dismissed EB-1A Case: Structural Design Engineering

~denafyhg data doblrrd U, 
prevent dearly unwammted 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 2 7 M05 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
~obert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visapetition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extrwidinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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 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. 
Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained national or international 
acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessqy sustained acclaim by meeting at least 
three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. However, the weight given to evidenqe submitted to fulfill the criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), or under 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4), must depend on the extent to which such evidence 
demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition 
of "extraordinary ability" as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(2). 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences as a structural 
design engineer. The petitioner initially submitted supportikg documents including a letter from his employer, 
his two-time honorable mention for t 
v 
Medal competition, his American Society of Civil Engineers 
(ASCE) membership certificate, copies o t ree scholarly articles that cite his work, abstracts co-authored by the 
petitioner from two engineering conferences, copies of three published articles co-authored by the petitioner, 
and ten recommendation letters written by individuals who have worked with him. On appeal, counsel submits 
a brief, an excerpt of the ASCE bylaws, a list of citations to the  petitioner.'^ work, copies of five citing articles, 
and a second letter from the petitioner's employer. We address the evidence submitted and counsel's 
contentions in the following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. The petitioner 
does not claim eligibility under any criteria that are not discussed below. 
fi) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in thefield of endeavor. 
The petitioner claims to meet this criterion through his honorable me,ntion in the 1998 and 2000 competition for 
the Gzowski Medal. The record contains copies of two letters from the-president of the Canadian Society for 
Civil Engineering (CSCE) informing the petitioner that two of his-co-authored articles published in the 
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering were awarded an Honorable Mention in the 1998 and 2000 competitions 
for the Gzowski Medal. Both letters state that the petitioner's honor wouiq be published in the "CSCE Honours, 
Awards and Fellowships booklet" and that copies of the booklet would be available at the Awards Banquets. 
The petitioner did not submit copies of the CSCE booklets listing his honorable mentions and apart from the 
letters, the petitioner submitted no documentation of the significance of these citations or any other evidence 
that an honorable mention in the Gzowski Medal competition is a nationally recognized prize or award in the 
petitioner's field. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the CSCE annually awards the "Sir Casimir Gzowski Medal for the best paper on 
a civil engineering subject in the area of surveying, structural engineering and heavy construction. Furthermore, 
the Gzowski Medal Selection Committee is allowed the discretion to select a paper judged to be second in this 
field to receive Honourable Mention." Yet the record contains no- evidence to support these statements. 
Without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute eyidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The evidence submitted shows only tAat the petitioner received honorable 
mentions in a competition sponsored by CSCE for two of his co-authored articles published in the Canadian 
Journal of Civil Engineering. The record is devoid of any evidence that such mentions are nationally 
recognized awards or prizes for excellence in the petitioner's field. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(ii) Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations,in the field for which classzjication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, asgudged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines orfield8. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of his ASCE membership certificate, but no evidence that outstanding 
achievements are prerequisite to such membership. on appeal; c~unsel claims that the petitioner meets this 
criterion because the submitted excerpt from the ASCE bylaws states that "[tlhe standard for admission to the 
Society's grade of Member means definite responsibility for engineering work of substantial importance." The 
bylaws explain that to become a Member, the applicant must have ;been responsible for the direction and 
successful completion of engineering work without relying on a superior or higher authority figure. The record 
is not persuasive that a position of substantial responsibility is an outstaqding achievement in the petitioner's 
field. Notably, while ASCE Members have held positions of substantial responsibility, they are not comparable 
to ASCE Fellows. The ASCE bylaws state that "[tlhe standard required for advancement to the grade of Fellow 
is broad responsibility for engineering work of major importance. The duties and responsibilities of the 
applicant must have been definitely above those required for the grade of Member." Hence, the bylaws 
themselves indicate that outstanding achievements are not required of ASCE Members, but may be required of 
ASCE Fellows. Moreover, we note that the submitted excerpt includes <only a portion of the section entitled 
"Membership Grades and Qualifications," which does not include ths qualifications for Members. The excerpt 
thus does not establish that outstanding achievements, rather @an experience in positions of substantial 
responsibility, are prerequisite to ASCE membership at the grade held by the petitioner. Accordingly, the 
petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the jeld for which classif~~ation is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner initially submitted copies of three scholarly articles published in the Canadian Journal of Civil 
Engineering in 1999 and 2000 that cite two of his co-aythored articles. yet citations of an alien's work by other 
scientists in their scholarly publications rarely meet this criterion because the citing articles are primarily about 
the authors' own research, not the work of the alien.. In this case, the submitted articles cite the petitioner's 
manuscripts in just one paragraph. In two of tlw articles, the petitioner's work is cited in conjunction with three 
and seven other manuscripts. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a list-of 12 manuscripts that cite his work and includes copies of five of these 
citing articles. We cannot consider four of these citing articles because they were published after the petition 
was filed. The petitioner must establish elagibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a hture 
date after the petitioner becomes eligible udder a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12), Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm. 1971). The remainingaticle cites one of the petitioner's co-authored 
manuscripts in conjunction with the work of another research-team. The submitted evidence shows that the 
petitioner's work has been cited in four articles published-in engineering journals. These articles cite the 
petitioner's co-authored manuscripts in passing and do notdiscuss his work in depth. Accordingly, the citing 
articles are not about the petitioner's work and he does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJicance in thejeld 
As initial evidence of his eligibility under this criterion, thq petitioner cited three of his co-authored abstracts 
from two conferences in his field. The director acknowledgd the petitioner's conference abstracts and his three 
co-authored articles, but noted that such accomplishments "are not unusual for a researcher." On appeal, 
counsel claims the petitioner's conference presentations and his published articles meet this criterion because 
"[s]uch achievements in fact are unusual, are exceptional and have resulted in the widespread dissemination of 
Beneficiary's research in his field of study." The record contains no evidence to support this statement. Again, 
without documentary evidence to support the claim, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not ,constitute evidence. Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 
534; Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1; Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
The record contains copies of three abstracts co-authored by the petitioner. One was presented at the Fifth U.S. 
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering in 1994 and the other two were presented at the World 
Conference on Earthquake Engineering in 1996. The petitioner submitted no evidence that he was an invited 
speaker at either of these conferences or that his presentations were especially well received or otherwise 
recognized as major contributions to his field.. The petitioner also submitted copies of three articles co-authored 
by him and published in the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering between 1996 and 2000. The record shows 
that two of these articles have been cited twice each in the published work of other engineers. As discussed 
above under the third criterion, the petitioner submitted a citation list on appeal and copies of five citing articles. 
We cannot consider four of these citing articles because they were .published after the petition was filed. The 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing; a petition Cannot be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. ,$ 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N at 49. The 
petitioner's minimal publication and citation record does not reflect sustained national or international acclaim. 
The record contains 12 support letters from the petitioner's employer and other individuals who have worked 
with him. While such letters provide relevant information about an alien's experience and accomplishments, 
they cannot by themselves establish the alien's eligibility under this criterion because they do not demonstrate 
that the alien's work is of major significance in his field beyond the limited number of individuals with whom 
he has worked directly. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an 
immigration petition carry less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of major contributions that one 
would expect of an alien who has sustained national or international acclaim. In this case, the letters praise the 
petitioner's qualifications and character, but only one letter substantively discusses his work. a 
principal at the firm of Nacamuli Ass s that he has worked with 
while the petitioner was employed by rm as a project engineer. 
petitioner 
has authored a number of papers in the field of seismic design ancl analysis. Histwork in this area is a 
tremendous asset to the preparedness and mitigation activities that the Federql Government of the 
United States has mandated. Further, his publications and research directly contribute to the 
development and promulgation of specifications, building standards, design criteria, and construction 
procedures and practices under Executive Order 12699 signed by President Bush and the furtherance of 
the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). 
rovides no specific examples of how the petitioner's work has directly contributed to 
to reduce earthquake hazards. 
In his letter submitted on appeal, the petitioner's employer, Paul C. Beck, President of Paul Beck Associates, 
P.A., states that the petitioner "has been in charge of multimillion dollar projects and . . . has been directly in 
charge of the design of projects with an aggregate construction value exceeding several hundred million 
dollars." However, Mr. Beck's letter does not establish that projects of high monetary value necessarily make 
major contributions to the field of structural engineering, nor does Mr. Beck state that the petitioner's work on 
such projects has been widely recognized for its original contributions to his field. 
While the support letters indicate that the petitioner is a successful structural engineer who is well respected by 
his colleagues and supervisors, the letters contain no documented description of how the petitioner's work has 
made original contributions of major significance to his field. In addition, the petitioner's minimal publication 
and citation record do not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim. Accordingly, he does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As discussed under the fifth criterion, the record shows that the petitioner in this case has co-authored three 
articles that were published in the Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering between 1996 and 2000. As 
discussed above under the first criterion, two of these articles received Honorable Mentions in the 1998 and 
rage 6 
2000 CSCE competitions forth d haue.been cited twice each in the published work of other 
engineers. The citation list ofher citing manuscripts (numbered nine through - 
12) that are not documented in the record, but are listed as conference or discussion papers. Four other citing 
articles on the list cannot be considered because they'were published aftei the petition was filed. The petitioner 
must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(12), Katigbak, 14 I&N at 49. 
As previously noted under the fifth criterion, counsel provides ns evidence to corroborate his claim that 
conference presentations and scholarly publications-are unusual and exceptional in the petitioner's field. Again, 
the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534; Laureano, 
19 I&N Dec. I; Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. The petiticsner's minimal publication record thus does 
not reflect the requisite sustained acclaim and consequently does not satisfy this criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his field. The evidence in this case 
indicates that the petitioner is an accomplished structural engineer who is well respected by his colleagues and 
supervisors. However, the record does not establish that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim as an engineer placing him at the very top of his field. He is thus ineligible for 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
5 1 153(b)(l)(A), and his petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. tj 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER. The appeal is dismissed.