dismissed EB-1A Case: Materials And Science Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 1, 2024 In Re: 29831712 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a materials and science engineer 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 )(1 )(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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Petitioner had a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did it demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility 
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-part analysis. First, a 
petitioner can demonstrate international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, 
published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1121 (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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
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). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met three of the regulatory criteria. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied two of the criteria relating to: judging as well as 
authorship of scholarly articles, but that he had not satisfied the criteria associated with original 
contributions. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that they meet the evidentiary criteria relating to 
original contributions. While we agree with the criteria the Director found in the Petitioner's favor, 
we conclude he has not satisfied the third regulatory criteria necessary to meet the antecedent initial 
evidence requirements. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The primary requirements here are that the Petitioner's contributions in their field were original and 
they rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an 
organization. See Amin, 24 F.4th at 394 (citing Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 
2013)). The regulatory phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. 
Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 969 (2019) (finding that every word and every provision in a statute 
is to be given effect and none should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate 
another provision or to have no consequence). Further, the Petitioner's contributions must have 
already been realized rather than being potential, future improvements. Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The Petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
After reviewing the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's ultimate determination under this 
criterion with the added comments below. See Matter ofBurbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); 
see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the practice of adopting and 
affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that has squarely 
confronted the issue"); Lopez Perez v. Holder, 587 F.3d 456, 460-61 (1st Cir. 2009) (joining eight 
U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision 
below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
2 
Although the Director's decision under this criterion contains some elements that we do not wholly 
agree with, those aspects did not appear to significantly influence the decision to deny this criterion. 
It further appears the correct decision would still be to conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
his contributions have been of major significance to the field as a whole. It is not enough to 
demonstrate errors in an agency's decision; a petitioner must also establish they were prejudiced by 
the mistakes. Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009); Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 
U.S. 189, 203 (2016). As the Petitioner has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by the Director's 
error, such a lapse in propriety is harmless and is insufficient grounds upon which to base this appeal. 
Errors can be overlooked when they had no bearing on the substance of an agency's decision. Aguilar 
v. Garland, 60 F.4th 401, 407 (8th Cir. 2023) (citing Prohibition Juice Co. v. United States Food & 
Drug Admin., 45 F.4th 8, 24 (D.C. Cir. 2022)). The party that "seeks to have a judgment set aside 
because of an erroneous ruling carries the burden of showing that prejudice resulted." Shinseki, 556 
U.S. at 409 (quoting Palmer v. Hoffinan, 318 U.S. 109, 116 (1943)); Molina-Martinez, 578 U.S. at 
203. 
At the time of filing in January of 2020, the Petitioner provided a citation record of 1,608 collective 
or total number of citations to his published work. Now on appeal, he references 3,200 citations. 
Although the Petitioner's citation record has increased in each year since he filed the petition, those 
additional accolades must be considered in a future petition that succeeds those originally presented 
and cannot factor in our decision on this petition. A filing party must establish they are eligible for 
the requested benefit at the time of filing the application or petition. 8 C.F .R. § I 03 .2(b )(I). See also 
Ahmedv. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 579,582 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l)); Karakenyan v. 
US. Citizenship & Immigr., 468 F. Supp. 3d 50, 52 (D.D.C. 2020). 
Within the appeal, the Petitioner also claims the Director didn't properly consider the ranking of the 
journals in which his work was published. That a publication bears a high impact factor is reflective 
of the average citation rate of individual articles within a publication. It does not however, demonstrate 
the influence of any particular author within the field nor how an author's research has impacted the 
field as a whole. Publications are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that 
they were of"major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d I 030, I 036 (9th Cir. 2009), ajf'd 
in part, 596 F.3d 1115. The Petitioner still bears the burden of establishing that his work is 
commensurate with a contribution of major significance in his field. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Although the record shows that others 
in the Petitioner's field have cited to his work, it lacks evidence that others in the field have employed 
his findings in their own work, and that this has resulted in some significant influence within the field. 
Ultimately, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we do not need to provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
3 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward that goal. U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of their work is indicative 
of the required sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b )(1 )(A). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the 
Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and they are one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A) and 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated their eligibility as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4