dismissed EB-1A Case: Strategic Port Planning

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-T-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 7, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a strategic port planner, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that he is coming to the United States 
to continue work in the area of expertise and had not shown that he met any of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. The Petitioner then filed a motion to reopen and 
reconsider which the Acting Director denied. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that the record shows his 
continuing intent to work in the area of expertise and establishes that he qualifies as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 1 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
1 We decline the Petitioner's request for oral argument. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). 
Matter of G-T-C-
(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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such 
as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is a strategic port planner with more than 25 years of experience 
in maritime and civil infrastructure development. The Acting Director concluded that the Petitioner 
had not shown clear evidence that he is coming to the U.S. to continue working in the area of expertise. 
Next, she held that the Petitioner had not satisfied at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to warrant a final merits determination. 
After reviewing the record in its entirety, we find that the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated his 
intent to continue his work in the area of expertise, but he has not established that he meets at least 
three of the regulatory criteria, as required. 
A. Continuous Work in the Area of Extraordinary Ability 
The Acting Director held in the initial decision and on motion that the Petitioner had not submitted 
clear evidence that he is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states that the petitioner must show that he seeks to enter the United States "to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) states 
that such evidence may include a statement "detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his 
or her work in the United States." 
2 
Matter of G-T-C-
In response to the Acting Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a statement 
regarding the need the United States has for specialist port planners. He states that his services have 
been in high demand in the country, and in his second statement submitted on appeal, he provides 
additional background information regarding the growth of his company, noting that over the last five 
years, he has "built a company that ... has managed to position itself as a leading provider of highly 
specialized consulting services to the ports, maritime and shipping industries around the world." He 
adds that his goal "has been to take [his company's] success, built initially in Australia before 
spreading out into Europe, to the United States and to assist the country and its industry to achieve its 
requirements in an ever-changing world." He notes that he "spent a great of time planning this," seeing 
"a clear and present market capacity gap in the U.S." The Petitioner indicates that his first major U.S. 
based project "was one of the largest port planning exercises to be undertaken in the U.S., the long­
term planning of the Ports of New York and New Jersey," noting that his accomplishments there led 
him to secure three other projects which are "three of the largest private investment transactions in 
U.S. ports and related infrastructure." We find that this evidence sufficiently demonstrates that the 
Petitioner intends to continue his work in the area of expertise to meet the requirements of section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
As the Petitioner has not 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 
Acting Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of these criteria. Here, we find that the 
Petitioner has established that he meets the criteria for leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). However, the evidence in the record 
does not demonstrate that he meets the criteria for membership, published material, or contributions 
of major significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), and (v), respectively. 2 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or 
.fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets the requirements of this criterion through his membership in the 
World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC) 3 and his position on the board 
of the .__ ___________ ___.· In the initial decision, the Acting Director held that while 
the Petitioner had established evidence of his membership in the PIANC, he had not shown that 
PIANC requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields. Then, on motion, she held that the email chain 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in conducting the two-part review set out in Kazarian. He 
states that under the approach in Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1234 (E.D. Mich. 1994), once three of the regulatory 
requirements are met, he has met prima facie eligibility and the burden of proof shifts to USCTS to demonstrate by "specific 
and substantiated evidence" why the petitioner is not qualified. Here, we need not address this claim because the Petitioner 
has not established that he meets three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
3 The PIANC was originally known as the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses. 
3 
Matter of G-T-C-
showing his acceptance of the board position for the~ did not equate to primary evidence of his 
membership. She also held that he had not otherwise shown that board membership required 
outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he meet~J:his_qiterion through the documentation in the record 
regarding the distinguished background of the l__Jboard members and the secondary evidence he 
submitted regarding his~ membership, including his explanation for not being able to obtain 
primyv evi
1
ence. The Petitioner states that because the Acting Director did not discuss membership 
in th in the initial decision and only focused on the PIANC, he understood that it had been 
established that he met this requirement pertaining to the D On motion, however, the Acting 
Director held that the Petitioner had not met this criterion through his membership in the D The 
Petitioner has not submitted any new evidence related to his memberships, asserting that the 
documentation demonstrates that board membership on thec=J required outstanding achievements 
of its members as judged by national or international experts. 
We find that the Petitioner has not met his burden of proof in establishing that he meets this criterion. 
The record contains an email chain between the Petitioner and I I regarding the 
Petitioner's acceptance of a position on theDboard, but the record does not demonstrate what 
criteria was used in extending the invitation to the Petitioner. The record contains an I I 
report from October 2016 stating that "c=J represents the major Australian logistics supply chain 
customers, providers, infrastructure owners and suppliers," adding that its members "span the entire 
supply chain, incorporating road, rail, sea, air, maritime and intermodal ports." However, the 
Petitioner has not provided evidence demonstrating that membership on the board for the ~ 
requires outstanding achievements of its members as determined by national or international experts 
in the field. 
We note that in the RFE response the Petitioner identified certain individuals on the board for theD 
along with their titles, contending that "only someone on par with the level of expertise and significant 
achievements as other board members would be asked to join the board." The Petitioner states that he 
met these "high qualifications of the board membership," noting that this is the reason he was invited 
to join the board. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence corroborating his claims regarding the 
qualifications of the other members of the board at Dor their outstanding achievements, and his 
unsupported statements are insufficient to establish eligibility. Here, we note that even though the 
Petitioner has identified members of the board and their job titles, a comparison alone to the other 
members of the board is insufficient to meet this criterion. While the individual members of the board 
may be highly qualified, the record does not demonstrate thatOrequires outstanding achievements, 
as judged by recognized national or international experts, to be appointed to its board. For example, 
the Petitioner did not submit evidence of the organization's criteria for board membership or its 
selection process, or documentation establishing the expertise and recognition of those individuals 
judging him for admission. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has also not established that his membership in PIANC meets the 
requirements of this criterion. The PIANC website states that it is "the global non-political and non­
profit organisation providing guidance for sustainable waterborne transport infrastructure for ports and 
waterways," noting that "[ m ]embers include governments and public authorities, corporations and 
4 
Matter of G-T-C-
interested individuals." This webpage farther states, "PIANC Australia is one of the larger of the 25 
recognised national sections within PIANC internationally" with a "growing membership which 
currently comprises about 41 corporate members and 84 individual members." While the record 
contains an invoice submitted to the Petitioner from PIANC Australia, Inc., for the 2016 membership 
fees to establish his membership in this organization, the Petitioner has not provided additional 
documentation showing that this organization requires outstanding achievements of its members as 
judged by national or international experts for membership. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Acting Director held that the publications in the record only quoted the Petitioner and do not 
constitute published material about him to meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the 
Petitioner references articles published in the World Maritime News, Port Finance International, the 
Ports Australia Newsletter, and on voakl.net. Three of the four articles do not satisfy the requirements 
of the criterion as they do not identify the author. The article appearing on voakl.net, a blog dedicated 
to issues related to southern Auckland, does identify its author, but the record does not establish that 
the blog constitutes a professional or major trade publication or other major media. Furthermore, we 
note that none of the articles are about the Petitioner; one only briefly mentions his consultancy, while 
the others focus on projects and contain only a brief quote from him. Articles that are not about the 
Petitioner do not establish eligibility for this criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Pl umpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJ at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not 
about the actor). Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual'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) 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfy. He 
must demonstrate that his contributions are original and scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related in nature. The contributions must have already been realized, rather than being 
prospective possibilities. He must also establish 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 has meaning. See Matter of Masri, 22 I&N Dec. 1145, 1148 
(BIA 1999). "Contributions of major significance" connotes that the petitioner's work has 
significantly impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. The Acting Director found that 
the evidence in the record did not support this criterion because the letters in the record from a former 
colleague and employers demonstrated that his work was highly regarded, but this evidence did not 
establish how it had significantly contributed to the greater field, beyond them and their customers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner has not submitted any new evidence, contending that the previously 
submitted documentation establishes his eligibility. He relies on seven letters from individuals in the 
same field, asserting that they are experts in the field and that the Acting Director erred in not 
5 
Matter of G-T-C-
considering all of them. While these letters attest to his expertise as a port planner, the record does 
not contain sufficient evidence to demonstrate how his original contributions have impacted the field 
at large. Several of the letters focus on the Petitioner's consulting work related to the I I I I deputy director ofl l states in his letter, 
"the Long range Masterplan is one of the most important port planning exercises undertaken by 
I I which "will effectively guide the development in our port and terminal planning to ~ 
the future maritime trade needs of New York and New Jersey region over the next 30+ years." L_J 
~ identifies the Petitioner's contributions as a sub-consultant to I I the engineering consulting 
firm awarded the project, stating that "[ the Petitioner] was instrumental in the delivery of future fleet 
forecasting, future-state thinking, multi-terminal capacity analysis and the development of the various 
port plan options." He does not, however, describe how the Petitioner's individual contributions to 
thel project bid were of major significance to the field. 4 
,.......... ................................... i ..... n........,..a_l..,,e=tt..,.e.._r~from '--------~ the chief operating officer of the .... I _____ ___, 
.____..--______ ....,in Australia, he states that he directed the Petitioner to provide consulting to 
the Port of noting that this is "one of the largest import focused )i20rts in the southern 
hemisphere." .___ ___ _.indicates that the Petitioner "has been delivering all otf I jajorpT 
planning which includes commissioning him on several large transformational projects for " 
He then adds, "[t]here is no question that [the Petitioner's] ability and expertise is incredibly rare, not 
just in the maritime industry, but also in the wider engineering industry." The letter does not identify 
what specific ori&inal contributions the Petitioner made in providing consulting work for the Port of 
I ~ or for l I or how it impacted the field. 
I I principal consultant and senior I I project representative at I I an 
engineering consulting firm states that the I plan is a "high profile project" that is "one of the 
largest planning projects to ever be undertaken byl I' She states that although! ~s "one of 
the world's leading engineering consultancies, including significant market share of maritime and port 
engineering," she notes that "the company does not maintain senior port planning skills," relying 
instead on "specialist sub-consultants to deliver projects like these." I !indicates, "[the 
Petitioner] was very impressive to the I I when we bid for 
the project, due to his clear understanding of the global port planning industry and his track record in 
delivering strategic port plans around the world." She then asserts that "[t]he reality is that we would 
not have won the project without his primary involvement." While the letter describes the effect the 
Petitioner's work had onl lit does not establish how his work on the I I project bid 
represents an original contribution of major significance. 
'------_,~__.I farther expands upon the Petitioner's role by stating, "[h]aving then won the project 
alongside [the Petitioner's] company, he has been instrumental in enabling us to deliver a plan to 
I I that is both innovative and defendable." She notes that the Petitioner "delivered all [the 
company's] highly specialist port planning work including advanced maritime shipping fleet 
forecasting, trade analysis, terminal capacity modelling and analysis, development option planning 
and future state analysis." She indicates, "[t]his sort of service is well beyond typical engineering 
consultancy services and is pure specialist work." The record does not contain sufficient evidence 
4 We note thatl lalso indicates that the development of the master plan is ongoing and not expected to conclude 
until May or June of 2018. 
6 
Matter of G-T-C-
demonstrating how his work as a consultant to I I for the I I project has amounted to a 
contribution of major significance, apart from the benefit this provided to I I in its role on the 
project. "Contributions of major significance" means that the petitioner's work has significantly 
impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. 
Similarly, in a letter from I I senior partner and leader of the transaction advisory services 
at I lin New Zealand, he states that the company has "again teamed with [the 
Petitioner as art of a multidisci linar team to develop a long range port planning study for thee=] 
the largest port on the east coast of the U.S." He 
~a-ls_o_1 __ n-d-ic_a_t-es_t_h_a_t-th_e_P-et-it-i-on_e_r_'_'l-ed~--s-d_e_h __ v-e-ry~of the I I Study, which is one 
of the highest profile infrastructure planning assessments being undertaken in New Zealand." This 
demonstrates that the Petitioner has led high profile infrastructure planning, but the record does not 
contain evidence demonstrating specifically what his original contributions are and how they amount 
to contributions of major significance. 
The record contains two letters froml I the director of~-------~- He 
states in his first letter that the Petitioner has been described by clients and colleagues as a "brilliant 
engineer," and that he " lanned, designed, and managed the deli r f m · r i il n in rin 
projects fo like the conceptual ground works for th;;:.e;;;..i... ___________ _____. 
~-----~ and the civil works for thel I hotel in.___ _ _. Georgia." He adds that the 
Petitioner has delivered maritime projects "including the planning and design of [the] I I 
marina," which he states, "when complete, will be one of the largest marinas in Europe." While these 
are again indicative of high profile projects, the record does not contain supporting documentation to 
establish specifically what the Petitioner's contributions ~ere and how they represent contributions of 
major significance in the field. While thel Jmarina and thel I projects appear to 
still be in progress, it has not been shown how his contributions have already amounted to 
contributions of major significance in the field. For the projects that have been completed, the record 
does not contain sufficient evidence demonstrating what his original contributions were and how they 
have constituted contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is or was a leader. 5 If a critical role, 
the evidence must establish that the petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance 
to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. A supporting role may be considered 
"critical" if the petitioner's performance in the role is or was important in that way. It is not the title 
of the petitioner's role, but rather his performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. 6 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form T-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 10 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i- l 40-evidence-pm-6002-005- l .pdf. 
6 Id. 
7 
Matter of G-T-C-
The Acting Director held that the letters discussing the Petitioner's role in the I I project did 
not establish how his role was leading or critical forD On appeal, the Petitioner highlights his 
role withl I and asserts that this establishes his leading role. I J the practice 
leader-maritime atl I states in his letter that he followed the Petitioner to the compry,I 
~that the Petitioner received the "prestigious~- lobal Practice Leader for Maritime." 
L__Jstates that while "[the Petitioner's] role in was a highly prestigious position in the 
maritime industry," his role as global director for "is one of the pinnacle positions in the global 
maritime practice." He states that in this role, the Petitioner "was tasked with building a new maritime 
practice in Australia and South Asia as well as developingLJs global maritime practice." The 
record contains articles about the firm establishing it has a distinguished reputation. This evidence 
demonstrates that the Petitioner satisfies the regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Acting Director held that the evidence in the record did not show that the Petitioner has 
commanded a high salary in relation to others in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
documentation showing an offer of employment withl lin 2013, stating a salary of 
$252,000 and a $48,000 bonus. The record also contains a monthly base income pay statement from 
.__ _____ ____.~tating year-to-date income of$146,584, which the record reflects represents income 
for approximately half of the fiscal year. Documentation from the bis.gov website indicates that the 
top ten percent of wages for civil engineers in the United States was $132,880 as of May 2016. The 
record also contains documentation from the Professional Engineers Employment and Remuneration 
Report for 201 7 regarding salaries for engineers in Australia, demonstrating that the Petitioner's 
income is much higher than the upper quartile of the highest wage levels listed. The record contains 
an offer of employment wit~ I stating his salary as $249,840 (from July 1, 2013 to 
March 31, 2014 ), invoices from consultancy work that the Petitioner performed, and documentation 
from his personal bank account. This evidence sufficiently establishes that the Petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has shown that that he intends to continue working in his area of expertise, but he has 
not established that he meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x) to meet the initial evidentiary requirements 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. 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; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-T-C-, ID# 1883233 (AAO Aug. 7, 2019) 
8