dismissed EB-1A Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 5, 2024 In Re: 33751624 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office 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 . 
We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). The 
filing before us is a motion to reconsider our decision to dismiss the Petitioner's appeal. A motion to 
reconsider must establish that our prior decision was 1) based on an incorrect application of law or 
policy, and 2) incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(3). For the sake of brevity, we incorporate our previous analysis of the record and will repeat 
only certain facts and evidence as necessary to address the Petitioner's assertions on motion. Our 
previous decision in this matter was ID# 29963016 (AAO MAR. 4, 2024). 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision, in which we concluded that 
he met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi), and (viii), relating to judging, scholarly articles, 
and leading or critical role. We also determined that the Petitioner did not meet the plain language 
requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which mandates a showing that the 
Petitioner has made original contributions of major significance in his field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner asserts on motion that we erred in concluding that he did not meet the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). To satisfy the plain language of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that 
he has not only made original contributions, but that those contributions have been of major 
significance in the field. 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. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. 
The Petitioner reiterates verbatim narrative provided in his appeal brief on motion, which we 
considered in dismissing the appeal, noting for instance: 
The record highlights an array of compelling material, including expert testimonials 
from distinguished figures such as [Dr. S. Dr. C- and Dr. B-], which underscore the 
uniqueness and significance of the Petitioner's research. Furthermore, it emphasizes 
the acknowledgment of the Petitioner's work being presented at international 
conferences and receiving substantial citations, solidifying its impact. The support 
from executives of major corporations, experienced engineers, and esteemed 
academics is also highlighted as attesting to the profound influence of the Petitioner's 
research on mechanical engineering and related industries. 
In support of the motion, the Petitioner relies on the 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2, for the proposition that 
2 
"testimonials, letters and affidavits about [a] person's original work" and "documentation that the 
person's original work was cited at a level indicative of major significance in the field" are examples 
of "relevant evidence" to be submitted in support of this criterion. In this regard, the USCIS Policy 
Manual advises, in pertinent part: 
Published research that has provoked widespread commentary on its importance from 
others working in the field, and documentation that it has been highly cited relative to 
others' work in that field, may be probative of the significance of the person's 
contributions to the field of endeavor. 
Detailed letters from experts in the field explaining the nature and significance of the 
person's contribution may also provide valuable context for evaluating the claimed 
original contributions of major significance, particularly when the record includes 
documentation corroborating the claimed significance. 
We agree that the provision of such evidence is relevant to a showing that a petitioner has met the 
plain language requirements of this criterion, but in this case the evidence falls short in establishing 
the instant Petitioner's eligibility for it. In our previous decision we acknowledged that the Petitioner's 
work has been published, cited, and presented at conferences, but concluded the dissemination of the 
Petitioner's work is not, in itself, sufficient 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). We determined in our prior decision that 
absent the submission of contemporaneous probative evidence to support the Petitioner's assertions, 
he did not adequately establish the significance of his research. 
We also considered the evidence relating to the Petitioner's work while employed by L-, a company 
which specializes in pipe support design and production, noting the letter from L-' s product 
development supervisor credited the Petitioner with the successful movement of the design and 
manufacturing of cryogenic pipe supports from a facility in China to North America. We explained 
that this letter and a letter from another colleague highlighted the importance and value of the 
Petitioner's job performance during his employment, but the authors did not describe how his 
contributions as an employee led to impacts beyond their businesses. The letter authors repeatedly 
referred to the Petitioner's original and innovative approaches, but they did not describe those 
approaches or elaborate on any specific resulting outcomes. We determined these letters did not 
contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate the Petitioner's original contributions of major significance 
in the field. 
Additionally, we analyzed and discussed other letters from the Petitioner's former instructors and 
colleagues which conveyed the high regard they hold of the Petitioner's work and the Petitioner 
himself as a thorough, knowledgeable, and creative individual. We acknowledged that the letters 
highlighted the potential prospective importance of the Petitioner's research to the agricultural, 
medical supply, and automotive industries. We also noted that while some letters included language 
3 
that alluded to the impact of the Petitioner's research and methodologies, they did not provide 
examples of the depth or breadth of that impact. 
On motion, the Petitioner relies on the importance of the product lines he worked on while employed 
by L-, indicating that L- is a "world leader in piping support," with "major clients, including [E-, W-, 
and S-]. He emphasized that W- "is one of the world's most prominent suppliers of nuclear technology 
and [E-] is obviously one of the world's largest oil and gas companies." He asserts: "Is it not, by the 
preponderance of evidence standard, reasonable to assume then, that the Petitioner's work for [L-] is 
being implemented and impacting world-leading companies in crucial economic, environmental and 
national security sectors?" 
Here, the Petitioner asks us to "assume," without the prov1s10n of contemporaneous probative 
evidence, that he has made original contributions of major significance to the field through his 
employment with a company that provides piping support to clients spanning a variety of industries in 
the United States. While the Petitioner asserts on motion that "the biggest energy companies in the 
world have been directly benefited by the Petitioner's 'original and innovative' work," the record falls 
short in demonstrating that his own work for L- constitutes original contributions of major significance 
to the field. Matter ofChawathe, supra. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden on motion to show that our previous 
determination that he did not satisfy the plain language requirements of this criterion was based on an 
incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, or that our prior decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We affirm our previous 
determination that the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Turning to the issues in the motion relating to our dispositive final merits determination in the previous 
decision, the Petitioner's motion brief does not directly address the conclusions from our March 2024 
decision. In our final merits determination, we considered the totality of the evidence in the record 
and discussed our reasons for determining that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner has 
risen to the top of his field and has sustained national or international acclaim in that field. We noted 
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)(2). 
For example, we explained that the record reflected the Petitioner's participation as a judge on a single 
conference panel. While the coordinator of the conference spoke highly of the Petitioner's work on 
the panel, the record did 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. As another example, we concluded that the Petitioner has authored a research paper that 
appeared in a major trade publication and has presented his research at several conferences, but the 
record did 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. 
4 
On motion, the Petitioner does not specifically address the detailed analyses that we provided 
regarding the evidence he submitted in support of his assertions that he warrants a favorable final 
merits determination as an individual of extraordinary ability. The purpose of a motion to reconsider 
is to show error in the most recent prior decision, but the Petitioner did not do so here. Instead, he 
"take[s] issue with [our] inference that satisfaction of the [ original contributions of major significance] 
criterion is required to satisfy the final merits determination of extraordinary ability," but he does not 
cite to law or policy in support of his proposition that we erred in analyzing this evidence as part of 
our final merits determination. Notably, we incorporated our discussion of the evidence submitted in 
support of this criterion into our final merits determination, but we did not state or imply in our prior 
decision that the Petitioner must satisfy more than three criteria either to meet the initial evidentiary 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) or to satisfy the final merits determination requirements. 
The Petitioner asserts through counsel that "while we believe that a correct application of the 
preponderance of the evidence standard establishes the Petitioner has made original contributions of 
major significance, we wish to highlight that the totality of the evidence, which satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements, does more likely than not demonstrate extraordinary ability." Counsel's 
unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 
(BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not 
entitled to any evidentiary weight"). To determine whether a petitioner has established eligibility for 
a requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence, USCIS must examine each piece of evidence 
- both individually and within the context of the entire record - for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility. Matter ofChawathe. We did so here, and explained in our prior decision why the evidence 
in the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
While the Petitioner may disagree with aspects of our analyses of the evidence in the prior decision, 
he has not shown on motion how we neglected to collectively consider the record under the 
preponderance of the evidence standard, or that we otherwise erred as a matter of law or policy in 
determining that he does not warrant a favorable final merits determination. We affirm our previous 
determination that 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. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
On motion, the Petitioner also avers that "[w ]e believe the Petitioner's prospective contributions to 
the benefit of the national interest, to wit, the nature of his work, carry unique merit and value. We 
ask that [USCIS] please consider this fact when reviewing the subject motion." It appears that the 
Petitioner is asking us on motion to ignore the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1) which 
requires the Petitioner to show at the time of filing the petition, that he met the statutory and regulatory 
requirements for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of 
the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). He suggests that he can establish his eligibility through 
"prospective contributions to the benefit of the national interest" that will accrue to the field at some 
unknown future date. 
We lack the authority to waive or disregard any of the Act's requirements, as implemented by 
regulation. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683,695 (1974) ("So long as this regulation is extant 
it has the force oflaw."). Immigration regulations carry the force and effect oflaw. United States ex 
5 
rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260, 265 (1954). Therefore, we cannot "credit" the Petitioner 
with unrealized accomplishments that may at some future point in time come to fruition and establish 
his eligibility. We affirm our previous conclusion that the balance of the record demonstrates the 
Petitioner's proficiency and promise in the field of mechanical engineering but does not contain 
evidence sufficient to demonstrate that at the time of filing the petition he enjoyed sustained national 
or international acclaim for his research or other work within the field. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner does not sufficiently address the specific adverse 
determinations and conclusions in our prior decision or establish that they were in error; rather, he 
primarily relies on vague and general assertions, alleging that we inappropriately analyzed evidence 
or employed an incorrect standard of proof He has not established that our previous decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
6