dismissed EB-1A Case: Mechanical Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
()AT~UG 23 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
L.S. Dcpartlllcnl of Homeland Sc( .. urit~ 
tJ S ("jli/l'll-..hip ;111(1 11ll1ll1,!.'.r:!li(111 ..... l'r\ Il'L" 
,\,llllillj,"lr.lIiw AppL';rl-, ()Iricc (1\,\(11 
211 Md" ... <lchlJ..,cll ... ,\\l'" :\,\\,. M..., 21l'/1) 
\Va ... hiJl,l!loll.l)( 2()"'i2Q-2()()() 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Pctiliol1 for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ahility Pursuant to 
Section 2m(h)( I )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; S USc. ~ 1153(h)( I )(A) 
ON LlEHALf' OF PFTITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents relalt:d to this matler have heen returned to the office that originally decided your nlSC. Please 
he advised that any further in4uiry that you might have concerning your case musl he made to lhal oilice. 
If you helieve the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decisioll, or you have additional 
infnrmation that you wish In have considered, you may file a motion tn reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fcc of $630. The 
"pecific requirements for filing such a motion can he found at H C.F.R. * 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please he aware that K C.F.R. § 103.S(a)( I )(i) requires any motion to he filed 
within J() days of the decisinll Ihal the molion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank VOll. 
~ , 
I 
't-'"'''- " .... 
, -. 
.1,-
Perry Rhew 
Chid, Administrative Appeals Orfice 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director. Texas 
Service Center. on August 1 'l. 2011, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
on appeaL The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
2OJ(h)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act). H USC ~ I 153(h)(I)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ahility as a mechanical engineer. The director determined that the petitioner 
had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive documentation 
of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the 
statute that the petitioner demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of his or her achievements. See section 203(b)( 1 )(A)( i) of the Act and 1\ 
CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at H c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement, 
specifically a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific evidence. 8 CF.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The 
petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of 
evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the petitioner meets at least three of the regulatory criteria at t; CF.R. 
* 204.5(h)(3). 
L LAW 
Section 2OJ(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified 
immigrants who arc aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) 
through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph 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 
Page J 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 ]() I" Cong .• 2d 
Sess. 5'1 (1990); 5/1 Fed. Reg. h0897, t10898-99 (Nov. 29.1991). The tenn ""extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. Id.; 8 CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 c:.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner delllonstrate the alien's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is. a major. international 
recognized award) or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed at 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USClS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20](). Although 
the court upheld the AAC)" s decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAC)" s 
evaluation of evidcnce submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. I With respect to the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised 
legitimate concerns about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, 
those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent "!inalmerits determination." Id. at 1121-
22. 
The court stated that the AAC)"s evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the 
petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed 
to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the ;\;\0 concluded)." 1<1. at 
1122 (citing to 8 c:.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3». 
Thus. Kazariull sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
cOllsidered in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter. the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed and conduct a final merits 
detL:rmination. 
I Specifically, thl' cllurl q;Hl'U that thl' AAO had unilaterally imposed novel suhstantivl' or evidcntiary rC4uirl'I111'Ilts 
heY,,"" I/""e ,et IOrih ill Ihe regu/alioll' at N cr:.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 c.r.R. * 204.5(h)(.l)(vi). 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria' 
/JoCillnen/aliol1 of Ihe a/ien·.1 receipl of lesser nalio//a/il' or inlal/aliolla//v 
recognized prizes or awards jiir excellence in Ihe field of endeavor. 
In the director's decision. she determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility Ill!" this 
criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires 
"Idlocumentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards Ill!" excellence in the lield of endeavor.·· Moreover, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for every element of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate his receipt of 
prizes and awards. he must also demonstrate that those prizes and awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. In other words, the petitioner 
must establish that his prizes and awards are recognized nationally or internationally for excellence 
in the field beyond the awarding entities. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his receipt of the I(lilowing awards: 
1. Cross of the Venezuelan Air Force Third Class on December 10, IlJ<)5: 
Order July 18th on July 18,2002; 
J. Diploma Merit Award on April 12, 19l)(); 
4. Certificate I(n contributions and participation during defense and national 
security conferences on April I, 19lJ9. 
Regarding item I, the petitioner submined the "Decoration Regulations" 
Force Cross "will go to reward distinguished service to The Air Force." 
recei\es "Third Class" based on any of the t(lilowing: 
a. Heroic actions highlighted in all circumstances. 
reflecting that the Air 
Moreover. a recipient 
b. 13) their own initiative, the rescue of a unit in imminent danger. 
c. Possess a high institutional ethos, reflected in selflessness, morality and 
irreproachable conduct and full compliance with the duties of service. 
d. Demonstrate through their work special ability to implement professional 
knowledge and skills of organization and air force administration. 
- On apreal. the petitioner docs not claim 10 meet any of the regulatory categories ()r evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page .5 
e. The adequacy of self-denial manifested in the performance of professors in 
educational institutes of The Air Force. 
f. Have earned first place in national or international sports competItIons on 
behalf of The Air Force, in the opinion of the Council of the Order. 
g. Have earned first place in courses of professional specialization, according to 
the council of the Order. 
h. Have earned two merit awards, in General Order of the Ministry of Defense. 
The plain language of the regulation at tl C.F,R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires that the prizes or awards 
he "tllr excellence illihe/ielif of endeal'or [emphasis added]." The petitioner seeks classification as 
an alien of extraordinary ability as a mechanical engineer. While the petitioner submitted sufficient 
documentary evidencc retlecting his receipt of the Cross of the Venezuelan Air Force Third Class, 
he failed to submit documentation establishing that it was based in his field of endeavor as a 
mechanical engineer. In other words, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he received the Air 
Force Cross Third Class as a result of excellence in mechanical engineering. 
Regarding item 2, the petitioner submitted a letter Universidad 
Simon Bolivar (USB), inviting the petitioner to a ceremony where the Order July Itl would be 
conferred upon the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence 
rdlecting that he actually received the Order July 18. As such, the petitioner failed to establish his 
receipt of the Order July 11-:. Notwithstanding, the petitioner submitted the "Regulations - Rules of 
General Application" retlecting that the Order July 18 is an award by USB that "rewards their 
teaching stall administrators. technicians and workers on merit distinguished years or service." The 
AAO is not persuaded that an award that acknowledges the length of service at an educational 
institution equates to a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that 
the award is recognized beyond USB, so as to relleet a nationally or internationally recognized 
award for excellence. 
Regarding item 3, the petitioner submitted a certificate from the Venezuelan Air Force Base, The 
Command of Air Transport Group No.5 reflecting that the petitioner received the merit award "in 
its XX anniversary. as recognition to his excellent services to this unit." FU11her. the petitioner 
submitted an invitation letter for an anniversary celebration of the air transport group. Similar to 
item I, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that the merit award 
is in his field of mechanical enginening. 
Regarding item 4, the petitioner submitted a certificate from the Venezuelan National Security and 
Defense Council fiJr the petitioner's "contributions and participation: During Defense and National 
Security Conferences." The petitioner failed to submit any other documentation regarding this item. 
The plain language of the regulation at ~ C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires "nationally or 
Page () 
internationally recognized I)rizes or awards for excelll'nc(' ill the field oj ('n<iea\'{)r [emphasis 
adued I." The petitioner failed to demonstrate that a certificate acknowledging the petitioner's 
contributions and participation at coniCrences equates to a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award. Merely attending conferences or participating in the agendas are not indicative of 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence consistent with the plain 
language of the regulation at g C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Furthermore, the petitioner failed to 
establish that his contributions and participation are in his field of endeavor as a mechanical 
engIneer. 
Again, the plain language orthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i) requires "ldJocumentation of 
the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence 
in th" field of l'IId('(ll'Or [emphasis added]." Simpl y submitting documentation re tlecting recei pt of 
prizes or awards or insufficient to meet all of the elements of this criterion unless the petitioner 
demonstrates that his nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards are for excellence in 
his field of endeavor. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
/)oCllmelltatiol1 of Ihe alien's mcmhcr.lhil' in associations in Ihe jiehl jor lrhich 
ciassi/icll1ioll i.1 sOlll{hl, wizich rcquire o/llstalldilll{ acizieveml'll1s of'their memhcl'S, 
as judged h.l' recognized natiollal or illternational eXl'eris ill thcir disciJllinel or 
fields. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regul<llion at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.S(h)(3)(ii) requires "ldJocumentation of the alien's 
membership in associations in the field for which is classification is sought, which require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or tields." Based upon a review of the record of proceeding, the 
petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence to establish that he meets the plain language 
of this regulatory criterion. As such, the AAO withdraws the decision of the director for this 
crilt:rioll. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
l'uhlished lIlalerial "holll th" alicll ill Jlrojessional or major trade Jluhlicatiolls or 
other ma,/or media. rcloling 10 the alien's work in Ihe field fiJI' ,\'hich classification is .' . 
sOllght. Sllch evidenc(' shall include tize tiile, date, and awizor of the fIlaterial, alld 
(//1\' Ilecessarl' mll1sl({{ioll. 
In the director's decision, she determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility ti.l[ this 
criterion. In counsel's bricL she did not contest the findings of the director for this criterion or offer 
additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be abandoned. See SeJllllveda 1'. 
u.s. AI/'" Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 122S n. 2 (11th Cir. 200S); HrislOV v. Roark, No. 09-CV-273121l11, 
Page 7 
2011 WL 47118i\S at C I, "9 (E.n.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2(11) (the court I(,und the plaintilrs elaims to he 
'Ib,mdoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to estahlish that he meets this criterion. 
/c'l'idener ollhc alien'.\ parlicipatioll, either individually or 01/ apallel, (11 <1 judge of' 
the work of' oliwrs ill tile sall1e or (1// allied field of ,Ipeeijleatioll jilr which 
classijicalioll il sought. 
The director determined that the petItioner established eligibility for this criterion, The plain 
language or the regulation at g C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires "Ic]vidence of the alien's 
participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specification for which classification is sought." Based upon a review of the record of 
proceeding, the petitioner submittcd sufficient documentary evidence to establish that he minimally 
meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Fl'idenee ot lhe alien '.1 original scientific. scholarly. arlislic. athletic. or hllsiness­
rl'iated cOl1lrihlltio/lS (lrmajor significance in the field. 
In the director's decision, she determined that thc petitioner lailed to cstablish eligibility for this 
criterion. The plain language of the regulation at g C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires '·Iel\idence of 
the alien's original scientilic, scholarly. artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field." Ilere. the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level or 
original scientific or scholarly-related contributions "of major significance in the lield." The phrase 
"majm significance" is not superlluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman I'. /:"{1strich 
Mliftipl~ Il1v~slor Fund, 1..1'.,51 F. 3d 2tl. 31 (3,,1 Cir. 1995) qllIJIf'd in AFWU v. Fotter, 343 F.3d 
619, 6211 (2,,,1 Cir. Sep 15,20(3). 
The petitioner submitted documentary evidence retlecting that he has published nine articles, and 
two or his published articles have been cited four times by others. Specifically, the petitioner"s 
al1icies. "Contrihution of Thcl1l1al Radiation to the Temperature Prolilc of Semitransparcnt.'· and 
"Contribution of Them1al Radiation to the Temperature Protile of Ceramic Composite Materials:' 
were cited two times each. While the number of total citations is a factor, it is not the only factor to 
be considered in determining the petitioner's eligibility for this criterion. Generally, the number of 
citations is reflective of the petitioner's original lindings and that the field has taken some interest to 
the petitioner's work. However. it is not an automatic indicator that the petitioner·s work has heen 
of'lIllijor significance ill/hI' jil'fd. In this case, the AAO is not persuaded that such minimal citations 
are rellective that the petitioner's work has been of major significance in the lield. Moreover, the 
petitioner failed to suhmit any documentary evidence reflecting that his other seven articles have 
ever been cited by others. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to submit any docllmentary evidence 
delllonstrating that his articles have been unusually influential, such as articles that discuss in-depth 
the petitioner's findings or credit the petitioner with influencing or impacting the field. 
Page K 
In this case, the petitioner's documentary evidence is not ret1ective of having a signiticant impact on 
the lidd. Merely suhmitting documentation reflecting that the petitioner's work has been cited by 
others in their published material is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without 
documentary evidence ret1eeting that the petitioner's work has been of a major signilicance in the 
fidd. The AAO is not persuaded that the minimal citations of the petitioner's a!1icles are rellcctive 
of the significance of his work in the field. The petitioner failed to establish how those findings or 
citations of his work by others have significantly contributed to his field as a whole. 
The petitioner's evidence includes documentation that the he has presented his findings at various 
scientific conferences, such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Conferences and 
joint conference between the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Economic 
Commission for L~ltin America and the Caribbean, along with numerous other participants. 
However, many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposia to present new work, 
discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences arc promoted and 
sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government 
agencies. Participation in such events. however, docs not equate to an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. There is no evidence showing that the petitioner's conference 
presentations havc been frequently cited by independent researchers or have otherwise significantly 
impacted the field. 
Again, while the presentation of the petitioner's work demonstrates that his work was shared with 
others and may be acknowledged as original contributions based on the selection of them to be 
presented. the AAO is not persuaded that presentations of the petitioner's work arc sufficient 
evidence establishing that the petitioner's work is of major signilieance to the lield as a whole and 
not limited to the engagements in which they were presented. The petitioner failed to establish. for 
example, that the presentations were of major significance so as to establish their impact or 
intluence beyond the audience at the conferences. 
Furthermore, on appeal, counsel refers to four recommendation letters that she claims establishes 
thc petitioner's eligibility for this critcrion. In this case, while the recommendation letters praise the 
pctitioner for his work, they fail to indicate that his contributions are of major si;;nijicance in the 
field. The letters provide only general statements without offering any specific in/(mnation to 
establish how the petitioner's work has becn of major significance. For instance, Coloncl _ 
_ United States Air Force. Retired, discussed the petitioner's role as an investigator for the 
Western Hemisphere Information Exchange Program (WHIEP). While Colonel _ 
complimented the petitioner for his talents and knowledge, Colonel_failed to demonstrate that 
the petitioner's contrihution was of major significance to the lield as a whole rather than limited to 
the project. Similarly, the petitioner submitted a letter 
National Hydraulics Laboratory, who commented on the pctitioner's "vast knowledge" and 
"patience and dedication" while working on the WHIEP but failed to provide detailed, specific 
in/(mnalion establishing that the petitioner's contributions are of major significance in the field 
consistent with the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
A21111 K-I5 4H6 
Page 9 
Moreover, USB, stated: 
A review of his technical work and the publications generated from it, shows ]the 
petitioner] as a leading researcher in the area of multiphase pumping, pushing 
forward the state-of-the art on such important area for the petroleum and energy & 
power industries. [The petitioner] developed a valuable insight on the flow behavior 
of gas-liquid two-phase flow mixtures in pumps through the use of a mixed 
approach of both experimental studies and Computational Fluid Dynamics 
simulations. 
] The petitioner' s] work. based on clear objectives and consistent approach, presents 
an original and important contribution in this field. The completed work and the 
planned future activities aim at development of a comprehensive understanding and 
design criteria for turbo machinery operated under two-phase flow. 
Although Professor _ briefly indicated an original contribution made by the petitioner, he 
"liled to explain how the petitioner's contribution is considered of major signilicance in the lield. 
Profcssor_ I'lilcd to indicate the impact or inlluence of the petitioner's contribution on the 
field, so as to demonstrate an original contribution of major significance in the field. Simply 
identifying an original contribution is insufficient to meet this criterion unless specific, detailed 
information is provided to show that the original contribution is of major significance in the field. 
Likewise, the petitioner submitted a letter from Dr. University of Tulsa, 
Oklahoma, who also briefly indicated that the petitioner' butlon regarding the !low behavior 
of gas-liquid flow mixtures. In fact. Dr. regarding this issue is almost 
verbatim to Regardless, Dr. _ failed to provide any specific information to 
rclleet that the petitioner'S contribution is of major significance in the field. 
While those who submitted recommendation letters on the petitioner's behalf generally describe his 
work as "extraordinarY:' there is insuflicient documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner's work is of major signilicance. This regulatory criterion not only requires the petitioner 
to make original contributions, the regulatory criterion also requires those contributions to bc of 
major significance. The AAO is not persuaded by vague, solicited letters that simply repeat the 
regulatory language but do not explain how the petitioner's contributions have already influenced 
the field. Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify 
contributions or provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are 
insufficient. Kazarian I'. USGS, SilO F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 20(9) alTd in part 596 F.3d IllS 
(9th Cir. 2(10). In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that the "letters 
from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner'S] contributions in the field" were insufficient 
was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. Moreover. the letters 
considered abmc rrimarily contain hare assertions of the petitioner's status in the field without 
proviuing specific examples of how those contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance in the field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy 
the petitioner's burden ofprooC Fellin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, I lOll (E.D.N.Y. 
19iN), aji'd, <)OS F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. I <)90); A vvr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1<)97 WL 11l8<)42 at * S 
Page til 
(S.D.N.Y.). The lack of supporting evidence gives the AAO no basis to gauge the significance of 
the petitioner's present contributions. 
Morcover. while thc recommendation letters praise the petitioner"s knowledge and skills. the letters 
fail to demonstrate how they are original contributions of major significance to the ficid. Merel) 
having a diverse skill set is not a contribution of major signitlcance in and of itself. Rather, the 
record must be supported by evidence that the petitioner has already used those unique skills to 
impact the field at a significant level in an original way. Furthermore, assuming the petitioner"s 
skills arc unique. the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a 
given ficid. In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor 
through the alien employment labor certification process. See Maller of ,\'e\1' f()rk S/al<' Del''' ot 
Tram!' .. 221&1\ Dec. 215. 221 (Comm'r 1998). 
Further, USCIS may, in its discretion, usc as advisory oplmon statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Maller o/Carol1/ntematiollal, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). IIowever. 
lJSCIS is ultimately responsible for making the tinal detennination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner'S personal 
contacts is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alicn's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Maller of V-K-, 24 I&N 
Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 200K). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became aware 
of the petitioner's reputation arc important considerations. Even when written by independent 
experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence of original contributions of major significance. 
Again, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204,5(h)(3 lev) requires "lei vidence of the 
alicn's original scientitic, scholariy, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
\igllijicallce ill the field I emphasis added]." Without additional. specitic evidence showing that the 
petitioner's work has been unusually influential, widely applied throughout his tield, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of contributions of major significance, the AAO cannot conclude that he 
meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
i:'l'iJence otlile aliell 's awhorshil' or,cholarl)' arlicles in the field. ill profcssional or 
major trade 1'lIhlicaliol1.\ or Olizer major media. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[eJvidenee of the alien's 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media:' Based upon a review ofthc record of proceeding, the petitioner submitted sutlicient 
documentary evidence to establish that he minimally meets the plain language of this regulatory 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Pa~e 1 1 
Ft'idence that the alien has perf(lrmed in a leading or critical roll' jilr orgullizuti()/lS 
IIr estahlishlllellts thut huve a distingllished replltatiol1. 
In the director's decision, she determined that the petitioner established eligibility lllr this criterion. 
Based upon a review of the record of proceeding, the AAO must withdraw the decision of the 
director for this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204,5(h)(3)(viii) requires "lc]vidence that the 
alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizatio/lS or estahlishmCllIs that have a 
distingllished replltatio/l l emphasis added]." The burden is on the petitioner to establish that he 
meets every element of this criterion. Not only must the petitioner demonstrate that he performed in 
a leading or critical role, but he must also demonstrate that those roles were for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that he performed in a 
leading or critical role for the Research and Development Foundation of USB. Specifically, the 
petitioner served as CEO from I 'J'J5-l 'J'J7 and president from I 'J'J'J-200 I. Alihough the petitioner 
submitted screenshots from \\ww.usb.\'e and www.funindcs.usb.vc regarding background 
infltfmation and mission of the foundation, the petitioner failed to submit any independent, object 
documentation demonstrating that the Research and Development Foundation of USB has a 
distinguished reputation. See Braga v. IJoulos, No. CV (]6 S lOS SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2(07) a((d 
200'J WL 604888 (y'h Cir. 200'J) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-promotional 
material). 
Similarly, the petitioner submilted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that he 
performed in a leading or critical role I()r the Energy Institute of the Americas (EIA). Specifically, 
the petitioner collaborated in the creation of EIA in 1995 and has been an executive director since 
20()4. However. while the petitioner submitted recommendation letters from EIA, along with 
screenshots hom UA's website, the petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective evidence 
establishing that ElA has a distinguished reputation. The AAO is not persuaded that every 
organization that is affiliated with an educational institution automatically qualifies as an 
organization that has a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner also submilled documentation reflecting that he was appointed to be part of the 
Coordinating COlllmillee for the Evaluation of the Aerospace Project between the Venezuelan 
Ministry of Science and Technology (VMST) and the Lone Star Space Access Corporation 
(LSSAC). The petitioner failed to submit any documentation demonstrating that his role on the 
committee was leading or critical; simply serving on a committee is insufficient to meet this 
criterion unless the petitioner demonstrates that his role was leading or critical to VMST or ISSAC 
as a whole. Although the petitioner submitted a screenshot from www.!!lCt\.gob.ve regarding 
background intiJnnation of VMST, the petitioner failed to submit any independent, objective 
evidence retlecting its distinguished reputation. 
Page 12 
In addition, the petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on his rolc as a member of the 
editorial advisory board for the International Institute of Informatics and Systematics (IllS). 
However. the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the judging of the work of others. Il 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The AAO will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the 
judging criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. To hold 
otherwise would render meaningless the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three 
~erarale criteria. 
Finally. the petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his pOSitIon at Florida 
International University (FlU). However, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his role as 
instructor in the Mechanical and Materials Engineering (MME) department is leading or critical to 
FlU as a whole. According to the 20l0-2OI I undergraduate catalog submitted by the petitioner, he 
is listed as one of 21 professors or instructors within the department. The petitioner failed to 
distinguish himself from the other 20 instructors or professors in the department, let alone from FlU 
when compared to Dr. __ who is the 
MME, it appears that the petitioner performs in a far lesser role. Moreover, 
the petitioner performs in a subordinate role when compared to Dr who i~ 
the College of Engineering and Computing at flU. While the petitIOner recommendation 
letters praising the petitioner as a faculty member, simply being viewed as competent or even well­
liked by students does not necessarily equate to a leading or critical role. Again, not only has the 
petitioner failed to demonstrate that he performs in a leading or critical role for MME, the petitioner 
failed to establish that he performs in a leading or critical role for FlU as whole. 
Again. the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(viii) requires .. [ e ]vidence that 
the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation." The burden is on the petitioner to establish that he meets every element 
of this criterion. Without documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner has performed in 
" leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. the 
AAO cannot conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. As such, the AAO withdraws the 
decision of the director for this criterion. 
Accordingly. the petitioner failed to establish that he meets this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
C. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the AAO must next conduct a final merits determination 
that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: 
(I) a "level oj' expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen 
to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2): and (2) ··that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in 
Page 1] 
the lield of expertise." Sec section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 USC ~ 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 
t\ CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3). See a/so Kazarian, 596 F.3d at IllS. 
In e\aluating the ;\A(Ys linal merits detenmination, the ;\AO must look at the totality of the 
evidence to determine the petitioner's eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)( I )(A) of the Act. II] this 
case, the petitioner is a member of associations in his field, the petitioner has served on editorial 
boards, and the petitioner has authored articles in professional journals. However, the personal 
accomplishments of the petitioner fall far short of establishing that he "is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor" and that he "has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expel1ise." See tI CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2), section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 USC 
~ 115-,(b)( I )(A)(i), and 1> C.F.R. ~ 2045(h)(3). 
The regulation at X (,T.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3) provides that "[a] petition 1(11' an alien of extraordinary 
ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the licld of expeI1ise." The 
petitioner's evidence must be evaluated in terms of these requirements. The weight given to 
evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 1> C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), therefore, depends on the extent 
to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard 
would not be consistent 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 endea\or." X CF.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2). 
The AAO determined that the petitioner met the membership criterion pursuant to the regulation at 
K c.r.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) based on his membership with the Academy of Engineering and 
Environment of Venezuela in 2004 and the Venezuelan Foundation for Promotion of Researchers in 
2004. However, the petitioner lailed to submit any documentation reflecting the petitioner's role, 
participation, or accomplishments for either of the associations, so as to demonstrate sustained 
national or international acclaim since 2004. 
Moreover, the AAO determined that the petitioner met the judging criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at K Cr.R. * 204.S(h)(3)(iv) based on his judging of the National Award for the Best 
Scientific, Technologic, and Innovative Work by the Venezuelan Ministry of Science and 
Technology in 2001 and the Andres Bell Mention Applied Sciences Year Award by USB in 2003. 
Further, the petitioner has served on the editorial advisory board for the conference proceedings of 
1115 since 2003. It is noted that the petitioner also submitted a letter from Dr 
iencia, dated February 25, 199'1, requesting the petitioner to be a reviewer for the 
journal; however the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence reflecting that the 
petitioner has actually reviewed any papers for Cit'llcia. Besides participating as a member of the 
editorial advisory board for illS, there is no evidence that the petitioner has judged the work of 
others since 20{)3 that would be reflective of sustained national or international acclaim in the field. 
Pa~c 14 
In addition, the AAO determined that the petitioner met the scholarly articles criterion pursuant to 
the regulation at t\ CF.R. ;$ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) based on the authorship of nine articles from IlJlJ4 to 
200lJ. However, only two of the articles were published after 2(XI4. Funher, when compared to the 
authorship of the petitioner's references, it appears that his references arc I'lr above the 
accomplishments of the petitioner. For example, Dr indicated the aut~ 
over 37 articles, Dr. I indicated the authorship of over lJ4 articles, and Dr._ 
indicated the authorship of over 70 articles. Although the petitioner met the plain language of the 
regulation through his co-authorship and authorship of scholarly articles, he has not established that 
the moderate publication of such articles demonstrates a level of expertise indicating that he is 
among that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See t\ CF.R. 
;$ 204.5(h)(2). 
As authoring scholarly articles is inherent to scholars and researchers, the AAO will also evaluate a 
citation history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles to detem1ine the impact 
and recognition his work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. For 
example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the petitioner would provide 
solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that other researchers have been intluenced by 
his work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to 
Kazarial/, SlJ6 F. 3d at 1122. On the other hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the 
petitioner may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field. As previously 
discussed, the petitioner submitted documentary evidence retlecting that his work has heen cited 4 
times. While these citations demonstrate a little interest in his published work. they are not 
sufficient to demonstrate that his articles have attracted a level of interest in his field commensurate 
with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
Although the AAO determined that the petitioner failed to meet the awards criterion pursuant to the 
regulation at t\ C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the petitioner claimed eligibility hased on the Cross of the 
Venezuelan Air Force Third Class on December 10, 19lJ5, the Order July 18th on July 18,2002, a 
Diploma Merit Award on April 12, IlJlJ6; and a certificate for contributions and participation during 
defense and national security conferences on April I, 1 99lJ. There is no evidence demonstrating 
that the petitioner received any honors since 2002 that would be indicative of sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. 
Furthermore, while the AAO determined that the petitioner failed to meet the leading or critical role 
criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 CF.R. 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the role for the 
Research and Development Foundation of USB' was 
from _ and the petitioner's role for Although a 
screcnshot from EIA lists the petitioner as an present, the 
petitioner failed to submit any documentary and 
currently involved with EIA. In fact, according to a recommendation letter from 
the petitioner ''wIlS very active with the [EIA'sl activities [emphasis added[" 
indicating that the petitioner is no longer active with EIA even though he is still listed as an 
Currently. the petitioner per/()[ms the role as an instructor and rrofessor at FlU 
since 2005, but the record of proceeding fails to reflect that the petitioner has served in a leading or 
critical rok reflecting sustained national or international acclaim. 
Further, while the AAO found that the petitioner failed to meet the original contributions criterion 
pursuant to the regulation at ts C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the petitioner based his claim of eligibility 
almost entirely on recommendation letters. It must be emphasized that the favorable opinions of 
experts in the field, while not without evidentiary weight, are not a solid basis for a successful 
extraordinary ability claim. Again, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron intr>rn({tiolllll, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
l!owever, USC1S is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from individuals, especially when 
they arc colleagues of the petitioner without any prior knowledge of the petitioner's work. 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility: USCIS may evaluate the content 
of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-7%: see also Malia 
0/ V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. at 500, n.2. Again, none of the letters submitted on behal I' of the petitioner 
fail to reflect any original contributions of major significance made by the petitioner. Moreover, the 
petitioner's original research lindings do not appear to rise to the level of contributions of "major 
signilicance" in the field. Demonstrating that the petitioner's work was "original" in that it did not 
merely duplicate prior research is not useful in setting the petitioner apart through a "career of 
acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1(90). That page (59) also says that "an 
al ien must (l) demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim in the sciences, arts, 
education. business or athletics (as shown through extensive documentation) ... " Research work 
that is unoriginal would be unlikely to secure the petitioner a master's degrec. let alone 
classification as a economics professor of extraordinary ability. To argue that all original research 
is. by definition. "extraordinary" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning. and to 
presume that most research is "unoriginal." 
As indicated abo\·e. the petitioner's documentary evidence comprises of evidence almost entirely 
from 1994 - 20()4. In fact. since 2004, the petitioner has served on the advisory editorial board of 
illS and has authored and published two articles. The record of proceeding is almost void of any of 
the petitioner's accomplishments since 2004. The regulation at ts C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3) provides that 
"Ial petition lor an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has 
'lisraillCd national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in 
the field of expertise [emphasis added]." Although the petitioner met at least three of the regulatory 
criteria at ts C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner failed to demonstrate s/I.,tained national or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise since 
20(M. See section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the Act, ts U.s.c. ~ J J53(b)(J)(A)(i), and ts C.F.R. 
* 204.5(h)(3). 
The evidence of record falls short of demonstrating the petitioner's sustained national or 
international acclaim as a mechanical engineer. The regulation at ts C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires 
"ral petition for an alien of extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has 
sustained national or international acclaim and this his or her achievements have been recognized in 
the lield of expertise." While the petitioner submitted documentation demonstrating that he is a 
Page 16 
member of associations, has judged the work of others, and has authored scholarly articles, the 
documentary evidence is not consistent with or indicative of sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
USCIS has long held that evcn athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for immigrant classification as an alien of "extraordinary ability." 
Maller of'/'rice, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994); 56 Fed. Reg. at 60899. In Malter oj' 
Racilll!, IlJlJ5 WL 15]]ILJ at'" L ''4 (N.D. III. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated: 
[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is 
not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels 
of play: but rather. Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NIIL. 
This interpretation is consistent with at least one other court in this district, Grimsol1 
t'. INS, No. LJ3 C 3354, (N,D. III. September 9, 1993), and the definition of the term 
Ii C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the prcamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 
flOlilJli-lJlJ. 
I'he court's reasoning indicates that USC IS' interpretation of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
~ 2()4.5(h)(2) is reasonable, Likewise, it does not t(lliow that the petitioner who has not offered any 
evidence that distinguishes him from others in his field, should necessarily qualify for approval of 
an extraordinary ability employment-based visa petition. To find otherwise would contravene the 
regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204,5(h)(2) that this visa category be reserved f()r "thai small 
percentage of individuals that have risen to the very top oftheir field of endeavor." 
The conclusion the AAO reaches by considering the evidence to meet each category of evidence at 
S C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the aggregate. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F,R, ~ 204.5(h)(2). The 
petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals at the top of their 
respective fields, In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of 
filing the petition were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim, or that he 
was among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Review of the record docs not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
cxtenl thai he may be said to haw achieved sustained national or international acclaim and to be 
within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)( 1 )(A) of the Act. and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
Page 17 
initial decision. SI!I! .\jJellcer Flltaprisl!s, Inc. v. United States, 22'1 F. Supp. 2d 1025. 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 200 I), alf'd, 345 F.3d 6[;3 ('1lh Cir. 20(3); see a/so So/tane v. DO'!, 381 F.3d 143. 145 (3d Cir. 
20(4) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains enlirely with the petitioner. Section 2'11 of the Act, 8 USc. ~ 1361. Here. 
lhal burden has nol been mel. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.