dismissed EB-1A Case: Mechanical Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion nf personal privacy 
PUMlC CX1/IY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W., MS 2090 
\Vashimrton. DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE 
NOV 0 3 20\\ 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 c.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must 
be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~JJO~!M¥tL 
[Perry Rhew 
1 ' Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in mechanical engineering, 
pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A). The director determined that the petitioner had not established the requisite 
extraordinary ability through extensive documentation and 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 the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and 
present "extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 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 of a major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the 
regulation outlines ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 c.F.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, the petitioner argues that he meets the categories of evidence at 8 c.P.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), (vi), (viii), and (ix).1 Por the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the 
director's decision. 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are 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 
I Although the record of proceeding contains a Form G-28 from signed by the petitioner for the 
underlying Form 1-140, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a), as 
well as the instructions to the Form 1-290B Notice of Appeal, state that if an attorney seeks to continue to represent 
the petitioner on appeal, the appeal must include a newly executed Form G-28 even if the record includes an older 
form from the same attorney. This regulation applies to all appeals filed on or after March 4, 2010. See 75 Fed. 
Reg. 5225 (February 2,2010). The petitioner signed and filed his own appeal. Because the appeal does not include 
a new Form G-28, and because the appeal shows no sign of the attorney's involvement, the AAO considers the 
petitioner to be self-represented on appeal. 
Page 3 
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. 
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 101st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. [d. and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that an alien demonstrate his or her sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim and achievements 
must be established either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award) or through meeting at least three of the following ten categories of 
evidence: 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation; 
(iv) Evidence 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 specialization for which 
classification is sought; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field; 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles ill the field, ill 
professional or major trade publications or other major media; 
Page 4 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although 
the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's 
evaluation of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.2 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 "final merits determination." Id. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO'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 AAO concluded)." Id. at 
1122 (citing to 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as 
the corollary to this procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of 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 "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary 
ability" visa. 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(l)(A)(i). 
Id. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the 
AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
will conduct a new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis 
rather than the two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. 
United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 
at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
filed on July 12, 2010, 
in mechanical '-'Hl;<H'-''-'< 
as an alien with 
the time of filing, the petitioner was working for ••••••• 
as a Lead Rotating Equipment Engineer. The petitioner has submitted documentation 
pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)? 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for 
admission to membership. Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a 
given field, minimum education or experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this 
criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. Further, the overall 
prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a May 21,2010 letter from a representative of the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (AS ME) stating that the petitioner is a "Member" in good standing. The 
letter also provides information regarding becoming a Member: 
Requires attainments equal to eight years of active practice in the profession of 
engineering or teaching. 
Attainment of a degree in an approved engineering curriculum or a baccalaureate degree 
in an approved engineering technology curriculum shall be accepted as equivalent to the 
eight year experience requirement. 
3 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
Page 6 
The director concluded that demonstrating eight years of experience in the profession and 
holding a baccalaureate degree in an approved engineering technology curriculum do not equate 
to outstanding achievements. The director also noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 
that ASME membership eligibility is judged by recognized national or international experts. The 
AAO affirms the director's findings. There is no evidence showing that the ASME requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the petitioner's field. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings 
for this criterion or offer additional arguments. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be 
abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (l1th Cir. 2005). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence indicating that he has authored scholarly articles. The regulations 
contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 c.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). If the regulations are to be interpreted with any logic, it must be presumed that 
the regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles. 
Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent 
evidence that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th 
Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its 
holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated 
contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. Because separate criteria exist for 
authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of major significance, USCIS clearly 
does not view the two as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless 
the statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner 
meet at least three separate criteria. Thus, there is no presumption that every published article or 
presentation is a contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner must document the 
actual impact of his article or presentation. The petitioner did provide evidence that independent 
researchers have cited his work. The number of citations per article, however, is minimal. The 
petitioner's citation record, by itself, is not indicative of original contributions of major significance 
in the field. 
The petitioner also submitted letters of support discussing his work. 
[The petitioner] had an outstanding academic record at KFUPM, and he is one of the top 
students I have encountered in my tenure in the graduate program of the university .... 
[The petitioner] has published a number of peer-reviewed international journal and 
conference papers. Among his internationally cited publications is a paper he authored 
solely entitled "Effects of Vaneless Diffuser Geometries on Rotating Stall," which was 
published in the Journal of Propulsion and Power in 2006. [The petitioner's] findings 
Page 7 
are of major significance because they have provided the industry with data to aid in 
numerical investigation of rotating stall. Design engineers throughout the industry are 
using this data to improve the design and operation of centrifugal compressors. The 
direct result is that compressors designed and operated with this data in mind function 
better by avoiding the stall limits identified in [the petitioner's] paper, thereby achieving 
optimum reliability and machine performance. Such optimal characteristics early-on, 
during the design phases, in turn maximizes overall plant efficiency and other plant 
activities, including production. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted citation evidence from 
Google Scholar reflecting three independent cites to his article entitled "Effects of Vaneless 
Diffuser Geometries on Rotating Stall." The petitioner has not established that this minimal 
of citations is indicative of an original contribution of major significance in the field. • 
asserts that "design engineers throughout the industry" are using the petitioner's data "to 
improve the design and operation of centrifugal compressors," bu~ does not identify 
those design engineers or provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work is being 
utilized by others in the field beyond his immediate projects. 
In one ASME paper titled "On-Line Monitoring Software and Diagnostic Tool for 
Centrifugal Compressor Performance Evaluation," [the petitioner] detailed the successful 
use of customizable software that he created .... [The petitioner's] software is significant 
because it targets this problem in the industry, referred to as compressor and steam 
turbine fouling. In addition, it is extraordinarily innovative because it automates 
troubleshooting exercises. This means that engineers can research a multi-sectioned 
process compressor/turbine problem and pinpoint the specific component/section that is 
fouled without stopping production and taking the entire compressor or turbine apart to 
identify the component in need of repair or replacement. In short, downtime is decreased 
with the use of the software resulting in a significant cost benefit. Additionally, the 
software can evaluate machinery upgrades, confirm (or deny) vendor guarantees during 
shop/field testing of equipment, and can be installed online for continuous performance 
monitoring. The software has now been in use in the petrochemical industry for over 
eight years. 
_ comments that the petitioner's "software has now been in use in the petrochemical 
industry for over eight years," but he does not provide specific examples of industrial or 
,",VJlUU',",""',' • • of the petitioner's work beyond the petitioner's employer. For 
example, does not indicate that SABIC has patented, licensed, or marketed the 
petitioner's software and diagnostic tool. Thus, the impact of the invention is not documented in the 
record. Further, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's engineering papers are 
frequently cited by others in the field, that his software is being widely applied by others in the 
engineering field, or that his findings otherwise equate to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. To satisfy the criterion relating to original contributions of major 
significance, the petitioner must demonstrate not only that his findings are novel and useful, but also 
that they have already made a demonstrable impact on his field as a whole. 
_further states: 
In his current capacity, [the petitioner] serves as a subject matter expert in rotating 
equipment to support the execution of multimillion dollar petrochemical plants. He 
oversees all phases of execution, including multiple design phases, engineering 
(preparation of Invitation to Bid, evaluation of bids, etc.), construction, procurement and 
commissioning. He also serves as an in-house consultant expert, being specifically called 
upon to advise and resolve rotating equipment malfunctions at _ numerous 
subsidiary and affiliate companies. He continues to develop and customize proprietary, 
in-house machinery performance monitoring software, both online and offline. 
_ does not provide specific examples of how the software developed by the petitioner 
has influenced others in the field or otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner 
submitted documentatio~ing to variou~rojects in which he was involved. While 
the petitioner's work a~ is important to his company's operations, there is no evidence 
demonstrating that his work is recognized beyond his employer such that his work equates to 
original contributions of major significance in the field. The plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the contributions be "of major significance in the field" 
rather than limited to a single research institution or employer. 
Professor of Mechanical Engineering, KFUPM, states: 
[The petitioner] is a uniquely qualified professional who has demonstrated outstanding 
scientific and engineering skills in solving rotating machinery problems in the industry. 
[The petitioner] had an outstanding academic record and was one of the top students to 
have pas~e program University of Petroleum and 
Minerals_ In addition, he obtained a first class honors grade in his 
undergraduate program. 
Regarding_ comments about the petitioner's academic background and scientific and 
engineering skills, assuming the petitioner's skills, academic training, and knowledge are unique, 
the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a given field. In 
fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien 
employment certification process. See Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 
215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). It is not enough to be skillful and knowledgeable and to have others 
attest to those talents. An alien must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this 
regulatory criterion. 
_urther states: 
Page 9 
[The petitioner] has published a number of peer-reviewed international journal and 
conference papers. Among his internationally cited publications is a single-authored 
paper entitled "Effects of Vaneless Diffuser Geometries on Rotating Stall," Journal of 
Propulsion and Power, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006, 22(3). 
The paper, resulting from an experimental investigation, described the effect of vaneless 
diffuser diameter and width ratios on the onset of rotating stall. The effect of varying 
blower speed on stall characteristics was also documented. The paper documents very 
important benchmark experimental data to aid numerical investigation of rotating stall, a 
precursor to one of the dreadful flow-induced vibration problem in centrifugal 
compressors and blower referred to as surge. 
Regarding the petitioner's authorship of peer-reviewed international journal and conference 
papers, the AAO notes that his field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be 
little point in publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not 
only original but of "major significance" in the field. The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 
2003). To be considered a contribution of major significance in the field of science, it can be 
expected that the results would have already been reproduced and confirmed by other experts 
and applied in their work. Otherwise, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the petitioner's work. 
In this case, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's engineering articles are frequently 
cited, that his software tools are widely implemented in the industry, or that his work otherwise 
equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
_continues: 
[The petitioner's] extensive research in flow-induced instabilities in centrifugal 
compressor and blowers, a prime area of research of great importance and relevance in 
machinery reliability and plant performance, resulted in his development, in-house, of a 
real-time centrifugal compressor and steam turbine performance monitoring software. 
The software, written in visual basic computer language, has been successfully utilized in 
centrifugal compressor and steam turbine fouling problem troubleshooting exercises, 
evaluating new machinery upgrades, confirming vendor guarantees during shop/field 
testing of equipment, installed online for continuous performance monitoring of critical 
compressors and steam turbines .... One of the peer-reviewed papers published by [the 
petitioner] on the successful use of this software is entitled "On-Line Monitoring 
Software and Diagnostic Tool for Centrifugal Compressor Performance Evaluation," 
published in International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, held in 
2006, Chicago, illinois, USA, under the auspices of American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers. The capability of the software to accurately predict performance deterioration 
of a 45 MW, five section process gas compressor before and after turnaround (TIA), was 
discussed. 
Page 10 
Dr. Sahin comments on the petitioner's article published in the proceedings of the International 
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, but there is no evidence showing that his 
article is frequently cited, that his findings are being widely implemented in the industry, or that 
his work otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. While 
the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown to 
be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific or 
business community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful information to the 
pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every mechanical engineer who performs original 
research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has inherently made a contribution of "major 
significance" to the field as a whole. 
of Mechanical Engineering, states: 
The petitioner's extensive research in flow-induced instabilities in centrifugal 
compressors and blowers . . . resulted in his development of an in-house, real-time 
centrifugal compressor and steam turbine performance monitoring software. The 
software, written in visual basic computer language, has been successfully utilized in: 
resolving centrifugal compressor and steam turbine fouling problems; 
troubleshooting exercises; 
calculating new machinery upgrades; 
confirming vendor guarantees during shop/field testing of equipment. 
The software has also been installed online for continuous performance monitoring of 
critical compressors and steam turbines. The software has contributed significantly to 
resolution of problems, increased productivity/production and time and cost savings for 
"mega projects" of [the petitioner's] company. It has certainly contributed significantly 
to the Company's competitive advantage. 
While the petitioner has developed performance monitoring software for utilization by his 
employer, there is no documentary evidence showing that this work for his company equates to 
an original contribution of major significance in the field. The documentation submitted by the 
petitioner does not establish that his work for ~as significantly impacted the field beyond 
his projects for his immediate employer. Once again, a contribution to the petitioner's employer 
is not necessarily an original contribution of major significance to the field at large. 
I met [the !-'vlUnJ'HvL 
machinery for 
more extensively to [the petitioner's] work on an audit 
Project. 
Page 11 
on to discus several engineering projects involving the petitioner, but he 
does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has notably influenced the industry 
at large or otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
The AAO notes that the reference letters are limited to the petitioner's professors at 
th_and a consultant projects involving the petitioner. While such 
letters are important in providing details about the petitioner's work on various projects, they 
cannot by themselves establish that his work is recognized beyond his alma mater or those with 
direct ties to his employer. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have 
been considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts 
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 795-796; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how 
they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are 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 that one would expect of an engineering 
researcher who has made original contributions of major significance. Without supporting 
evidence showing that the petitioner's work equates to original contributions of major 
significance in his field, the AAO cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien IS authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner has documented his authorship of scholarly articles and, thus, has submitted 
qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, we concur with the 
director's finding that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has peiformed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner submitted a May 21, 2010 employment verification letter from 
Services certifying that the petitioner is employed as a Lead Rotating 
Equipment Engineer, but the letter does not explain the significance of the petitioner's role to the 
company. At issue is whether the petitioner played a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment as a whole. Noticeably absent from the record is a letter of support from_ 
top management detailing the nature and significance of the petitioner's role for the company. 
Moreover, the petitioner failed to submit an organizational chart or other evidence documenting 
how his position falls within the company's general hierarchy. A conclusion that the petitioner 
played a leading or critical role for his employer simply by competently working in a position that 
needed to be filled would render this criterion meaningless. Specifically, it can be presumed that 
Page 12 
employers do not typically hire individuals to fill roles that serve no purpose for the employer; yet 
not every employee for a distinguished organization meets this criterion. In determining whether 
the petitioner's role was critical the AAO looks at his performance in that role and how it 
contributed to the organization's activities beyond what is normally expected of its engineering 
staff. The petitioner's evidence does not demonstrate how his position differentiated him from the 
other mechanical engineers at _ let alone the company's managers and corporate executives. 
The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not establish that he was responsible for _ 
success or standing to a degree consistent with the meaning of "leading or critical role." Purther, 
there is no documentary evidence sho~ _ has earned a distinguished reputation. The 
petitioner submitted excerpts from __ s 2009 annual report, online material about the 
company printed from its website, and other internal company information, but the self-serving 
nature of this documentation is not sufficient to demonstrate that the company has a 
distinguished reputation. USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. 
Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6,2007) aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (9th Cir. 2009) 
(concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine 
as to the magazine'S status as major media). 
Aside from the preceding deficiencies, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role 
for distinguished "organizations or establishments" in the plural. The use of the plural is 
consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(I)(A)(i) of the 
Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. 
Specifically, the regulations at 8 c.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a 
single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the 
singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the 
plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts 
have upheld USCIS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used 
in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 
26,2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, No. CV 06-65-MO, 2006 WL 3491005 at *1,*10 (D. 
Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement for "a" 
bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single 
degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). Therefore, even if the petitioner were 
to submit supporting documentary evidence showing that his role and SABIC's reputation meet 
the elements of this criterion, which he has not, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires evidence of a leading or critical role for more than one distinguished 
organization or establishment. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
Page 13 
The petitioner initially submitted a May 20, 2010 letter from stating that 
his "current annual taxable income is $503,432.00." In response to the director's request for 
evidence, the petitioner submitted his 2009 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, from_ 
Americas, Inc. reflecting earnings of $454,919.34. The petitioner also submitted national wage 
data for mechanical engineers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics demonstrating that he earns a 
high salary in relation to others in the field. Accordingly, we concur with the director's finding 
that the petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
Summary 
In this case, the AAO concurs with the director's determination that the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or that he meets at least 
three of the ten categories of evidence that must be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). A 
final merits determination that considers all of the evidence follows. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of 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 the field of expertise." Section 
203(b )(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In the 
present matter, many of the deficiencies in the documentation submitted by the petitioner have 
already been addressed in our preceding discussion of the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v), and (viii). 
In regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
as previously discussed, there is no evidence showing that the ASME requires outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the 
petitioner's field. The petitioner has not established that his membership is indicative of or 
consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that he is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
With regard to the petitioner's original research work submitted for the category of evidence at 
8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), as stated above, it does not appear to rise to the level of contributions of 
"major significance" 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, 1990). That page (59) also says that "an 
alien must (1) 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 degree, let alone 
classification as a mechanical engineer of extraordinary ability. To argue that all original research 
Page 14 
is, by definition, "extraordinary" is to weaken that adjective beyond any useful meaning, and to 
presume that most research is "unoriginal." In this case, the record does not contain sufficient 
evidence that the petitioner's research findings and software tools had major significance in the 
field, let alone an impact consistent with being nationally or internationally acclaimed as 
extraordinary. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the category of evidence 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
the AAO acknowledges that the petitioner has authored scholarly articles while pursuing graduate 
studies at the KFUPM and while working for SABIC. The Department of Labor's (OOH), 2010-
11 Edition (accessed at www.bls.gov/oco on October 17, 2011 and incorporated into the record of 
proceedings), provides information about the nature of employment as a postsecondary teacher 
(professor) and the requirements for such a position. See http://www.bls.gov/oco/pdf/ocos066.pdf. 
The handbook expressly states that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish 
their work and that the professor's research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the 
doctoral programs training students for faculty positions require a dissertation, or written report on 
original research. Id. This information reveals that original published research, whether arising 
from research at a university or private employer, does not set the researcher apart from faculty in 
that researcher's field. 
Moreover, the petitioner's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is 
indicative of the petitioner's recognition beyond his own circle of collaborators. See Kazarian, 
596 F. 3d at 1122. As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted citation evidence indicating 
that none of his articles has been cited to more than three times per article. This minimal level of 
citation is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's published work has attracted a level 
of interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the very 
top of the field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner relies on a 
professional membership which has not been shown to require outstanding achievements, his 
published and presented work, citation evidence indicating that his work has been only 
minimally cited, his role as a Lead Rotating Equipment Engineer with SABIC, his high sal~ 
letters of support from a professional associate who audited his engineering projects a~ 
and his professors at the •••• 
The AAO notes that the petitioner's references' credentials are far more impressive. For example, 
_states: 
I am a Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering and a faculty researcher in 
thermodynamics, materials and manufacturing engineering areas at _University 
of Petroleum and Minerals, _ Some of my ancillary positions include 
editorial membership of many international journals and chair of the scientific committee 
of international conferences. In the last three years alone, I have published over 85 
research papers in international journals. 
Page 15 
~ates: 
I am a Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at 
I have been involved in more than 30 funded research projects 
carried out by the Research Institute and the Mechanical Engineering Department of my 
university, serving as a project manager for several of these studies. I have published 
more than 100 technical papers and a large number of reports .... 
states: 
of Mechanical Engineering at the 
with active research in Entropy 
generation mInImIzation, Thermodynamic design optimization, Heat conduction, 
Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer, Computational Fluid Dynamics, and Computer 
Aided Design with many international technical papers publications and accomplished 
research projects. 
According to the biographical information submitted with _letter, he has authored 60 
conference publications. 
While the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to 
qualify for the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is far above 
the level he has attained. In this case, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the 
time of filing were commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a mechanical 
engineer, or being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
III. Conclusion 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an 
extent that he may be said to have 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 initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, 
affd, 345 F.3d at 683; see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145 (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 
Page 16 
the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 V.S.c. § 
1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.