dismissed EB-1A Case: Intellectual Property Law And Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-T-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 17, 2017 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a lawyer and engineer, 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. He determined that the Petitioner had 
satisfied the initial requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) by providing evidence that meets 
at least three of the 10 regulatory criteria. However, the Director conducted a final merits analysis 
and found that the Petitioner had not established that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim. that he is among 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in his final merits analysis of the evidence 
and issued the decision without considering the totality of the evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act states: 
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 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 
Matter qf M- T-
(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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major. 
internationally recognized award). Alternately, he or she must provide evidence that meets at least three 
of the 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). 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 o{Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As an initial issue, the Petitioner claims on appeal that he was not given a reasonable period to 
respond to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). The Director issued the RFE on September 7. 
2016, and stated that the Petitioner's response must be received by December 3. 2016. On 
September 29, 2016, the Petitioner submitted a response and a request for expedited processing. The 
Director denied the petition on October 13, 2016. The Petitioner asserts that he should have been 
given until December 3, 2016, to send additional evidence. We note that, in response to an RFE or a 
notice of intent to deny, individuals must provide all of the requested materials together at one time. 
If only some of the requested evidence is submitted, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will 
treat such submission as a request for a decision on the record. 8 C.F. R. § 1 03 .2(b )(11 ). Thus. the 
Petitioner's timely response to the RFE was considered a request for a decision on the record and the 
Director did not err by issuing the decision prior to December 3, 2016. Regardless. the Petitioner 
has offered additional evidence on appeal, and we will consider the record as a whole. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner has indicated he is an engineer and lawyer focusing on research and development. 
inventions, intellectual property rights, and engineering solutions. He stated that he has built a 
2 
.
Matter of M- T-
national and international reputation as an acknowledged expert in intellectual property law, e­
business, and engineering, and wishes to continue his work as an "intellectual property specialist 
lawyer" in the United States. The Director found that the Petitioner met the initial evidence 
requirements for three criteria: published material, leading role, and scholarly articles. 1 However, he 
concluded in a final merits determination that the submissions were not commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Director did not properly consider all of the evidence 
and that the decision does not conform to the Kazarian two-part analysis. He further contends that 
the Director "improperly imposed" a burden on him by requiring him to maintain his acclaim 
through the time of filing despite the fact that he has established national or international acclaim 
over a 20 year period. He also claims eligibility under the original contributions criteria? For the 
reasons discussed below, we conclude that the record is not indicative of the necessary level of 
acclaim and status in the field. 
The record supports the Director's findings that the Petitioner met the published material and 
scholarly articles criteria based upon an article published about the Petitioner in his 
authorship of a scholarly article published in and two chapters in the book 
The Director also found that the Petitioner demonstrated he has 
performed in a leading or critical role as a member of the Board of Directors of the 
Once a Petitioner satisfies at least three of the regulatory criteria, the focus shifts to 
whether the evidence establishes that the Petitioner has the necessary status and acclaim in the field. 
As the record supports a finding that the Petitioner meets three criteria, any evidence relating to the 
other criteria is better considered in the context of the final merits analysis. 
B. Final Merits Analysis 
In the final merits determination, we consider the totality of the record to determine if a petitioner 
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is one of the "small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," 
and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. We 
consider the entire record, including submissions that do not meet any of the enumerated criteria. In 
this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
While the record includes evidence of several awards, the Petitioner has not demonstrated they are 
nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field, or that they establish a high level 
of acclaim for his work. He did not show, for instance, national or international level press coverage 
of the awards. The Petitioner emphasizes his receipt of the which recognized the 
best article published in in 1999. The Petitioner's work, · 
1 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (viii), and (vi). 
2 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
3 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
3 
.
Afatter of Af-T-
was published in the 1999 edition of and 
highlighted in a subsequent edition of that publication in 2001. The Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that his receipt of the award is reflective of national or international acclaim as an engineer. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has sustained any notoriety or attention 
resulting from this honor since 200 1. 
Regarding the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) , the record includes an 
article published in entitled 
" recounting an interview in which the Petitioner explained the legal dangers of e­
business for modern companies.
4 
The article offers an explanation of e-business legal issues and the 
Petitioner's opinion of measures that companies should institute to minimize their e-business risk, 
therefore, it satisfies the regulatory criterion. 5 However, we do not tind that this single article 
published in 2000 demonstrates sustained national or international acclaim or that it ret1ects a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. I 01-723. 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990). Although the Petitioner provided self-reported distribution figures for the 
publication, he has not proven that such coverage meaningfully demonstrates his status among the 
small percentage at the top of his field. 
As evidence under the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the Petitioner notes that he \Vas 
appointed in 2002 to serve as one of three members of an interviev,r panel to select a chief executive 
officer for Assistant Director of the from 1997 to 2002, provided a statement 
attesting that the Petitioner \Vas one of the three person interview panel tasked \Vith hiring the new· CEO. 
However, he did not describe the duties of committee members or provide further explanation of the 
interview or hiring process. The Petitioner has not described the nature of his role interviewing 
candidates, nor does the evidence show who was invited to participate , or how he was selected for the 
intervievv· committee. Without further information detailing this role, its responsibilities, and the 
process by which the Petitioner was selected, he has not demonstrated how his work on this committee 
is indicative of his standing in the field. Accordingly, the evidence under this criterion does not 
support a finding that he "is one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor.'' See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Furthermore, as his participation on the panel occurred in 
2003, the evidence is not indicative that he has sustained national or international acclaim in his 
field. 
4 
A copy of the article included in the record includes a handwritten note. signed by that the article was 
published in in 2000. 
5 The record includes two additional articles: 
published in on 2000. and·· 
· published in on 2000. Neither article mentions the Petitioner; instead 
each focuses on the mission to the United States and its subsequent report called 
While the record does include evidence that the Petitioner contributed two chapters to this report . the plain language of 
the regulation requires that the items be ·'about" the Petitioner. relating to his work. Articles that are not about the 
Petitioner do not meet this reg ulatory criterion. See, e.g.. Negro-f'/umpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *I. *7 (D . Nev . 
Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor) . 
4 
.
Matter of M- T-
Though not addressed by the Director, the Petitioner has demonstrated that he meets the membership 
criterion based upon his selection as a fellow with the 
The record includes evidence that the is a professional engineering organization with 
over 160,000 members in 150 countries, and that the designation of fellowship with the is 
awarded to individuals "who have sustained high levels of achievement'" through an application 
process judged by national and international experts in the engineering field. However, the 
Petitioner has not proven that either membership reflects sustained national or international acclaim 
or that he "is one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.·· 
See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner has not shown how 
many members of lET are selected as fellows, the criteria for selection, or otherwise explained how 
this appointment renders him one of the small percentage at the top of his field. Similarly. while the 
Petitioner submitted evidence of his selection as a charter engineer with the record does not 
include evidence that being chosen as a charter engineer is commensurate with achievement at the 
top of the engineering field. Additionally, the Petitioner was named a fellow of in 2007; yet, the 
record does not include any evidence that he has worked with the organization since then, nor that he 
has sustained 
acclaim deriving from that honor. 
Regarding the leading or critical role criterion, the Director determined that the Petitioner established 
that his role for the was leading or critical. Additionally, the Director found that the record 
established that the had a distinguished reputation. 7 The Director pointed to the letter from 
stating that the Petitioner was of the Council in 1999, along with 
emails from the and minutes of its meetings. further describes how the Petitioner 
participated as a member of a technology mission to the United States and subsequently authored 
two chapters in a publication summarizing the mission. In generaL a leading role is evidenced from 
the role itself: and a critical role is one in which a petitioner was responsible for the success or 
standing of the organization or establishment. While the evidence refers to his position on the Board 
of Directors of the the dates of his tenure are not clear and the record does not include evidence 
that election or service on either the board or the senate is commensurate with one of that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the tield. 8 The record does not resolve how his position 
with the garnered him notoriety or places him in the small percentage at the top of the field. 
Additionally, the Petitioner stepped down from this role in 2003 and has not demonstrated any 
involvement with the since that time to indicate that his role with the organization is otherwise 
reflective of sustained acclaim. 
6 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
7 letter explains that the is the regulatory body for the United Kingdom engineering profession, that it 
"sets internationally recognized standards of professional competence and commitment,'' and, that it includes more than 
200,000 professional engineers in several companies. 
8 An email to him from the governance and committee executive of the confirms that he resigned from the 
in October 2003 and it indicates that the Petitioner's name does not appear in the 
minutes. 
c 
.
Maller olM- T-
Lastly, the Petitioner authored two articles in the professional publication 
along with two chapters in the study While we note that one article 
won the for the best article published in in 1999, he has not 
demonstrated that these writings are indicative of, or resulted in, sustained national or international 
acclaim or recognition. He has not submitted any critical reviews of the book indicating acclaim, or 
offered evidence of the publication's circulation or readership such that we can determine that it 
suggests the Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. 
On appeal, in response to the Director's finding that the Petitioner has not established sustained 
acclaim in his field, the Petitioner asserts that his reputation has "increased but it has increased in 
secret among the people at the very top levels of the · He further attests that 
he has made original contributions of major significance pursuant 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(v), by 
refining and improving upon several "conventional and nuclear directed energy weapons and to 
electronic warfare methods and technologies.'' He describes how he is currently \Vorking on projects 
that have resulted in pending patent applications, a theory of matter that he aims to publish, and 
several engineering projects that are in process. The record includes copies of the pending patent 
applications, a letter from a businessman in the UK discussing the Petitioner's idea known as 
, and a description of his theory of matter. He has not presented evidence, however, that 
these recent projects have been published, cited, utilized in the field, or have otherwise garnered 
national or international acclaim. While the Petitioner maintains that his current projects will 
"eventually hit the public domain," he must establish that all eligibility requirements tor the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the tiling and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Thus, we cannot consider accomplishments and accolades that 
have yet to come to fruition. 
In the aggregate, the Petitioner has demonstrated his membership in several engineering professional 
organizations; his service on a hiring committee, the significance of \Vhich is not corroborated in the 
record; authorship of an article and books with undocumented int1uence in the field: and his receipt 
of a writing award. Most of the evidence in the record is from 1999-2004 'vith little evidence of the 
Petitioner's accomplishments and work after that period that would indicate sustained acclaim. 
Overall, while the exhibits demonstrate some success in his field, they do not place him in the small 
percentage at the top of the field or shO\v the sustained national or international acclaim required for 
this highly restrictive classification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he is an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
Accordingly, he has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
Matter of M- T-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-T-, ID# 466531 (AAO Aug. 17, 2017)