dismissed EB-1A Case: Industrial Engineering

(b)(6)
MATTER OF E-R-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 24, 2015 
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" in the 
sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. Currently, the 
Petitioner is working as a Research Associate in the 
at the The Director determined that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires 
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief. In the brief, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the categories 
of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) , (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi), and that he submitted comparable 
evidence of his eligibility pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). For the reasons 
discussed below, the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 
if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
Matter of E-R-L-
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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The 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 achievements in the field through evidence of 
· a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then he must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the 
ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. 
USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), 
aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) 
(finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
at 376 (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the Petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the Petitioner asserts 
that he meets or for which the Petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-R-L-
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. The 
Petitioner submitted evidence of a 
award from _ a company that produces 
automated test equipment and virtual instrumentation software, that was "presented to 
In addition, the record included a photograph of the Petitioner receiving the 
award and a letter from . Professor of Mechanical Engineering at stating that 
"[t]he award recognizes [the Petitioner ' s] critical contribution towards the development of an 
invaluable data analytics toolkit." Furthermore, the Petitioner provided "Background & Awards" 
information about the program from that states: 
based on 
recognize top 3rd party software products 
that are high quality, demonstrate 
excellent integration, and fill a business need. 
_ is a global competition among 
700+ independent third party partners consisting of individuals , academia, research 
institutes and industry. 
According to the . "Eligibility" rules, product 
submissions for the award "must be based on technology and complementary to the 
platform." The Director determined that the submitted evidence was not sufficient to show that the 
aforementioned award was recognized beyond the context of the 
Program meeting where it was presented, and therefore not commensurate with a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field. We note that eligibility for the 
award was restricted to customers who utilize the company's software platform. The 
Petitioner has not submitted evidence of the stature of or such that awards by the 
company are considered evidence of excellence in the field of endeavor. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the Petitioner's awards be nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field of endeavor, and it is his burden to establish every element of this 
criterion. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
such that it rises to the level of a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that he received an "Honorable Mention" in the 
Conference Data Challenge. The Petitioner provided 
information from the website stating: 
The winners for this year's Annual Data Challenge were announced. The finalists 
were chosen based on top five scores obtained according to the scoring procedure 
outlined here. The finalists were asked to submit a detailed paper for technical 
evaluations of their technical approach . Top two teams were selected as winners from 
the five finalists and have been invited to submit their papers to the 
The third, fourth, and 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-R-L-
fifth place teams were also invited to submit papers to 
work at the conference. 
and/or present their 
The information from the website included the ' scores for the 
reflecting that the Petitioner's team tied another team for Although the 
Petitioner's team qualified as a finalist, there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
ultimately selected his team as one of the two winning teams who received the 
award. Qualifying as a finalist is not equivalent to receiving a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that his team's fifth place honorable mention was recognized beyond the context of the 
conference at a level indicative of a nationally or internationally recognized award for 
excellence in the field. 
Lastly, the Petitioner asserts that he received an 
submitted an October 20 12 email from 
nomination. The Petitioner 
Italy, inviting the Petitioner to propose his candidacy for the 
and letters supporting his nomination , but there is no evidence showing that he ultimately 
received the The plain language of this criterion specifically requires evidence of the 
petitioner's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized "prizes or awards" for excellence in 
the field of endeavor. An invitation to apply for an award does not equate to receipt the award. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for this criterion. The 
Petitioner submitted articles m entitled 
(November 
2012) and (October 2013). The first article 
is about 
second article is about - -
The plain language of the regulation requires "published material about the alien." 
While the two articles briefly mention the Petitioner and several others, they are not about him. 
Materials that are not about the petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro­
Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that articles 
about a show are not about the actor). Furthermore, although the Petitioner provided information 
about from its website, he did not submit circulation statistics or other evidence 
showing that the magazine is a major trade publication or other major media. 
The Petitioner also provided a November 2012 article entitled _ that 
was posted online at but the article was not about the Petitioner and its author was not 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-R-L-
identified as required by this regulatory criterion. In addition, there are no online visitor statistics or 
other evidence showing that is a form of major media. 
Documentation submitted included an 2013, article entitled -======= 
that was posted on the websites. Although the atticle 
lists the Petitioner as one of the prognostic technique's three inventors , the article is about the 
technical innovation and not the Petitioner. Furthermore, the author of the article was not identified 
and there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the aforementioned websites are major 
media. 
The Petitioner also provided an April 2012 article entitled 
that was posted on the website. While the article quotes the 
Petitioner, the material is about the predictive software developed by the Petitioner's research team 
at rather than the Petitioner. Again, the plain language of the regulation requires "published 
material about the alien." Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or 
professors pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(B) of the Act (requiring evidence of only published material 
"about the alien's work"). Furthermore, although the Petitioner submitted information about 
_ from its website, there is no evidence showing that its number of monthly visitors elevates 
the website to a form of major media relative to other online news sources. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a May 2012 article entitled 
in . a weekly online magazine covering ' 
Once again, while the article mentions the Petitioner, the article is about the 
maintenance software that he and others developed at and not the Petitioner. Regardless, there 
is no evidence showing that is a major trade publication or a form of major media. 
Lastly, the Petitioner provided a March 2012 article posted at entitled · 
but the author 
of the material was not identified as required by this regulatory criterion. A notation appearing at the 
bottom of the article states that it was "[p]rovided by the Thus, the 
submitted article is actually a press release prepared and authored by representatives rather than 
independent journalists. In addition, the article is about wind energy and research efforts at to 
monitor wind turbine performance rather than the Petitioner. With regard to the information from 
website stating that its "readership has grown steadily to include 1. 75 million scientists, 
researchers, and engineers every month," USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See 
Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (concluding that the AAO did 
not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as 
major media). There is no objective evidence showing that the number of monthly visitors to 
elevates it to a form of major media. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-R-L-
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 specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The evidence supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific , scholarly , artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for this regulatory 
criterion. The Petitioner submitted his publications and presentations , citation evidence for his 
published work, invention disclosures for a system and a 
system, a patent application for a 
various online articles about his work, and letters of support from colleagues. The Director 
acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of the preceding evidence, but found that it was not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's work equated to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. For example, the Director noted that "not every patented invention 
constitutes a significant contribution," and that the number of independent cites to the Petitioner 's 
articles did not show that his "work has been of major significance in the field." The Director 
therefore concluded that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
The plain language of this criterion requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, 
artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions" that are "of major significance in the field." 
Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original scientific 
contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 
F. 3d 28,31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWUv . Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
With regard to the Petitioner's published and presented work, the regulations contain a separate 
criterion concerning the authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). In Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), the court held 
that 
publications and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent 
evidence that they were of "major significance" in the field. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed 
its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated 
contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. Furthermore, there is no presumption that 
every published article or conference presentation is a contribution of major significance in the field; 
rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact of his article or presentation. An extensive 
number of favorable independent citations for an article authored by a petitioner may indicate that 
other researchers are familiar with his work and have been influenced by it. A less extensive citation 
record, on the other hand, is generally not probative of a petitioner's impact in the field. 
In the appeal brief, the Petitioner mentions that 
more than 80 miicles cite to his body of published 
and presented work, and that this shows that independent researchers have relied upon his findings. 
Included in the Petitioner's submitted citation evidence are the flowing articles reflecting: 
" 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-R-L-
1. ' 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
was independently cited to 20 times (plus three self-cites by the 
Petitioner's coauthors 
was independently cited to once (plus five 
self-cites by the Petitioner and his coauthors) ; 
by the Petitioner's coauthors); 
the Petitioner's coauthor 
was 
independently cited to twice (plus three self-cites 
was independently cited to once (plus one self-cite by 
and 
was 
independently cited to 11 times (plus three self-cites by the Petitioner's coauthor 
Self-citation is a normal , expected practice. Self-citation, however, does not show to what extent a 
researcher has influenced others' work. The submitted citation evidence reflects that none of the 
Petitioner's articles have been independently cited to more than 20 times . The Petitioner has not 
established that the number of independent cites per article for his published work is indicative of 
scientific contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner points to his conference and workshop presentations (such as the 
and the 
further evidence of his original contributions in the 
as 
field. With regard to the Petitioner's conference presentations, many professional fields regularly 
hold meetings and conferences to present new work , discuss new findings , and to network with other 
professionals. Professional associations , educational institutions, employers , and government 
agencies promote and sponsor these meetings and conferences . Participation in such events , 
however, does not, alone , equate to original contributions of major significance in the field . There is 
no documentary evidence showing that the Petitioner ' s presented work has been heavily cited , has 
significantly impacted the field as a whole , or otherwise constitutes original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that he received a 
award and that his 
was recognized by the 
The scientific committee 's invitation to the Petitioner to propose his candidac y for the 
and the have alread y been addressed under the 
awards criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Evidence relating to or even meeting the awards criterion 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-R-L-
is not presumptive evidence that the Petitioner also meets this criterion. Because separate criteria exist 
for awards and original contributions of major significance in the field, US CIS does not view the two 
as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the regulatory requirement that 
a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Regardless, the Petitioner has not shown that his 
candidacy and the are indicative of 
contributions of major significance in the tie d. 
In connection with the nomination, the Petitioner submitted a letter from 
, Reliability and Performance Manager , , commenting on the "novelty and 
potential" of the Petitioner's work. asserts that the resulting impact from the 
Petitioner's team's research "will be profound on wind turbine operators by minimizing downtime 
and overhead." further states: "As this work continues to mature, I have no doubt 
that their work will be highly sought after by many wind turbine researchers, manufacturers, users, 
and service providers ." There is no documentary evidence showing, however, that the Petitioner ' s 
work has already had this effect. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l) , (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
expectation regarding the possible future impact of the Petitioner 's work is not evidence 
of the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. 
Also in connection with the nomination, the Petitioner provided a letter from 
, Professor and Director, stating that the Petitioner 
"showed the use of multi-regime modeling approach to quantify the power generation of wind 
turbines, and later improved the results by incorporating a clustering method to compare similar 
turbines." While notes the "potential impact" of the Petitioner's work, he does not 
provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has already been widely utilized by power 
generation companies for wind turbine health monitoring or has otherwise been commensurate with 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
With respect to the Most Innovative Product award from Executive Director, 
stated: "This is one of the few distinguished 
awards given out to recognize top professionals who have excelled in the field. It is a global 
competition among _ _ independent third party partners and users .... " The aforementioned 
award may recognize customers who demonstrated excellence in utilizing the company 's 
software platform, but there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the award 
was presented for an original scientific contribution of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner's appeal brief points to a patent application that filed for a 
- created by the Petitioner and _ but there is no 
documentary evidence showing that a U.S. or an international patent was granted for the invention. 
Regardless, while issuance of a patent recognizes the originality of an idea, it does not automatically 
demonstrate that the invention is a scientific contribution of major significance in the field. A patent 
is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree of influence over the field 
as a whole. Matter of New York State Dep 't ofTransp ., 22 I&N Dec. 215, Dec. 221, n. 7 (Act. Assoc. 
Comm 'r 1998). Rather, the significance of the innovation must be determined on a case-by-case 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-R-L-
basis. Id. Regarding the "Turbine-to-turbine prognostics technique for wind farms," 
Director, 
asserted: 
Through this invention the has successfully recruited two new members 
interested in Wind Farms, received industry funding over $170,000 and generated a 
number of funded awards in related fields. The 
University has invested heavily in the technology both in terms of the patent 
protection and in terms of further development as we see this as a significant 
contribution. 
indicates that the Petitioner's invention has allowed the to recruit new members 
interested in Wind Farms and has generated outside funding for the In addition, 
mentions that has invested heavily in "further development" of the technology , but there is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that the invention has already impacted the field beyond the 
university such that the Petitioner 's technique constitutes a scientific contribution of major 
significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation requires that the contributions be "of 
major significance in the field" rather than just to his research institution or employer. 
Although the Petitioner 's work has contributed to ongoing research at there is no evidence 
demonstrating that his findings and innovations have been applied or implemented at a level 
commensurate with scientific contributions of major significance in the field. With respect to the 
Petitioner's occupation , the U.S. Depat1ment of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), 
2014-15 Edition states: "Industrial engineers find ways to eliminate wastefulness in production 
processes . They devise efficient ways to use workers, machines , materials, information, and energy 
to make a product or provide a service." In addition, the OOH indicates that industrial engineers 
typically perform duties such as determining how to manufacture parts or products, or deliver 
services, with maximum efficiency; enacting quality control procedures to resolve production 
problems or minimize cost; and designing control systems to coordinate activities and production 
planning to ensure that products meet quality standards. See http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture­
and-engineering!industrial-engineers.htm #tab-2, accessed on September 14, 2015, copy incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. 
Furthermore , according to the _ "Industrial engineers figure out how 
to do things better. They engineer processes and systems that improve quality and productivity. 
They work to eliminate waste of time, money, materials, energy and other commodities ." See 
copy incorporated 
into the record of proceeding. If the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) is to have any meaning , 
performing duties inherent to the field of industrial engineering (such as designing and developing 
control systems for is not necessarily a contribution of major significance in the field. 
In regard to the Petitioner 's two invention disclosures for a ' system and a 
system, the Petitioner did not submit evidence showing that any patent 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-R-L-
applications had been filed for the inventions. For example, with respect to the 
_ the Petitioner provided a December 2012 email from Licensing 
Associate, indicating that the university's had received the invention disclosure and 
that it was being evaluated "to determine whether will retain its rights to this invention." 
email further stated: "If a decision is made to file a patent application, you will need to 
work closely with a patent attorney . . . . In the event that we enter into licensing discussions, you 
will also have to explain the technical aspects of your invention to any prospective licensees." 
Regardless, there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the aforementioned inventions 
have affected the Petitioner's field at a level indicative of contributions of major significance. 
As further evidence he meets this regulatory criterion, the Petitioner's appeal brief mentions the 
articles in and the material on the Internet about the work at The 
regulations have a separate criterion concerning published material about the petitioner relating to 
his work in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The concerns and deficiencies regarding those 
articles have already been addressed under the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Regardless, the submitted articles and online content do not reflect that the Petitioner's work equates to 
original contributions of major significance in the field. For example, the articles in, 
discuss technical problems that the solved for its industry partners and not specifically the 
Petitioner's contributions to the field. In addition, the article posted on the website 
comments on the promise of the Petitioner's work, asserting that "the team hopes that wind 
turbine operators will benefit greatly from [its] proactive approach." The article in an 
apparent press release, asserts that the "software is potentially groundbreaking" but does not 
demonstrate how it is of major significance in the field. Lastly, the content posted on the 
and Research websites is identical to the third through tenth 
paragraphs of the Petitioner's patent application entitled 
· The Petitioner has not shown that this automated patent application information 
news release, which does not identify its author and which does not reflect independent journalistic 
coverage, demonstrates that his invention is a contribution of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner also points to various letters of support as evidence that he meets this criterion? For 
example, , a researcher in the 
at in Spain, commented on the Petitioner's article entitled 
stated 
that "[t]he method described in [the Petitioner's] paper is both innovative and game-changing ." In 
addition, asserted that the Petitioner 's method "has enabled wind farm owners to 
have more frequent and simplified, yet robust, wind turbine power generation health metric" that 
"will allow them to decide on their regular operations." While further explained 
that the Petitioner's work "has sparked a lot of interest in the wind energy community," he did not 
provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's modeling approach has already affected operations 
a substantial number of wind farms or has otherwise risen to the level of a contribution of major 
significance in the field. 
2 We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
10 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-R-L-
Associate Professor, Department of Thermal Power and Mechanical Engineering , 
, also mentioned the Petitioner's ' 
· stating: "In his research, [the Petitioner] 
discovered the use of multi-regime data-driven analytics in wind turbine SCADA [supervisory 
control and data acquisition] data." asserted that "[the Petitioner ' s] seminal research in 
using mixture model to analyze SCADA data has helped other researchers . . . analyze the behavior 
of the wind turbine despite the challenging dynamic conditions. " Although the Petitioner 's work has 
garnered some independent citations and added to the pool of knowledge in his field, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that the Petitioner's approach has affected the field in a major way, that 
his method has been widely utilized to analyze the behavior of wind turbines, or that his work otherwise 
constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Manager, System Monitoring and Control Department, 
, Taiwan, stated: 
With [the Petitioner ' s] multi-regime approach to wind turbine performance 
assessment, there is a very objective metric to justify when to recommend 
maintenance. Additional decision support tools may need to be added in order to 
determine optimal scheduling, but he has laid down the important foundation of 
quantifying wind turbine performance behavior. 
_ asserted that the Petitioner "has laid down the important foundation of quantifying wind 
turbine performance behavior," but there is no evidence showing that his approach has substantially 
affected wind farm monitoring protocols or was otherwise of major significance to the field. 
Although the Petitioner 's graduate and postdoctoral research has value, any research must be 
original and likely to present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific 
or academic community. In order for a university, publisher or grantor to accept any research for 
graduation, publication or funding, the research must offer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. Not every industrial engineer who performs original research that adds to the general 
pool of knowledge in the field of has inherently made a contribution of "major significance" to 
the field. 
, a consultant at 
consultant at the 
and a senior expert 
stated that the 
Petitioner "developed a novel idea of applying fault diagnostics and prognostics on a fleet of 
engineering assets using data-driven techniques " and that "[h]is method can be applied to various 
engineering assets from different industry segments." There is no evidence showing, however, that 
the Petitioner's method has been licensed, commercialized, or widely utilized in industry to such an 
extent that it equates to a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Engineering Manager- Machining and Metrology, Manufacturing Technolog y, 
, mentioned "the _ _ being developed [by the Petitioner] " at and 
asserted: "Such a systematic data-driven methodology for prognostics & health management is very 
II 
(b)(6)
Matter of E-R-L-
valuable to an organization such as because of the sheer number and variety of equipment 
that is being used at our manufacturing facilities." While mentioned "the potential huge 
benefits" from the Petitioner's research area, he did not provide specific examples indicating that the 
Petitioner's work has already affected the manufacturing industry at a level indicative of a 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
a Senior Manufacturing Engineer with ____ . ___ ~---· and a current graduate student at 
stated that he worked with the Petitioner at HHo "n•~·~ further stated: "Working at 
on behalf of the [the Petitioner] developed the trademarked ®prognostics 
tools for CNC [computer numerical control] machines." does not explain how the 
Petitioner's work has influenced the field or industrial engineering community in a major way, 
or was otherwise commensurate with original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Adjunct Professor of Computer Science, noted that the 
International Manufacturing Initiative 
approached the to conduct "pilot projects to demonstrate preventative and predictive 
maintenance (PPM) technology." further explained: 
[The Petitioner] designed and developed a monitoring system for three 
important parts/components of a semiconductor etching equipment. . . . The unique 
contribution of [the Petitioner] is the use of a systematic design scheme .... 
The impact of his research can potentially allow users to estimate the condition of an 
[sic] equipment including its parts in near real-time. 
, a semiconductor industry consultant, offered similar comments about the Petitioner's 
systematic design scheme stating: "The impact of [the Petitioner's] research can potentially 
allow users to estimate the condition of the equipment including key consumable parts in near real­
time." Although and both mentioned the potential of the Petitioner's work, 
they did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's design scheme has been widely 
implemented as an effective system for or has otherwise been of major significance to the 
field. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). In addition, uncorroborated assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d 
at 134-35; Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an 
agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements ... submitted in evidence as 
expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not required to accept or may give less weight" to 
evidence that is "in any way questionable"). The submission of reference letters supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; US CIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. !d. See also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 
12 
Matter of E-R-L-
n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
Without additional, specific evidence showing that the Petitioner's work has been unusually 
influential, substantially impacted the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in profossional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The Petitioner has documented his authorship of scholarly articles (including conference papers) in 
professional publications and, thus, has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the evidence supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner meets 
this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
C. Comparable Evidence 
In the appeal brief, the Petitioner points to his conference presentations as comparable evidence ofhis 
extraordinary ability. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for the submission of 
"comparable evidence" if the ten categories of evidence "do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation." Thus, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate why the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are not readily applicable to his occupation and how the evidence submitted is 
"comparable" to the specific objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). In this 
matter, the Petitioner's conference presentations were relevant to the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (vi), and were properly considered under those two regulatory criteria. Where 
an alien is simply unable to satisfy the plain language requirements of at least three categories of 
evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the 
submission of comparable evidence. The regulatory language precludes the consideration of 
comparable evidence in this case, as there is no indication that eligibility for visa preference in the 
Petitioner's occupation cannot be established by the ten criteria specified by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). For instance, the Petitioner has specifically claimed eligibility under the 
categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (iv), (v), and (vi). In addition, there is no 
indication that the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (viii), and (ix) do not readily 
apply to industrial engineers. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
13 
Matter of E-R-L-
Had the Petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.3 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of E-R-L-, ID# 13223 (AAO Sept. 24, 2015) 
3 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § I 03.1 (f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
14