dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

(b)(6)
U.S. Department or Homeland security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 . 
·u.s. Citizenship · 
and Immigration 
Services 
. DATE: FEB 0 8 2013 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION:· Immigrant Petition for Alie·n 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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice o{ Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found .at 8. C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not tile any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware'. that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. · 
Thank you, 
Ctf2.r~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
I . . 
· www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which 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 the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. · 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiting through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate · the alien's "sustained national or international ac~laim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien 's achievements . See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.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. · 
The petitioner's priority date established 
by the. petition filing date is February 15, 2012. On February 
21, 2012, the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on May 15, 2012. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a statement with no additional dpcumentary evidence. For the reasons discussed 
below, the AAO upholds the director's ultimat~ determination that the petitioner has not established his 
eligibility for the classification sought. . · · 
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 or international 
acclaim and w·hose 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 
(b)(6)Page 3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) ~nd legacy immigration and Natural~ation 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.; 
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 recogni_tion of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x): 
In 2010,. the u~s. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. 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. 1 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 
abo';lt the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." /d. ~t 1'121-22. 
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)." /d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). . 
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 matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not _submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is'that the petitioner has failed ·to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. .. 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilateraliy imposed novel _substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set fort~ in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
\ 
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. One-Time Achievement 
The petitioner previously claimed eligibility based upon a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) before the director, but does not contest the director's adverse findings under this 
provision or offer additional arguments . on appeal. The AAO, therefore, considers this issue to be 
abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the 
plaintiff's claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 . 
Documentation of the alien's rec(Upt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. · . 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the .evidence must establish that the alien is the 
recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the . plural). The clear regulatory language requires that the 
prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation 
also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field 
of endeavor rather than simply for participating in or contri(?uting to an event or to a group. The 
'petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided several· awards as a member of a team, The director determined that 
the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. The director's determination, as stated in 
his decision, was solely based on the fact that "the petitioner has not received any awards or prizes 
individually. The above listed prizes or awards were given to the petitioner's group." The AAO 
departs from the director's basis of determining the petitioner's eligibility to qualify under this criterion. 
Even though the petitioner was not the sole recipient of the submitted awards, he participated in a group 
project that entered a team-oriented competition. The record contains .certificates of participation issued 
to the petitioner individually as a member of the team and awards from the same event issued to the 
team. Thus, the petitioner may properly be considered the recipient of those prizes. The awards from 
the Iran Open events are issued specifically to the petitioner, also naming his team. As such, based on 
the specific facts of this case, the AAO withdraws the director's concerns that the petitioner was not the 
recipient of the awards. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)PageS 
Regarding the regulatory requirement that the prizes or awards be nationally or internationally 
recognized; the petitioner did not offer. any additional information on appeal. Within the initial 
proceedings, the petitioner supported this claim with periodical or newspaper articles from 
Jl ,. .. - -
That a periodical or newspaper provided coverage of a 
· particular prize 
or award is insufficient to demonstrate the accolade is nationally or internationally 
recognized. The petitioner must also provide .evidence to establish that the periodical or newspaper has 
a national or international reach, as media coverage by local or regional newspapers is insufficient to 
reflect that an award is nationally or internationally recognized. The only media for which the 
petitioner provided evidence of the circulation or distribution data are· the , the 
_ . The evidence relating to 
each of these journals and newspapers is in the form of a letter from the publication itself rather than 
published circulation statistics from an official or independent website or other publicly available 
source. USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, 
JNo. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'dJ17 F. App'x 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). Moreover, , a responsible manager at claims that the 
newspaper has the "highest readers in the country with 200:000 circulation and 250,000 online visitors." 
The Manager of the _ , however, 
claims that _ "is addressed to more than 1 ,000,000 applicants of Iranian 
universities," more than twice as many copies as the print and online readership of what is purportedly 
the paper with the highest readership. IIi addition, the Editor-in-Chief of the 
claims the journal enjoys a circulation of 450,000, a higher circulation than , purportedly the 
newspaper with the "highest readers." 
It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Any attempt to explain or reconcile 
such inconsistencies will. not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies. /d. The petitioner has not resolved the inconsistencies in circulation 
and readership claims. 
Based on the above shortcomings, none of the prizes or awards on record serve to satisfy this criterion. . . 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Documentation of the. alien 's membership in associations iti 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. · 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the petitioner must 
demonstrate that he is a member of more than one association in his field. Second, the petitioner must 
demonstrate both of the following: (1) that the associations utilize nationally or internationally 
recognized experts to judge the achievements (in the plural) of prospective members to determine if the 
(b)(6)Page6 
achievements are outstanding, and (2) that the associations use this outstanding determination as a 
condition . of eligibility for prospective membership. It is insufficient for the association itself to 
determine if the achievements were outstanding, unless· nationally or internationally recognized experts 
in the petitioner's field, who represent the association, render this determination. The petitioner must 
satisfy all of these elements to meet the 'plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The evidence relating to this criterion is primarily the same evidence on which the petitioner relies to 
satisfy the judging criterion. There is no presumption that evidence directly relating to one criterion 
must also meet another, less relevant criterion. To hold otherwise would undermine the statutory 
requirement for extensive.evidence and the regulatory. requirement that a petitioner submit evidence that 
satisfies three separate criteria. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner initially documented membership on the '' 
" at and membership on the technical committee of both the _ 
. _ The director determined that the petitioner failed 
to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner relies o_n a letter from 
- -also served as the Technical Chair of the 
university. Within the letter, Dr. stated: 
The members of Technical Comniittee were select~d according to ·their long term 
experience and superior knowledge in each field. Mr. was selected 
as a member o.f [the] Technical Committee of due. to his 
major significant contributions in the field of robotics. He ~as won several awards in 
International robotic competitions. Therefore he was a qualified candidates [sic] for this 
position. · 
Dr. 
at the 
First, a technical committee is not an "association:" Thus, membership on a·committee cannot serve to 
satisfy this criterion. Moreover, Dr. did not describe the selection process to establish whether 
the committee utilized nationally or internationally recognized experts to judge the achievements of all 
prospective members to determine if the prospective members' achievements were outstanding. As 
such, this committee will not serve to satisfY ·this criterion's requirements. Furthermore, Dr. 
stated that the petitioner was selected as a committee member due to his contributions in the fiel.d; 
however, the professor did not indicate that the committee required outstanding achievements of all its 
committee members, or simply whether the petitioner was selected because of his achievements. The 
focus of this regulation is on the association's seh!ction criteria for all of its meJillbers, not the basis of 
the invitation to the petitioner. Thus, this committee membership cannot satisfy the regulatory 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The petitioner also references a letter from "Dr. President of 
regarding his membership on the technic~! committee of The letter, 
(b)(6)Page 7 
however, addresses the petitioner's judging experience rather than his coriunittee membership. The 
petitioner also provided a .letter from Managing Director of 
who is also a member of the Mr. 
mentioned the petitioner 's efforts in com etitions in 2010 and 2011, andstated: "(The petitioner] also 
has been in the panel of judges of _ _ since 2010 mainly because his academic and 
professional background makes him very exceptional for holding this position." Mr. letter 
failed to outiine the requirements to t:>e considered for the technical committee of _ _ 
Regardless, as stated above, a committee is not an "association. " As such, this evidence will not serve 
to satisfy this criterion's requirements .-
In reference to the , on appeal the petitioner only asserts that he received a certificate of 
membership relating to this competition. The evidence on record reflects that the petitioner was a 
member of the technical committee as an organizer and a judge of the _ The petitioner 
failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that this entity utilized nationally or internationally recognized 
experts to judge the achievements of prospective members to determine if the achievements were 
outstanding. He ·also failed to submit evidence to establish that the associations use this outstanding 
determination as a condition of .eligibility Jor prospective membership. Finally, once again, a 
· committee is not an· association. Consequently, this "membership" ,will not assist the petitioner in 
meeting the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets . the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. · 
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. 
This criterion contains three evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the published 
material must be about the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner's work in the field 
under which he seeks classification as an immigrant. · The published material must also appear in 
: professional or major trade publications or other major media (in the plural). Professional or major 
trade publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution and . be published in a 
predominant national language. The final requirement is that the. petitioner provide each published 
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion . 
The director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The AAO departs 
from the director's favorable eligibility .determination related to this criterion for the reasons outlined 
below. The petitioner provided much ofthe same evidence he relied upon in an attempt to demonstrate 
his prizes or awards were nationally or internationally re~ognized, discussed above. As noted under the 
(b)(6)·Page 8 
awards criterion, the circulation or distribution data relating to . the 
) and was insufficient tp demonstrate 
the reach of each publication. Specifically, the petitioner submitted self-serving letters from each of 
these publications which are inconsistent as to which publication has a higher readership. USCIS need 
. to rely upon such evidence. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 ·SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 
317 F. App~x 680 (9th Cir. 2009). Even if USCIS accepted the circulation data in the letters, the 
petitioner. did not provide the . circulation statistics of similar Iranian publications for compariso~ 
purposes. Thus, he has consequently failed to establish the any of these are a form of major media. See 
Noroozi v. Napolitano, 11 CIV. 8333 PAE, 2012 WL 5510934 *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2012). The 
petitioner also provided no information related to the distribution data of these publications to establish 
this published material has a .national rather than ~ regional reach within Iran. Publications with only a 
regional reach are not considered to be major media and the petitioner has not established this 
publication is a professional or major trade· publication in the alternative. · 
The remaining published material on record relates to the following publications: 
and 
the . The petitioner failed to provide any evidence 
regarding the circulation or distribution statistics · of the · or the - -
He is therefore precluded fronf demonstrating that either of these 
publications constitutes a form of major media. · 
Finally, the translations do not comply With pertinent regulations. Areview of the record reveals that 
none of the tr~nslated evidence under this criterion .contains the author of the published material as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Therefore, each form of evidence· submitted under this criterion 
is insufficient to satisfy all of the requirements under the r~gulation. In addition, many of the 
translations of articles the petitioner provided are excerpts rather than the entire published piece. An 
excerpt out of context does not allow a determination as to whether the published material is, in fact, 
about the petitioner. As the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3) requires the petitioner to ensure that 
any foreign language document was "accompanied by a full English language translation," all articles 
translated as'excerpts are not probative evidence. 
In view of the foregoing, the AAO withdraws the director's favorable determination as it relates to this 
criterion. The petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
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. 
This criterion requires not only that the petitioner was selected to serve as a judge, but also that the 
petitioner is able to produce evidence that he actually participated as a judge. The phrase "a judge" 
implies a formal designation in a judging c~pacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties must have been directly ju~ging the work of 
others in the same or ah allied field in which the petitioner seeks an immigrant classification within the . . 
(b)(6)Page9 
present petition.· The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion due to the 
fact that he judged students, who are not in the field of specialization as required by the regulation. The 
AAO departs from the director's adverse determination as it relates to this criterion. The record 
contains sufficient evidence that the petitioner judged the work of others specializing in robotics, his 
field of expertise. Thus, the petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
. contributions of major signifitcmce in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
inust satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in his field .. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions.. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the · 
contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. 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 (2"d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner provided letters and evidence of the implementation of his work through contracts. The 
director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the 
petitioner failed to describe an error in law or error in fact attributable to the director. The petitioner 
reiterated his belief that the expert letters and contracts sufficiently demonstrate his eligibility under this 
criterion. 
, a professor with the Department of Mechanical Engineering at 
_...__ pointed out ~hat the petitioner published papers on his research achievements 
relating to the rescue robot team. PrOfessor did not identify the referenced articles, and 
more importantly, he did not describe how these articles impacted the petitioner's field. Professor 
also noted that the petitioner's team received several awards related to his research, but it is 
unclear how receiving accolades results in an i.mpact in the petitioner's field. Professor also 
stated: "It is noteworthy to mention the significant -contributions of [the petiti~ner] and his team to 
mobile robotics research at . . Than~s to his efforts, selling 
prototypes of their robots to Iran's National Petroleum Corporation within 3 contracts provided a great 
amount of credit for robotic research." It is noteworthy that the' 
contracted with the university for the use of the design in which the petitioner 
participated. While this may demonstrate ' that the petitioner's work resulted in a positive impact on a 
(b)(6)Page 10 
university program and has practical value, it is insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's evidence 
satisfies this criterion's requirements. That three instances exist of a corporation electing to pay for the 
petitioner's proprietary work is not an example of an. original contribution of major significance in the 
petitioner's field. Professor . also indicated that the petitioner "designed and manufactured 
several industrial robots and delivered them to industry [sic]." The professor did not however, specify 
the manner in which the delivery of these robots had any impact in the petitioner's field of mechanical 
engineering or robotics. · 
According to the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, mechanical ~ngineers 
typically do the following: 
• Analyze problems to see how a mechanical device might help solve the problem; 
• Design or redesign mechanical devices, creating blueprints so the device can be 
built; 
• Develop a prototype of the device and test the prototype; 
• An~lyze the test results and change the design as needed; and 
• Oversee the manufacturing process for the devite. 3 . 
Simply designing mechanical devices for use by customers is a basic job duty for . the petitioner's 
occupation; it does not signify a contributio~ of major significance within the field of engineering. 
_ also a profe~sor at . discussed the petitioner's 
contributions to the university's robotics team and how the petitioner devoted two robot platforms to the 
university for further research, but failed to specify how contributions to a university's team or 
donations of equipment to such a team has significantly impacted the petitioner's field of mechanical 
' 
engineering or robotics as a whole. Professor also indicated that the petitioner organized 
several seminars and extracurricular courses which have led to several prominent awards for the 
participating groups. The professor did not specify the number or the names of such awards and the 
record is deficient of such evidence. rGoing on reoord without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 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 Comrn'r 1972)). Regardless, that a single university's robotiC team achieved accolades after the 
~- donation of equipment is not a contribution of major significance in t~e petitioner's field. 
Regarding the letter from , Managing Director of 
----" and a member of the he stated that the petitioner is a 
founding member of the robotics team, . Mr. indicated that this team received 
several awards, but he did not indicate how the petitioner's position as a founding member of this team 
has had a significant impact in the petitioner's field. Mr. also stated that the petitioner's 
unique and original design was the main reason that the robots team design received so many accolades. 
3 See http://www.bls .gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering!mechanical-engineers .htm#tab-2 , accessed January 
29, 2013 and incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
(b)(6)
. Page 11 
While this may have resulted in original contributions to 
the petitioner's impact in his field, as a whole. 
, it is not sufficient to demonstrate 
_ Associat~ Professor, , stated that the "[s]ignificanc_:e 
of [the petitioner's] contribution as ajudge arid technical committee [member] of _ made this 
event up to 2012 standards of the international · federation." Professor did not indicate what 
effect the petitioner's service as a judge or as part of the technical committee had on the petitioner's 
field of mechanical engineering or robotics: As such, the professor's . letter will not serve to satisfy the 
regulatory requirements for this criterion. 
The petitioner also submitted additional reference letters praising his talents in research robotics and 
discussing his activities in the field. Tale~t and experience in one's field, however, are not necessarily 
indicative of original scientific contributions of majo~ significance in the petitioner's field.. It is not 
enough to be skillful and knowledgeable and to have others attest to those talents. An alien must have 
demonstrably impact~d his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. The reference letters 
submitted by the petitioner briefly discuss his skills and activities, but they do not provide speCific 
examples of how the petitioner's work has ·significantly impacted the . field at large or otherwise 
constitutes original contributions of major significance. · 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 13~2 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see aiso Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require;: the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and docwnentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. 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 local colleagues 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 (9
1
h Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115. (9th Cir. 2010) .. 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" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. 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 eligibiiity for the benefit sought. /d. 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; 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 
evid~nce as to "fact" but rather is admissible only if it will assist the trier of fact to understa~d the 
(b)(6)
Page 12 . 
evidence or 'to determine a fact in issue). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
. corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Iq. at 795; see also Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
While letters authored in support of the petition have probative value, they are most persuasive when 
supported by evidence that already existed independently in the public sphere. Such independent 
evidence might include but is not limited to letters from independent industry experts with firsthand 
knowledge of the petitioner's impact in the field, media co~erage, and citations to the petitioner's work . 
. Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional Dr major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The AAO departs 
from the director's affirmative determination as it relates to this criterion for the reasons outlined b.elow. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R: § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires authqrship of "scholarly 
articles in the field" in the plural, which .is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(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. Thus, the AAO can infer that the 'plural in the remaining 
regulatory criteria has meaning. The record contains only a single published article. The petitioner also 
only listed one 'journal paper" on his curriculum vitae. 
As the petitioner only submitted a single publishe~ article, he has not submitted evidence that meets the 
plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's ~ark in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
r, 
The director discussed lhe evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. 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 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the 
. petit~oner has. not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. Accordingly, the petitioner has not 
submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence.. that the alien has performed in a Leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation .. 
This criterion anticipates that a leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall 
organizational hierarchy arid that it be accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role should 
be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The 
- petitioner's performance iri this role should establish whether the role was critical for organizations or 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
establishments as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments (in 
the plural) have · a distinguished reputation . . While neither the regtJlation nor precedent speak to what 
constitutes a distinguished reputation, Merriam- Webster's online dictionary defines distinguished as, 
"marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence.'.<~ Dictionaries are not of themselves evidence, but 
they may be referred to as aids to the memory ·and understanding ofthe court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 
304, 306 (1893). .Therefore , it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the organizations or 
establishments claimed under this criterion are marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, or . an 
equivalent reputation. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meef the 
plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided letters from various individuals explaining his eligibility for this criterion. The 
director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. Specifically, the 
director's decision indicated that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate he performed in a leading or 
critical role for organizations as a whole rather than simply .for departments or components within an 
organization. On appeal, the petitioner did not address the director's primary reason for not granting 
. this criterion. Instead, the petitionerstated: 
I have to mention that in all_of the mentioned. letters, the critical role that I had and the 
effect of my leadership in different departments and also as a whole in this field have 
been mentioned, in fact in all of the mentioned letters that I submitted for this criteria it 
is evident that HOW influential and critical my role was and HOW my leadership 
. ch.anged this field· and consequently brought in new innovations to this field. 
The petitioner has not identified the correct 
requirements relative to this criterion. He must demon~trate 
that the role was performed for organizations or establishments as a whole; however, his appellate 
statement references the effect of his leadership in departments and his alleged contributions to the field 
as a whole. While the submitted evidence does establish he performed in a leading or critical role for 
various teams or of the within he has not 
submitted evidence nor asserted that, as a graduate student at that university, he performed in ·such a 
role for the university itself, or for any other organization or establishment as noted within the plain 
language of this criterion. The petitioner's reference to having an impact in his field is misplaced under 
this criterion, and is more appropriately presented under the contributions of major significance criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which is discussed above in this decision. 
The petitioner's failure to identify the director's error in. law or error in fact for this criterion equates to 
an insufficient claim of eligibility within the appellate proceeding. Such a failure essentially amounts to 
the petitioner's abandonment of the eligibility claim regarding this criterion. Cf Desravines v. U.S. Atty. 
Gen., 343 F. App'x. 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (a passing reference in the arguments section of a brief 
without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on appeal). · 
4 See http://www.merriam-webster.com/didionary/distinguished, accessed on January 23, 2013, a copy of which 
is incorporated into the record of proceeding. · ' · 
(b)(6)
' · . 
Page 14 
. . 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
c.· Summary · 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim. of extniordinary 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[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien pas sustained J;Iational 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 three types ofevidence. /d. at '1 i22. . . . 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
T.he burden o.f proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S,C. § 1361 ; Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 'at 766. Here, the petitioner has not sustained 
that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5 The AAO maintairys de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 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 section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0~50 . 1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(t)(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).