dismissed EB-1A Case: Robotics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13495683 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, the chief executive officer of a robotics company, seeks classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
not met this burden. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering at Universit in 2017. Durin his 
graduate studies, he performed research in the university's.___ __________ ~ _ __._, 
I I. He is now employed as the chief executive officer and co-founder of 
I lwhich is headquartered inL I with offices in China. .___ _ _. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner has claimed to meet up to six of the ten criteria, 
summarized below: 
I (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes; 
I (iii), Published materials in professional publications or major media; 
I (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
I (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
I (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
I (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met one criterion, related to his authorship of scholarly articles 
in professional publications. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record supports the Director's 
determination, as it contains evidence that the Petitioner has co-authored articles published in scientific 
journals and conference proceedings, including International Journal of Robotics Research, Science 
Robotics, and IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he meets up to 
four additional criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the 
2 
Petitioner meets two additional criteria, discussed below, and therefore satisfies the initial evidence 
requirements for this classification.1 
As it relates to the leading and critical roles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 h)(3)(viii), the Director 
determined that the Petitioner erforms in a uali in role fo However, the Director 
observed that.__ ______________ ~ noting that "the Ell visa classification 
is intended for 'that small percentage who have risen [not will rise] to the very top of the field of 
endeavor."' On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director applied an improper standard by 
considering the longevity of the organization in evaluating whether it has a distinguished reputation, 
stating that such an analysis is contrary to USCIS guidance on this criterion. 2 We agree, and further 
emphasize that a determination of whether an individual's leading or critical role reflects their 
placement among those at the very top of the field is one which is appropriate in the final merits 
determination; it is not required by the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Upon de novo 
review, we conclude that the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence in the form of industry and media 
recognition to establish thatl lenjoys a distinguished reputation notwithstanding its 
relatively early stage of development. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) calls for evidence of an individual's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. We 
agree with the Petitioner's assertion on appeal that the Director did not give sufficient weight to expert 
opinion letters in the record. 
For example.__ _____ ____. Director otl ts1---_~ex'-'=-',lains that the Petitioner's "major 
contribution to the field is to the development of a m h I f r robots that 
significantly improves a robot's capability of performingl_ _________ --t"=LJ....11:.,U....U-'-'-i 
dangerous for humanl I He describes how the Petitioner's advancements in robotic 
have been incorporated into (lj I robot designed by NASA's Jet Propulsion~L_a_b_o-ra-to-ry~ 
(JPL) fo~ !exploration; (2) the,___-~-~-.---..,.....,...... robot developed byl I and 
Google to~ l exploration; and (3) an ongoing project with NASA which involves usingl I I I to objects in space . 
.___ ___ ___,..-----'-'D"'-',irector ofl l·s I I further discusses the Petitioner's ~--=--=---------:---:-:---=!......_-~ 
work on the ro·ect in which the lab cr:~.ted "a I I avatar that can perform 
complicated.___ ______ ~ tasks atl,___ __ ,..........J 
[The Petitioner] developed a full set of methodologies that delive;:.;.r-=-ed=-==I =====;'I 
,___ ___ ____.I in complex environments including underactuated ~I ----~I 
1 The Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusion that he did not submit evidence that satisfies the judging criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). We therefore consider the Petitioner to have waived that criterion. See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 
l&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an adverse decision, 
that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States 
v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 
*9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 10-11 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that the relative size or longevity of an 
organization is not in and of itself a determining factor in evaluating whether it has a distinguished reputation). 
3 
improvement inl I, I I and learning, and contributed to development of 
I I software for I I These research 
results have had a significant impact on the robotics field and brought him numerous 
publications in ... the rp inteTational journal and conferences in robotics and marked 
him as an expert in the of robots inl !environments. 
The record shows that some of the Petitioner's published papers associated with these projects 
received coverage in science and mainstream publications, and researchers at other laboratories attest 
to the importance of the Petitioner's innovations in robotic For exam le, 
discusses the Petitioner's develo ment of a' 
deeming it "a 
1---,-,..,...,....--' 
powerful tool that accelerates robot development for better~---~ability in complicated 
conditions" and noting that it has been used by many other top university labs in the field. Overall, 
the letters provide sufficient detail, and are supported by sufficient supporting evidence, to establish 
the nature and significance of the Petitioner's contributions to several projects atl I Based on 
this evidence, we conclude that he meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Because the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of 
the evidence, including evidence submitted in support of the remaining claimed criteria, in the context 
of the final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the requIsIte initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b){l){A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20.3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
According to his curriculum vitae, the Petitioner received his bachelor's degree in mechanical 
engineering froml I University in 2012 and his master's degree and Ph.D. from I I 
University in 2014 and 2017, respectively. The record reflects thatl lwas co-founded 
by the Petitioner and along with some of his fellow! !alumni in 2016 or 2017, and that the 
Petitioner currently serves as its CEO.4 
3 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 4 (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
4 The record contains! l·s offer letter to the Petitioner (dated September 2017) iodirting that he was 
hired for the position of~----~· The Petitioner's offer letter was signed by] in his capacity as 
CEO. However, more recent evidence, including press releases and contracts, consistently identifies the Petitioner as the 
company's CEO and legal representative. 
4 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles, made original contributions through 
his graduate research a~ I and currently leads a robotics company that has earned a distinguished 
reputation among startups in its industry. We have also considered evidence related to recognition of 
the Petitioner's research and business-related endeavors in the form of media coverage and awards. The 
record, however, does not demonstrate that his achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed 
work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
As it relates to his scholarly work, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that publication of articles "is not 
an easy task" and that "not every academic or researcher succeeds in publishing in peer-reviewed 
professional journals recognized as key to their particular field of study or research." While we do 
not disagree with this assertion, we emphasize that publication of research does not automatically 
place a scientist at the top of the field. 5 Here, the Petitioner demonstrated that he had authored 
approximately 20 articles published in scientific journals and conference proceedings at the time of 
filing. We acknowledge thatl I a fellowl I graduate who collaborated with the 
Petitioner on research projects atl I, states that the Petitioner has pub I ished "an exceptional 
number" of articles "for someone his age." The Petitioner has not established, however, that the number 
of articles he published over the last five years is indicative of achieving national or international acclaim 
in his field, which includes scientists in the robotics field and not only those who have received their 
doctorate degrees within the last several years. Nor has he otherwise provided evidence that would 
meaningfully distinguish his publication record from that of others in the field. 
As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of researchers, the citation history or other 
evidence of the influence of the Petitioner's articles can be an indicator to determine the impact and 
recognition that his work has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. While 
the record includes evidence of citations to his research, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that these 
citations represent attention at a level consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of 
his field.6 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner does not provide evidence demonstrating that 
these rates of citation are indicative of a high level of recognition in the field. The Petitioner, for 
instance, did not compare his citation statistics to others in his field of endeavor who are recognized 
as already being at the top in the field. Nor has the Petitioner otherwise demonstrated that his 
published work, individually or collectively, has garnered attention at a level indicative of sustained 
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
In addition, to the Petitioner's citation history, we have considered evidence that several of the research 
projects in which he was involved at I I were reported on in scientific and mainstream 
publications, including IEEE Spectrum, ScienceNews, and Wired. As noted, the Petitioner submitted 
testimonial evidence establishing his contributions tol l's high-profile endeavors related to the 
design of robots for I !exploration. The media recognition sufficiently demonstrates 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 13 (noting that, as part of a multi-part analysis an individual's 
publications should be evaluated to determine whether they are indicative of the petitioner being one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor). 
6 The Petitioner's initial evidence included his Google Scholar profile, which indicated that his published work had 
cumulatively received 168 citations as of April 2019. He provided an updated profile in response to the Director's RFE 
which reflects 280 total citations as of May 2020. Continued citation of the Petitioner's work after the filing date speaks 
to the significance of that work, which we have granted, above; but it cannot retroactively establish eligibility at the time 
of filing. The Petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 
5 
that the projects were considered to involve important advances within the robotics field and wider 
scientific community. 
However, the media coverage of these projects does not establish that the Petitioner garnered national 
or international acclaim based on his contributions. For example, articles published b ScienceNews 
and Wired re ardin the Petitioner's co-authored Science Robotics article 
L..,_ ___________________ __,.-----,..,..-------'-...:..co=n_;_;t;.:,;,;:.:,ain quotes 
from several other members of the research team, including.___ ___ .,....~-----~ andD 
I I, al I graduate student identified as the lead author of the paper. Although the 
PetItIoner's key contributions to this successful project are documented in the record and we 
recognized the significance of those contributions above, the media re arts do not single him out or 
acknowledge him other than listing him among "additional co-authors" of the paper 
discussed. The submitted media covera e of other ro·ects undertaken at is com arable. An 
IEEE Spectrum article titled L------r----l---------------_J 
I I" describes the origins of th project, the challenges it overcame, and its 
success, and it includes quotes from.___ __ ~and others, but it does not mention the Petitioner. 
Therefore, while the Petitioner was deeply involved in important robotics research during his graduate 
studies atl I the record, in the aggregate, indicates that the resulting acclaim for that work 
resides predominantly with thel land its permanent senior researchers, rather than specifically 
with the Petitioner. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner received some individual reco nition durin his time at 
by co-authoring a paper that received a Best P,--"a=-"-'er'-'A'---'-'-'w""'a"""rd"--=-o"""n ________ --.--____ __, 
at the 2016 IEEE International Conference on.___ ___________ ___. held in Korea. 
However, the Petitioner submitted little information regarding this award beyond providing the award 
certificate itself, and a brief description of the purpose of the award. We recognize the Petitioner's 
claim that IEEE is internationally recognized organization, but the overall reputation of the 
organization does not provide sufficient basis for us to conclude that any award bestowed at any of its 
conferences is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. The submitted 
evidence reflects that award winners and finalists for all awards given at the conference were listed on 
the conference website at iros2016.org/awards.html, but the record does not contain evidence of any 
other recognition associated with the award outside of the conference itself. The Petitioner has not 
provided evidence that he has been the recipient of other awards or that his receipt of this award at the 
IEEEI Fonference resulted in his national or international acclaim or placed him among that small 
percentage of robotics researchers at the very top of the field. 
We have also considered evidence related to the Petitioner's role as CEO withl I and its 
resulting impact on his standing in the field. The evidence shows that the company had received 
sufficient media and industry recognition at the time of filing to establish its reputation as one of the 
most I I in its industry. 7 The Petitioner placed significant emphasis on the fact that 
Robotics Business Review a ma·or trade ublication, wrote aboutl I in its 2019 issue 
featuring the However, it was not listed among the Top 50, but rather 
was named by the publisher as.___ ____________ ___,' which includes companies 
7 The evidence reflects that~xhibited its prototype trials for the first time in April 2019, approximately six months 
prior to the filing of the petition, and was still ramping up staffing and mass production capabilities at the time of filing. 
6 
that 
The article's description o_.__ _ __,--escribes its 
The Petitioner also rovided evidence that Robotics Biz 
(robitcsbiz.org),,-!-n~a.u.m.!..!<ec.l:!.d.1=;----..... among its .....,...-~r------.---------'-i_n_, 
an article dated 2019. That article credits with creatin 
and notes that the 
company was founded 'L--------------------------r----,.J 
While the record contains evidence that the Petitioner is listed as co-inventor on many of __ -s 
patent applications, neither article mentions the Petitioner and we cannot conclude that this recent 
industry recognition of the company's innovative product has garnered him individual recognition that 
rises to the level of national or international acclaim. 
The evidence also establishes that, in 2019, various media outlets have either re-published ..... I_...., I I press releases or pub I ished articles reporting on those press releases. The first press release 
marked the Petitioner's launch ofl , ~ ,I at the annual I I I I trade fair inl , 12019. The press release and related articles identify the Petitioner as the 
company's co-founder and CEO and contain a brief quote from him regarding the I l's 
capabilities, but they are not about him. The second ress release and related articles, ublished in 
I 12019, markl l's release of 
Is more recent press 
release and related articles do not mention the Petitioner. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that 
the media coverage ofl I reflects the Beneficiary's status as an individual who has 
garnered "sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation." See section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 56 Fed. Reg. 
at 30704. 
The Petitioner has also provided evidence that I ~ has been the recipient of several 
industry awards, including the0Robot Award, thel Award, and the I I 
Award. Of these three awards, only thQ Robot Award was bestowed prior to the filing of this 
petition. With respect to the0Robot Award, we note that the award certificate is written in both 
En~lish and Chinese and is not accompanied by a full English translation.8 The Petitioner indicates 
tha I is the recipient, but the portion of the certificate identifying the recipient has not 
been translated. Further, the record contains insufficient evidence regarding this award to support a 
finding that it is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence. For example, the 
record does not contain an: additional information regarding the award or the awarding entity (the 
I J, any media coverage related to the award, or any other relevant 
evidence of the national or international significance of the award in the Petitioner's field. Therefore, 
even if we determined that the Petitioner could be considered the award recipient, we could not 
conclude thatl Is receipt of the award reflects he is among the sm;II perc
1
ntage of individuals at 
the very top of his field. The two remaining awards were received b in 2020 and indicative 
of the company's growing industry recognition and reputation in the field, but do not support a finding 
that the Petitioner enjoyed sustained national or international acclaim as of the date of filing in 2019. 
8 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) . 
The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate and certify that they are 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. 
7 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended 
for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the 
top. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Matter of 
Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, most of the evidence related to the 
Petitioner's achievements dates from 2016 to 2019 and does not establish that his achievements to 
date, individual or collectively, have earned him a place among those at the very top of the field. While 
we acknowledge that an individual who is still early in their professional career may be able to 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, the evidence here does not establish that the 
Petitioner had reached that level when he filed the petition. For the reasons discussed we find the 
record insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim 
and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner has been granted 0-1 status, a classification reserved 
for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different statute, 
regulations and case law. Further, it must be emphasized that each petition filing is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited 
to the information contained in that individual record of proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). We 
are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology 
lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 
1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
Finally, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a 
service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not 
bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra 
v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
111. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8