dismissed EB-1A Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
In Re: 11198684 
 Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a professor, seeks classification as an alien 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, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW
Section 203(b)(l) 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 in the area of
extraordinary ability, and
(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 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicated employment as a professor in the department of mechanical engineering at 
the Universit~ !Nigeria since 2013. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed 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). The Director determined that the Petitioner met only two of the 
evidentiary criteria relating to scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and leading or critical 
role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On appeal, the Petitioner demonstrates that he fulfills the judging 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), discussed further below. 
Because the Petitioner has shown that he satisfies the minimum requirement of at least three criteria, 
we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 1 
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, his sustained national or international acclaim, 2 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b )( I )(A) of the Act). 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 14 (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and 
2 
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 his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has 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. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner earned a bachelor's of science degree in mechanical engineering 
froml 11 Jniversityl . 0 , I in 1997 and a doctor of philosophy from the University of 
I I in 2004. 4 As indicated above, the Petitioner has been employed as a professor 
at the University! I since 2013 and worked there as an associate professor from 2009 - 2013. 
Previously, the Petitioner served as a senior lecturer atl I University (2008 - 2009) 
and research fellow at the University I I (2006 - 2007) and at the University of 
I I (2004 - 2005). The Petitioner judged others, authored scholarly articles, and performed in 
leading or critical roles. The record, however, does not demonstrate that his personal and professional 
achievements reflect a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. 
Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Relating to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 5 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner participated in evaluating theses for postgraduate candidates and students 
for the University! 1
6 However, the Petitioner's judging experience involves 
evaluating the work of students and aspiring professionals rather than established, recognized 
professionals. Cf, Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994) (USCIS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard). Further, he did not establish that these instances place him among 
the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The commentary for the 
proposed regulations implementing section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of 
Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this 
regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required" for 
providing Black's Law Dictiona,y 's definition of"sustain" as to supp01t or maintain, especially over a long period of time, 
and to persist in making an eff01t over a long period of time). 
3 Id. at 4 (instructing that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expe1iise 
of the immigrant classification). 
4 The Petitioner indicated on his resume that he has completed 34 credits for a master of science degree. 
5 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
6 On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from Frontiers in Energy confirming that he reviewed a paper in~I --~ 
2019, after he filed his initial petition. In addition, he provides letters from two other journals (Energy and Power 
Engineering and Experimental in Fluids) generally indicating that he has judged papers for publication. but they do not 
state any dates that he performed his evaluations. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(1 ). The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he judged journal papers at the time he filed his petition. Further. 
while he presented letter requests for him evaluate staff for promotions, the Petitioner did not show that he actually 
completed the requests. 
3 
lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). He did not show, for example, how 
his experience in judging postgraduate candidates compares to others at the very top of the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his instances of judging contribute to a finding that 
he has a career of acclaimed work in the field or indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner 
did not establish, for instance, that he garnered wide attention from the field based on his work judging 
postgraduate students, limited to the university level. Moreover, serving on a thesis examination board 
does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary ability and sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Without evidence that sets him apart from others 
in his field, such as evidence that he has a consistent history of reviewing or judging recognized, 
acclaimed experts in his field, the Petitioner has not shown that his judging experience places him 
among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Likewise, authorship and publication do not automatically place one at the top of the field. 7 Although 
he submitted 25 authored articles, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his publication record is 
consistent with having a career of acclaimed work and sustaining national or international acclaim. 
See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. He did not submit evidence showing the 
significance of his authorships or how his overall publications compare to others who are viewed to 
be at the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of his written work can be an indicator 
to determine the impact and recognition that his publications have had on the field and whether such 
influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for articles authored by 
the Petitioner may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that other mechanical 
engineers have been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage 
is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the Petitioner provided evidence 
reflecting that his published material has been cited almost 650 times, with his two highest cited 
articles receiving almost 150 citations. While the citation of his work shows that some in his field 
have referenced it, the Petitioner has not established that such citations are sufficient to demonstrate a 
level of interest in the field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. In addition, the Petitioner has not shown that the citations to his work 
represent attention at a level consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top of his 
field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
As it relates to his roles, the Petitioner served as director of special duties for the vice-chancellor at 
the University! I as well as a member on several committees and chairman at the International 
Conference of Mechanical Engineering, Energy Technology, and Management. However, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that he received any national or international attention from his 
positions beyond the university or conference. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 56 Fed. Reg. 
at 30704. The Petitioner did not show that his roles at the university and conference distinguished 
7 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (providing that publications should be evaluated to 
determine whether they were indicative of being one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
him, garnering a level of attention consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top 
of the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Here, the Petitioner did not establish that his professional 
teaching career spanning approximately 12 years represents a career of acclaimed work and sustained 
national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The 
record does not reflect that any of his roles resulted in widespread acclaim from his field, that he drew 
significant attention from the greater field, or that overall field considers him to be at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner satisfied, we consider additional documentation in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility. Here, for 
the reasons discussed below, we find that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage of the top of his field. 
The Petitioner presented evidence reflecting that he received the.__ ________ __, Award for 
an outstandin~ lat the International Conference on Fluid Mechanics in 2003. While 
the conference acknowledged the Petitioner's poster, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he 
garnered national or international acclaim based on his receipt of the conference award, or that it 
represents an individual who is among the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Moreover, the Petitioner provided evidence of his membership with the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers and the Nigerian Society of Engineers. The petitioner, however, did not 
demonstrate that his memberships with these societies are somehow remarkable or garnered sustained 
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. For instance, the Petitioner did 
not submit evidence showing that his memberships resulted in widespread or significant attention. See 
56 Fed. Reg at 30704. In addition, he did not establish the prestigious nature of membership with 
these societies, or how his memberships reflect that small percentage who has risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Finally, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters that summarized his written work and indicate 
publication in journals without demonstrating that his contributions have been of major significance 
in the field. Instead, the letters speculate on the potential influence and on the possibility of being 
majorly significant at some point in the future. For instance, "[t]he findings reported in his works on 
.__ _____ _. can be applied in enhancingl I desi n" and " t his has great potentials for 
significant improvements inl I efficiency" "the novel findin s 
reported in [ the Petitioner's] thesis have many potential industrial applicl"-'-" ................... --,r-------,,.---....,...----i, 
I ~' "[t]his will be of great industrial benefits for of for enhanced 
flexibility and significant reduction of~------~" '------,------------' 
"[t]he findings reported in [the Petitioner's] Doctoral thesis o ~----~ 
applications inl I" I ~-
The letters do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include 
corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall field, rather than by a 
solicited few, as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Further, the Petitioner did not establish that he has made impactful or influential 
contributions in the greater field reflecting a career of acclaimed work in the field, garnering the 
5 
required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act. The letters describe his work without showing how they rise to a level of major significance 
in the field and represent an individual who has garnered sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended 
for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the 
top. Even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. While the 
Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification 
sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
6