dismissed EB-1A Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 6222120 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 26, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer , 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 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. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 they 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 earned a Ph.D. atl !University, in the .... l -------r-----r-- ___ .....,1 
I I He is now employed as a mechanical engineer at l~----~I in I I I lcalifornia. ~-~ 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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). The Petitioner claims to have met three criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the fourth and sixth criteria, but not the fifth, relating to 
contributions of major significance. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also made qualifying 
contributions. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that he satisfied all three 
claimed criteria. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) calls for evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, 
or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The Petitioner asserts that he has 
met this criterion through citation of his published work and through submission ofletters from experts 
in his field. These contributions relate to three interrelated projects at the I I 
2 
• I I rob,.:.ot.:.:.id.:..!::=:::;----'ltechnology 
• Pioneering robotic I I technology for space debris removal 
• I technology for UAV/drone applications 
The Petitioner contends that "leading experts all over the world have used [the Petitioner's] work as a 
major benchmark to guide and compare their own work inl !robotics." The Petitioner also 
asserts that his "research invented a new theory and technology for robotics field. His robotics 
I lwork has fundamentally improved the state of technology, and profoundly advanced the 
research areas of national importance." 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director did not give sufficient weight to letters in 
the record, both from collaborators and from researchers who have not worked with the Petitioner. A 
number of these researchers trained at the I I but their time there did not overlap with that of the 
Petitioner. 
.... T!c...!h~e:.!::l=:::;-----'lprofessor who lead~ describes the Petitioner's work "applying principles of 
._I __ __.I technology inspired bye==} and developing novel robotic I ~ 
The adhesive develo our laboratory remains unique in terms of having a very 
low force.___-.- ______ while also providing useful normal and shear stresses 
for locomotion .__ ____ _. [The Petitioner's] particular contributions include 
learning how to harness these forces for acquiring and handling large objects in space 
(where almost no other technology will work) and for enabling quadrotors to land and 
perch on walls and ceilings. 
Concerning I I technology used in manufacturing, such as "handling glass panels and delicate 
objects," the professor states: 
Current technology relies on pneumatics and vacuum~ '. w:ich are cumbersome, 
slow, and prone to leaving a visible mark .... The newltechnology that [the 
Petitioner] developed does not have these constraints, and once applied in industry, it 
can reduce costs by more than 50%. 
The group leader of~---------~at thel .------.~ 
which sponsored some of the Petitioner's research, stated that research teams a~ .... --__.~d 
collaborated onl I adhesives before the Petitioner joined the project, but early results 
"achieved less than 20% of the material's potential." After the Petitioner identified "intrinsic design 
flaws" and "designed several ... prototypes with his new insights," performance improved to "96% 
material efficiency." 
The record shows that some of the Petitioner's published papers attracted coverage in science 
publications, and researchers at other laboratories attest that they have relied on, and built upon, the 
Petitioner's published work in robotics. The Petitioner has prov~Iicient detail to establish the 
nature and significance of his contributions to the projects at thel__J 
3 
As the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the 
evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 
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 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. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
While the Petitioner has been deeply involved in important robotics research, the record, in the 
aggregate, indicates that any acclaim resides predominantly with thel I and its head, rather than 
specifically with the Petitioner. Recognition of the laboratory preceded the Petitioner's involvement 
there, and the Petitioner has not shown that acclaim has followed him in his endeavors after leaving 
I I Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown that his work at the I I consistently had a 
significantly greater impact than other research that occurred there during the same period. 
The Petitioner has judged the work of others in his field, but only in the context of routine peer review 
of papers submitted for publication in journals or presentation at conferences. The invitations to 
perform this peer review indicate that the Petitioner was selected based upon his expertise in the field, 
but he has not shown that the number of these requests or the reputation of the requesting organizations 
reflects standing above others performing similar work. 
In his appeal brief: the Petitioner has relied heavily on citations to his published research, all of which 
originated from work conducted during his time at the I I He quotes Thomson Reuters' The 
World's Most I11fluential Scientific Minds 2015: "One measure of scientific eminence is to identify 
authors who have been prolific in the production of highly cited reports, according to the unique store 
of statistics maintained by Thomson Reuters." The Petitioner contends: "According to this 
benchmark, [ the Petitioner] is surely one of the eminent researchers by his ability to produce a number 
of the most cited papers within a short period of his research career." 
The Thomson Reuters publication does not serve the same purpose as, or take the place o±: the 
regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, given the Petitioner's reliance on the Thomson Reuters report, 
it is important to consider how Thomson Reuters defines "highly cited." If the Petitioner defines 
1 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form T-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADl 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating 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 expertise for the immigrant classification). 
4 
"highly cited" in a different way than Thomson Reuters, then quotations from the report cannot provide 
meaningful support to the Petitioner's arguments. The Petitioner cannot reasonably ask that we give 
consideration to the report's language, but not to its definitions of key terminology. In this respect, it 
is significant that the Petitioner has not submitted the entire Thomson Reuters report. 
The report states: "Highly cited papers rank in the top 1 % ... of the citation distributions of 
comparable papers, those matched for field and age." Even then, not every researcher who has 
produced some highly cited papers has been "prolific" in that production. The report refers to a list of 
"3,126 Highly Cited Researchers" out of "about nine million researchers in the world today." The 
Petitioner does not submit that list, nor does he claim to be among those listed. Thus, the Petitioner 
does not show that he meets the definition of a "highly cited" researcher contemplated in the report. 
The Petitioner also provides separately compiled citation statistics for articles in the broad category of 
engineering. At the time of filing, Google Scholar listed 19 articles by the Petitioner, 17 of which had 
been cited. Only four of the Petitioner's articles fell within the top 1 %, Thomson Reuters' threshold 
for "highly cited." Also, all four of those articles were published in 2016 or 2017 when single-digit 
citation rates were sufficient to warrant such high placement; the articles had between 2 and 12 
citations each at the time of filing. Among all articles published before 2016, the most-cited articles 
had citation figures substantially higher than what the Petitioner's work had accumulated. As time 
passes, the gap between the top 10% and the top 1 % grows considerably wider; most of the Petitioner's 
cited work falls within or below that gap. 
Also, as noted above, the Petitioner rd not jrovide a basis to compare the citation of his work to that 
of other articles originating from the during the same period of time. 
Continued citation of the Petitioner's work after the filing date speaks to the significance of that work, 
which we have granted, above; but it cannot retroactively establish eligibility at the time of filing. The 
Petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). 
The Petitioner asserts that the citing articles themselves singled out his work for special attention and 
praise, but this conclusion arises from a highly selective reading of the evidence. For example, the 
Petitioner highlighted the following passage from a submitted article: "These systems enabled many 
impressive research results that were not previously possible owing to limitations such as the weight, 
accuracy, or the dynamic range of the onboard sensor. 2-9" (Emphasis added by the Petitioner.) This 
passage cited eight source articles, one of which was the Petitioner's. Furthermore, the "systems" to 
which the passage refers were not systems that the Petitioner developed. Rather, the article referred 
to "motion capture systems," capable of being mounted on mobile robotic devices including, but not 
limited to, those atl I Thus, the highlighted passage cannot reasonably be seen as a 
specific endorsement of the Petitioner's work. 
Other highlighted passages refer to the Petitioner's work as "promising," while still others are self­
citations by the Petitioner's mentors and collaborators. 
The record shows that the Petitioner trained successfully at a highly-regarded robotics laboratory, but 
we do not conclude that this work earned him sustained individual acclaim at the very top of his field. 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
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 the top. 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 established 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 )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
G