appropriate standard 
for this criterion, and refers to Chapter 22.2(i)(l)(A) of the USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual, which 
states that a foreign national plays a critical role when he or she "has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities." 
The evidence submitted in support of the Petitioner's critical role fore=] consists of reference letters 
written by the Petitioner's current and former supervisors. These authors explain his work on D s 
Advanced Process Control (APC) team, which is responsible for implementing controls in the 
company's manufacturing processes to ensure quaµ.tY....anq consistency.~----~Vice President 
and General Manager of Wafer Operations at L_J states that within the APC team at the 
manufacturing facility where he's employed, the Petitioner is the only industrial engineer, and that he 
has developed his expertise in the more than ten years of employment with the company and "become 
a critical member of the APC team." I ~es on to describe several projects that the Petitioner 
has been involved with while employed bYL__J including leading the development of an "internal 
R2R control solution" that "has been deployed on more than 20 process tools in the 6" wafer line," 
and developing and delivering APC training to engineers and technicians, including those in Japan 
and the Philippines. I I writes that he was the Petitioner's colleague and manager for 
several years, and verifies his role in developing, testing and deployment of the APC solution 
mentioned b~ l as well as development and delivery of associated training forD engineers. 
In addition, a letter fro~ I who like I I is a retired former supervisor of 
the Petitioner, describes him as a "skilled and proficient practitioner of run-to-run process control and 
system modelling." I I explains that the Petitioner developed an algorithm that was 
implemented into a specific manufacturing process and "yielded increased process capability," also 
resulting in a patent. He concludes by noting that the Petitioner "has taken a lead role in implementing 
R2R a variety of different semiconductor manufacturing processes" and has spread the use of R2R 
withinl !through his training classes. 
These letters reveal that the Petitioner has made contributions tol I beyond the scope of his team 
and the facility where he is employed, but they do not sufficiently establish the importance of those 
contributions tol ts overall activities I I indicates that an introductory training course 
developed by the Petitioner has been delivered to over 40 new engineers and technicians. However, 
the impact of this training, and other more advanced classes developed by the Petitioner, on the 
company's APC teams and overall activities is not explained. Further,1 I mentions that the 
Petitioner's R2R solution has been applied to manufacturing processes for one product, but the 
3 
Matter of S-S-L-
importance of this contribution to that product and I ~ s overall portfolio of products is not 
demonstrated. He also notes that the Petitioner's experience will be valuable in applying R2R 
techniques td i's newly acquired solid state and flash drive manufacturing business, but does not 
suggest that he has already made an important contribution in this regard. Similarly, while the 
evidence shows that the Petitioner has recently performed and presented research on the 
implementation of machine learning to R2R techniques, which I I notes "will be a 
revolutionary change in manufactlrng," lthe evidence does not establish that this research has already 
made an important contribution to s activities. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his current salary and his total remuneration, as well as 
information from the Office of Foreign Labor Certification's Online Data Center and public sources, 
which verifies his salary and demonstrates that it is high compared to others in his field. Accordingly, 
we find that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence does not establish that the Petitioner received a major, internationally recognized award 
or meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final merits 
analysis determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in its entirety, and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the level of acclaim and standing in his field required for the classification 
sought. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification 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 the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-S-L-, ID# 3522701 (AAO June 18, 2019) 
4