dismissed EB-1A Case: Mechanical Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JUL 1 0 2013 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachus etts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 
INSTRUCI'IONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
:x?~7f-
Ron Rosenberg -ft 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition on October 30, 2012. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision 
to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on November 16, 2012. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to parts 2 and 6 of the petition, filed on September 5, 2012, the petitioner seeks 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences, specifically, as a mechanical 
engineer, 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 has not established the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability as a mechanical engineer. 
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; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(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 files a 14-page statement and supporting documents , many of which the 
petitioner had previously filed. According to part 3 of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, and the 14-page appellate statement, the petitioner only challenges the director's adverse 
finding as relating to the original contributions of major significance criterion under the regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the 
very top in the field of mechanical engineering, and that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim. See 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). Accordingly , the AAO will dismiss the petitioner's 
appeal. 
I. THE 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-
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
United States 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate 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, internationally 
recognized award, or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 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 the 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while users 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." Kazarian , 596 F.3d 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) ." Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilater ally imposed novel substantiv e or evidentiary requirements 
beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
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 this case, the AAO affirms the 
director's finding that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting at least three types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and 
has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of 
mechanical engineering, or has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor by 
presenting evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In 
this case, the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his evidence that he is the recipient of a 
major, internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, the 
petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In his October 30, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner has met this criterion. 
Specifically, the record contains evidence showing that the petitioner has participated in reviewing 
peer-reviewed manuscripts for a number of publications, including the Journal of Applied Physics, 
Materials Science & Engineering A, Applied Surface Science and Surface and Coatings Technology. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has presented evidence of his 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. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion, based on (1) his invitations to serve as a 
peer reviewer for a number of publications; and (2) the impact of his work as explained in reference 
letters and supported by the high number of his published articles, and the frequency of citations to 
his articles. 
2 The petitioner does not claim that he meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
Specifically, the petitioner asserts on appeal that his serving as a peer reviewer for "top journals" 
demonstrates his original contributions of major significance in the field of mechanical engineering. 
Specifically, the petitioner points to a September 5, 2012 letter from Editor-in­
Chief of the 
According to 
fThe etitioner] previously reviewed papers submitted to the 
The Journal only selects scientists with outstanding qualifications for our 
review activities. Scientists are selected for review based on the high caliber of their 
research and their reputation in the field. [The petitioner] was chosen as a reviewer 
for [the] publication because [the publication] find[ s] his/her research 
accomplishments to be extraordinary. 
The letter praises the petitioner's review qualifications and research accomplishments, but fails to 
establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. First, the letter lacks any specific references to the 
petitioner's research or work. Vague letters that fail to identify specific contributions and explain 
their impact in the field are not probative of the petitioner's original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
Moreover, as discussed above, evidence relating to the petitioner's serving as a peer reviewer for the 
and other journals supports a finding that he meets the participation as a 
judge criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Evidence directly relating to one 
criterion is not presumptive evidence that the petitioner meets a second criterion. Such a 
presumption would negate the statutory requirement for extensive evidence and the regulatory 
requirement that the petitioner meets at least three criteria. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 
see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In addition to the evidence of peer review, the petitioner has provided documents from the 
, showing that in 2009, grant awards were given for a research entitled 
and for a research entitled ' 
~~--==========~~~ 
" The documents further show that a number of published articles an 
conference proceedings, including those the petitioner authored, were produced as results of these 
two research studies. These documents show that the grants enabled the petitioner to conduct 
his research, but they do not show that the petitioner's research constitutes contributions of major 
significance in the field of mechanical engineering. 
On appeal, relying primarily on reference/expert letters and his publication and citation record, the 
petitioner asserts that his research has "been implemented by scientists across the globe," has 
"significantly impacted the research of leading scientists across the globe," and the "originality and 
significance of [his] scientific contributions has been testified by worldwide scientists." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board has also held, however, "[w]e not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." /d. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner 
to submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). Vague, solicited 
letters from colleagues or associates that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010)? The opinions of 
experts in the field are not without weight and will be considered below. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron 
Int 'l, 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. /d. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as 
this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may even give 
less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Matter of Caron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 
41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 
1756, Inc. v. United States Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
According to an August 23, 2012 letter from a senior researcher at the 
in Paris, France, the petitioner is "a top-notch 
scientist in LSP [laser shock peening]." also stated that the petitioner's "discovery in 
warm laser shock peening [WLSP] brings significant impact to the community and his work has 
attracted widespread attention from the scientific community. Researchers from China, India and 
Italy have carried out follow-up studies on [the petitioner's] work." The petitioner asserts that these 
researchers include (1) an associate professor at the 
a metallurgical engineer at the 
and (3) a research associate at the 
3 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The record includes an undated letter from stating that after the petitioner published his work 
relating to WLSP in "[b ]y strictly following the petitioner's methodology, , 
was] able to reproduce the WLSP effects in more alloys." further stated that the petitioner's 
work "inspired" to write two 
proposals and that the petitioner 's "creative work on WLSP provides the scientific background for 
both of the two proposals." The record contains documents relating to the two proposals . 
These documents , however, do not include the references on which the proposal relies or otherwise 
mention the petitioner by name. also stated that "[d]ue to the significance of [the petitioner 's 
work on cryogenic laser shock peening], follow-up projects have already begun at the 
The two articles identifies as reporting the 
results of the petitioner's work in this area, however, had yet to gamer any citations as of the date of 
filing the petition. 
According to an August 22, 2012 letter from ., a professor at the 
in China, the petitioner's research in LSP is 
"significant and outstanding from both theoretical and practical points of view." also 
provided that "[i]nspired by [the petitioner 's work in WLSPl and 
wrote two proposals to carry out WLSP work in China." 
further stated that the petitioner 's work in WLSP "is of major significance to the field because 
WLSP can significantly improve component fatigue performance while it is known that fatigue 
failure causes billions of dollars and sometimes human lives every year." 
The record includes a September 2, 2012 letter from stating that he was "inspired" by the 
petitioner's research in WLSP, and "began the investigation of WLSP in [his] laboratory. Thanks to 
[the petitioner'~ detailed work in his and 
papers, could easily and successfully reproduce the WLSP work in [the] laboratory." 
The record also includes • 's 2011 article 
" which cited 10 references, including two articles the petitioner authored. 
Significantly, a review of the text of the article reveals that investigated and confirmed the 
petitioner 's results rather than simply citing the petitioner 's work as background material. 
The record also includes: (1) a September 22, 2011 email from 
the petitioner's 2010 article entitled ' 
published an article entitled 
requesting a "soft copy" of 
(2) an online printout showing that 
in 2011; and (3) a December 2011, published article in 
entitled ' In this artie e, 
and his coauthors note that the petitioner's work validates one of their explanations . 
According to a September 6, 2012 letter from a professor of mechanical engineering 
at the in Austria, the petitioner's "significant original research contributions 
have influenced research activities in the area of laser-assisted advanced manufacturing." Similarly, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
according to a September 1, 2012 letter from an assistant professor at the 
, "[t]he development 
of [WLSP] by [the petitioner] represents a major research contnbutiOn to the general field of Laser 
Peening." 
Throughout the proceeding the petitioner has focused on the number of his articles and the number 
of citations in the aggregate as support for the assertions in the letters. Page 7 of his appellate 
statement provides , "two of [his] recent publications [published in 2011] received extraordinary high 
citations compared to other 
papers in the field." The petitioner also claims, "two of [his] recent 
papers published in 2012 are among the hottest (most downloaded) articles in and 
the 
The record contains the following evidence relating to the petitioner's publication and citation 
record: (1) online printouts from lSI Web of Knowledge, entitled "Journal Summary List," and 
"Percentiles for Papers Published by Field, 2002 - 20 12"; (2) an online printout entitled "Citation 
Overview Results"; (3) an online printout entitled "Most Downloaded Articles"; 
(4) an online printout entitled "Most Downloaded . '; (5) an 
online printout from ResearcheriD, relating to the total number of citations to the petitioner's 
articles; and (6) an undated document entitled "Top Percentile Calculation of the Journals out of 
8281 Journals." 
Authorship of scholarly articles falls under the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and does not 
also serve to meet this criterion absent evidence that the original research reported in those articles 
constitutes contributions of major significance. 4 First, the importance or prestige of a publication is 
insufficient to demonstrate the significance, let alone major significance, of each individual article 
published in the publication. While the petitioner submitted evidence of publication impact factors, 
according to an online printout entitled "2011 Journal Citation Reports," information, such as impact 
factor, is used to assess "a journal's true place in the world of scholarly literature." It is not to assess 
the significance of any particular article published in the journal. 
Second, although the petitioner has asserted that his articles have been cited by other scientists, the 
petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence showing that the citation frequency of either article is 
of such high frequency that it shows either article constitutes contributions of major significance in 
the field. While the director appears to have compared the petitioner's citation record with a 
researcher in a different field, it remains that the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that his 
citation record is indicative of contributions of major significance in his field. Specifically, the 
petitioner has asserted that he has "published [an] extraordinary high number of journal papers 
compared to top professors and researchers in the field" and the "citation that [his] papers received is 
4 See Kazarian v. USCJS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (91h 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
extraordinary, even compared to the most distinguished professors in top universities." According to 
a list entitled "[the Petitioner's] Journal Publications" and page 3 of his appellate statement, the 
petitioner published 18 journal papers between 2010 and July 2012, and these papers were cited over 
50 times in the aggregate. Initially, the petitioner submitted an online printout entitled "Citations 
Received Since 1996," showing that 11 of his articles were mostly minimally cited, with two 
garnering a moderate number of citations between 2010 and 2012. On appeal, the petitioner submits 
data, purportedly from purportedly showing that a number of individuals, 
associated with a number of institutes, have cited the petitioner's published work between one to six 
times. This data is not dated, and does not specifically mention either the petitioner's name or the 
title of any of his published work. Ultimately, the record does not reflect that any one of the 
petitioner's articles has garnered more than moderate citation. 
As evidence that this number of citations is significant, the petitioner submitted an online printout 
from the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled "Faculty Scholarly Productive Index," which shows 
that between 2004 and 2006, journal publications per faculty in ten universities in the United States 
ranged between 9.06 and 3.38, and that between 2003 and 2006, citations per faculty in the same ten 
universities ranged between 43.66 and 8. On appeal, the petitioner submits an online printout 
entitled "Citation Averages, 2000-2010, by Fields and Years," showing that for articles in the field 
of engineering published between 2000 and 2010, the average citation rate as of March 31, 2011 
ranged from 8.22 for articles published in 2000 to 0.16 for articles published in 2010. The notes 
under the table explain that the lower numbers for recent years result from the smaller amount of 
time those articles have had to garner citations. 
The "Faculty Scholarly Productive Index" relates to publication and citation data from 2003 through 
2006. The publication and citation information relating to the petitioner, however, is from a 
different period. The petitioner has not shown that the publication and citation per faculty data from 
2003 through 2006 is 
the same or substantially similar to the data from a period relevant to the 
petitioner. More significantly, the data includes faculty in all fields and is not probative regarding 
what level of citation is indicative of an engineering contribution of major significance. 
Moreover, the "Faculty Scholarly Productive Index" relates to the average publication and citation 
data per faculty for each of the ten universities. The document, however, fails to include information 
relating to each faculty member 's actual number of publications or citation frequency , or distinguish 
between the more productive and influential faculty members from those who were less so. The 
evidence does not show, as the petitioner asserts on page 3 ofhis appellate statement, that "both [his] 
publication number and the citation [he] received are ranked NO. 1 and superior to all the faculty 
members from all the top universities." At most, the "Faculty Scholarly Productive Index" 
demonstrates that the petitioner has published more articles and his articles have been cited more 
frequently than the average publication number and citation frequency per faculty in all fields at 
these ten universities. Publishing a higher number of articles than the average in all fields and being 
cited more frequently than the average in all fields, however, do not establish that the petitioner's 
published work constitutes contributions of major significance in the field of engineering. While the 
data from "Citation Averages, 2000-2010, by Fields and Years" is specific to engineering, it still 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
contains only averages without providing probative information relating to the level of citation 
indicative of a contribution of major significance in the field of engineering. 
Third, evidence relating to the petitioner's two articles being downloaded is insufficient to show that 
either article constitutes a contribution of major significance in the field. Specifically, the online 
printout shows that within the 90-day period preceding November 3, 2012, the petitioner's 
article ranked 18m in a list of most downloaded articles, and his ' 
article ranked 19th in a list of most downloaded 
articles. Unlike citations, however, download rankings do not 
establish who downloaded the articles or whether the articles were ultimately useful to that person. 
Finally, the petitioner's two highest cited articles relate to WLSP, consistent with the letters that 
focus on his work in that area. The petitioner has provided reference letters, supported by citations, 
showing that his research in LSP and WLSP has influenced related research. 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 community. Any 
Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, 
must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. Even if the petitioner's work on 
WLSP is a contribution of major significance in the field of mechanical engineering rather than 
representative of the continuous progression of laser peening, it is only one such contribution. The 
regulation requires contributions of major significance in the field in the plural. 
Accordingly, while the petitioner is a prolific author who has produced useful research on WLSP, 
the petitioner has not presented evidence of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field of mechanical engineering. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
In his October 30, 2012 decision, the director concluded that the petitioner has met this criterion. 
Specifically, the record contains evidence showing that the petitioner has authored a number of 
scholarly articles published in professional publications, including (1) a June 2012 
article entitled 
(2) a May 2012 article entitled ' 
(3) a 2011 
entitled · 
; and (4) a 2011 
article entitled ' 
Accordingly, the petitioner has presented evidence of his 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be 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 field of endeavor," 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." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top 
of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion 
in a final merits determination. 5 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to 
satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence. Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii) ; see also INA 
§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is 
the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).