dismissed EB-1A Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 04, 2024 In Re: 29963016 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer and researcher, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F .R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, we 
will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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 fust 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). 
IL ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a mechanical engineer whose research and work has focused on application of the 
finite element method (FEM), an engineering computational tool. He intends to continue his work in 
the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because 
the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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). The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), (vi), or (viii). The Petitioner asserts on appeal that he meets these four criteria for 
his participation as a judge of the work of others in his field, for his original contributions of major 
significance in the field, for his authorship of scholarly articles, and for his performance in a critical 
role for a reputable organization. He submits documentation previously included in the record. Upon 
review, we conclude that the Petitioner meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi), and (viii). 
Evidence ofthe individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director's decision references, in part, a letter from a professor "that claims that an invitation was 
extended and accepted" for the Petitioner's participation on a conference panel. While the Director 
claims that the letter does not have probative value because it does not establish that the Petitioner 
actually performed in a judging capacity, review of the letter shows that it affirms the Petitioner's 
participation and even comments on the quality of his review. The letter also explains in detail why 
the Petitioner's research prompted the professor to invite him to join the panel. The letter is supported 
by material about the conference, including a brochure depicting the professor as a committee member 
and coordinator. We conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe individual's authorship ofscholarly articles in the.field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Although the Director's decision acknowledges the Petitioner's submission of several articles to which 
he contributed, the Director states that "no clear evidence was submitted with the articles establishing 
that the publications are considered professional or major trade publications or other major media." 
Contrarily, documentation in the record-including letters from experts in the field whose credibility 
2 
is established by detailed descriptions of their work and standing within their field-speaks to the 
professionalism of a trade publication in which the Petitioner's research has appeared and the 
reputability of the conferences at which he has presented his research. We conclude that the Petitioner 
has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director's decision acknowledges letters describing the Petitioner's work during his employment 
at the headquarters of a developer of industrial pipe supports. While the Director recognizes that 
these letters describe the Petitioner's "past works and accomplishments," the Director concludes that 
the letters do not contain "detailed and probative information" specifically addressing how the 
Petitioner's role was leading or critical for the organization. 
Upon review, we conclude that the record demonstrates that the Petitioner performed in a leading role 
for the organization. A letter from a product development supervisor at the company who worked 
with the Petitioner provides a detailed account of the nature of the Petitioner's work and describes his 
role as leading the development of a new product line for cryogenic pipe supports. The author states 
that the Petitioner's knowledge and innovative approach contributed to the successful and expedient 
transition of pipe support manufacturing from the company's sister facility in China to North America. 
The author also describes the Petitioner's involvement in creating automation tools that were used to 
more efficiently manufacture products for new projects. The credibility of this letter and another letter 
from a former colleague are supported by documentation about the company, which is a multimillion­
dollar leading specialist in industrial pipe support systems that supplies products to power and 
petrochemical facilities worldwide. We conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
In our review of the entirety of the record to evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that he 
is among those at the top of his field of endeavor, we tum to his assertion that he meets the following 
criterion: 
Evidence ofthe individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner must establish that not 
only has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. See 
generalZv https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chpter-2 ( advising, in part, that 
although published work may be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work 
is of major significance). For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely 
implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise 
risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references numerous letters of support in the record, stating ( quoted as 
written), "The letters in the record repeatedly describe the Petitioner's research as unique and 
extraordinary and has benefited multinational U.S. companies in major industries." Indeed, several 
3 
letters from the Petitioner's former instructors and colleagues convey the high regard in which they 
hold both the Petitioner's work and the Petitioner's himself as a thorough, knowledgeable, and creative 
individual. The letters convey the potential importance of the Petitioner's research to the agricultural, 
medical supply, and automotive industries. For example, discussing the Petitioner's research on the 
wear of plowshares during tillage of complex soils, a professor on his dissertation committee writes 
the following (quoted as written): 
[The Petitioner's] research objective was to determine the cause for premature wear 
and failure of the tilling tool when minimal information was available for the 
performance of the plowshare's material. At the beginning of this work there was very 
little in the literature on solution methodologies combined analysis and empirical data 
on material removal in this slow process relevant to agriculture. [The Petitioner's] 
approach to solving was unique and forward looking by combining information from 
the extensive literature on machining and the use of numerical techniques to solve the 
resulting complex boundary value problems resulting from the modeling of the soil and 
plowshare interaction. He was able to solve this multi-dimensional problem and 
provided a solution methodology using the finite element method that allows the time 
to replace the worn tool for developers ofplows. The results of [the Petitioner's] impact 
in the field of material removal and failure that will aid it the development of better 
agricultural tools and practices as the expanding need for food increases in importance 
for developing countries. 
Another professor who worked with the Petitioner states, 
The research methodology that [the Petitioner] used can be used to optimize the tool 
material and the tool geometry .... The research methodology can potentially be used 
in designing new tools with increased wear-life that result in economic benefits that are 
particularly critical in developing countries. 
A third professor who worked with the Petitioner writes, 
[The Petitioner] carried out a numerical study of abrasive wear in tillage tools due to 
soil-tool interaction. He adopted a fundamental approach of simulating the interaction 
of a single sand particle with a tool, and developed a better understanding of the 
mechanism by which the sand particle "scratches" on the surface of the tool. His work 
led to fundamental insights into the mechanics of this scratching process. . . . Such 
fundamental understanding can be utilized to better design tools to minimize abrasive 
wear. 
Another professor writes, 
The work done by [ the Petitioner] has reduced the field and the experimental testing to 
identify the soil, the tool material properties, and the environmental properties required 
to study their effects on the tool wear rate. His work has led to the proper utilization 
of the available data and the natural resources to reduce the impact of the tool wear has 
on the farming industry. 
4 
These and other letters of record speak to the originality of the Petitioner's research and the potential 
positive impacts of his methodologies on various industrial and economic sectors. However, while 
some letters include language that alludes to the impact of the Petitioner's research and methodologies, 
they do not provide examples of the depth or breadth of that impact. Neither the letters nor other 
evidence within the record shows how the Petitioner's work has been widely implemented or has 
otherwise impacted the field of mechanical engineering or fields directly related to advancements in 
engineering methodologies. 
And although the fact that the Petitioner's work has been published, cited, and presented at conferences 
may support the possibility that awareness of the Petitioner's work has grown or will grow, the 
dissemination of the Petitioner's work is not, in itself: evidence of its impact. While experts in the 
field may recognize the potential significance of the Petitioner's research within the field, the plain 
language of the criterion requires evidence of original contributions of major significance in the field. 
In evaluating the evidence, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). Absent the submission of 
sufficient contemporaneous probative evidence to support the Petitioner's assertions, he has not 
established the significance of his research here. 
We have also considered the evidence related to the Petitioner's work for the company specializing in 
pipe support design and production. As noted previously, the letter from the product development 
supervisor credits the Petitioner with the successful movement of the design and manufacturing of 
cryogenic pipe supports from a facility in China to North America. While this and a letter from another 
colleague highlight the importance and value of the Petitioner's job performance during his 
employment, they do not describe how his contributions as an employee led to impacts beyond their 
businesses. The letters' authors repeatedly refer to the Petitioner's original and innovative approaches, 
but they do not describe those approaches or elaborate on any specific resulting outcomes. The record 
does not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate the Petitioner's original contributions of major 
significance in the field. This criterion has not been met. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 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 a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have 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. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner is a talented mechanical engineer; he has applied his skills 
to research that holds the potential to improve the wear resistance for blade machinery and to the 
successful overseas transition of pipe support design and manufacturing for a multimillion-dollar 
organization. However, while the Petitioner has met the minimum requirement of demonstrating 
extraordinary ability by meeting three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the record does not 
contain evidence sufficient to show that he has risen to the top of his field and has sustained national 
5 
or international acclaim in that field. We note that the weight given to evidence depends on the extent 
to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with the sustained national or 
international acclaim enjoyed by those at the very top of their field of endeavor. A lesser showing 
would be inconsistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
For example, the record shows that the Petitioner has participated as a judge on a single conference 
panel. While the coordinator of the conference speaks highly of the Petitioner's work on the panel, 
the record does not include documentation demonstrating that the conference was of such notability 
as to warrant the participation of an individual of national or international acclaim in his field. In 
addition, it might be reasonable to expect that an engineer at the top of his field would have served on 
more than one panel or would have performed in a leading role on a panel; the record does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has done so or has had comparable experiences. 
As another example, although the record shows that the Petitioner has authored a research paper that 
appeared in a major trade publication and has presented his research at several conferences, the record 
does not include evidence showing that his work has been widely applied in the field of mechanical 
engineering or has significantly impacted some element of that field. We incorporate our previous 
analysis of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which the Petitioner did not satisfy. 
Further, the record shows that the Petitioner performed in a leading role during the overseas transfer 
of a reputable company's product line; while this may have been an important undertaking for the 
company, it would not be unreasonable to expect that a mechanical engineer at the top of his field 
would have served in more than one leading or critical role for one or more distinguished 
establishments or organizations. In tum, one might expect an individual to have received national or 
international acclaim for having served in those roles or, perhaps, in a single role for an effort that 
received national or international media coverage for its prominence. Here, the record does not include 
evidence showing that the Petitioner has been recognized in a manner that would demonstrate his 
national or international acclaim. 
On review, the balance of the record demonstrates the Petitioner's proficiency and promise in the field 
of mechanical engineering. However, the record does not contain evidence sufficient to demonstrate 
that he has received national or international acclaim for his research or other work within the field. 
He has not demonstrated through "extensive documentation" that his efforts have brought him the 
requisite sustained acclaim at a national or international level, such that we could conclude that he has 
a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. lO1-723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. As such, the record does not indicate he 
currently has a degree of recognition for his achievements consistent with the sustained acclaim that 
the statute demands. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one 
of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7