dismissed EB-1A Case: Telematics Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 3, 2024 InRe: 34831521 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a telematics systems engineer, 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 l 53(b )(1 )(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in the 
small percentage at the very top of the field. The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit 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 their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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. 20 I 0) ( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a master's degree in engineering in Russia in 2012. From 2009 to 2022, the 
Petitioner worked as an engineer, testing and developing electronics systems for "the largest truck 
manufacturer in the Russian Federation." The Petitioner entered the United States in July 2022 as a 
B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. The Petitioner seeks employment as chief executive officer (CEO) of a 
company he founded that provides "tracking technology for the business-to-business (B2B) industry, 
fleet companies, and more." 1 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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 claimed to have satisfied seven of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met three of the criteria, pertaining to judging, scholarly 
articles, and leading or critical roles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets all seven claimed 
criteria. 
Because the Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence, the Director conducted a final merits 
determination to evaluate whether the Petitioner 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. The purpose of a final merits determination is to analyze a 
petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their successes are 
1 After he filed the present petition, the Petitioner filed another immigrant petition on his own behalf, seeking the same 
classification, in September 2024. That petition, with receipt number! Iwas approved in October 2024. 
2 
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. 2 
In denying the petition, the Director stated that, although the Petitioner had satisfied three evidentiary 
criteria, the evidence that met those criteria as a whole did not establish sustained national or international 
acclaim. Specifically, the Director made the following determinations: 
• The Petitioner's activity as a judge of the work of others, satisfying 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
was "based on his service as a reviewer of a couple of articles and a contest in 2023." The 
Director concluded that these few, recent instances of judging did not show that the Petitioner 
is "one of that small percentage who have risen to the top of their field of endeavor and has 
sustained national or international acclaim in the field." 
• The Petitioner's publication of a "moderate" number of scholarly articles satisfies 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), but the Petitioner had not shown that his publication history establishes 
extraordinary ability in his field. 
• The Petitioner's position as "CEO of his company" is a leading or critical role for an 
organization with a distinguished reputation, but the Petitioner did not show that this role 
places him at "the very top of the field of endeavor and [demonstrates] sustained national or 
international acclaim." 
Although the Director did not discuss evidence beyond the three granted criteria, the Director 
concluded by stating that "USCIS has ... examined the entire record." 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that, in the final merits determination, the Director "only analyzed 
evidence concerning the three granted criteria" instead of considering "the entire record." 
Upon consideration of the complete record, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner 
has not established sustained national or international acclaim as required. Below, we discuss additional 
evidence beyond the three granted criteria. 
The Russian Union of Scientific and Engineering Public Associations Coordination Board conducted an 
"Engineer of the Year" competition in 2020. In the first round of the competition, the Petitioner was 
awarded the title I I The certificate conveying that title indicates that it 
is "valid for 5 years." The presence of an expiration date appears to be more consistent with a professional 
credential or title rather than an award. 
The number of awardees or prize recipients is a relevant consideration. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Materials in the record indicate that the 
Petitioner was one of 51 mechanical engineers, and 339 engineers overall, to earn the title I I
I in 2020. In all, out of a pool of over 70,000 participants, 1,381 engineers received 
some type of accolades from the competition. 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2) (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). 
3 
The Petitioner submitted copies of materials from the awarding entity, and congratulatory messages from 
the Petitioner's employer after nine of its employees received various forms of recognition. But the 
Petitioner did not establish that he, as an individual, received recognition and attention indicative of 
sustained national or international acclaim when he and hundreds of others received the I I 
1 1 title. 
The Petitioner also asserted that $150,000 in venture capital for his U.S. company is a prize or award for 
excellence. We will take capital funding into account when considering an organization's reputation and 
an individual's remuneration. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). The Petitioner 
did not establish that the infusion of venture capital is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field of endeavor. A contract in the record indicates that the capital funding 
amounted to a purchase of equity in the Petitioner's company, subject to return, rather than a prize that 
would remain with the Petitioner. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish that his company's infusion of venture capital received 
national or international recognition, a necessary component of a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award. The Petitioner's assertion that "venture capital funding more broadly [is] widely 
recognized" does not establish this particular instance of funding has the necessary recognition. The 
overall familiarity of the concept of venture capital does not suffice. 
Also, the Petitioner did not establish that the $150,000 in venture capital he secured reflected sustained 
national or international acclaim, rather than the individual investor's confidence in the potential 
profitability of the Petitioner's new company. We can consider whether the funds are commensurate with 
funding rounds generally achieved for a startup's stage and industry. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual, supra, at F .2(B)(l ). The Petitioner submitted excerpts from a 2016 report about venture capital, 
but did not include any statistics, such as the average size of a round of venture capital funding, that might 
have lent context to the amount of funding that the Petitioner's company secured. Therefore, the 
Petitioner did not show that securing $150,000 in venture capital funding indicates extraordinary ability 
in business. 
The Petitioner was the subject of five articles that appeared in various online Russian-language media in 
2022 and 2023. There are broad similarities between many of the articles, such as an emphasis on 
information that coincides with some of the regulatory criteria for extraordinary ability. All the articles 
were published after the Petitioner left Russia for the last time in January 2022; most were published in 
late 2023. The record does not show that the Petitioner attracted any Russian media coverage while he 
was in Russia. 
One assertion that appears in a number of the submitted articles is that the Petitioner's membership in the 
Union of Machine Engineers constitutes "recognition of professional achievements and contribution in 
the field," language similar to the wording of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). We agree with 
the Director that the Petitioner did not establish that his memberships in the National Chamber of 
Engineers and the Union of Machine Engineers require outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts, as the regulation requires. The Petitioner did not submit 
first-hand documentary evidence of membership requirements from the organizations themselves, and 
4 
I 
the Petitioner did not establish the reliability of the assertions in the online articles that the Petitioner 
submitted instead of that evidence. 
The Petitioner wrote five scholarly articles and published conference presentations in conjunction with 
his graduate studies. He wrote a sixth article that appeared in Actual Researches in 2023. In a final merits 
determination, USCIS may consider whether an individual's articles appeared in highly ranked journals 
and whether the articles have been heavily cited by others. See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F.2(B)(2). The Petitioner did not establish the impact of his published work in these ways. The articles 
themselves are not evidence of sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner peer-reviewed manuscripts submitted for publication in Actual Researches. We agree with 
the Director that this activity constitutes judging the work of others, satisfying the requirements of 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), but does not inherently establish sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner did not submit evidence to show how the journal selects peer reviewers. 
The Petitioner was also invited to serve "as an honored member of the jury of the competition 
Ibased in part on "[r ]eputation and achievements in the industry that confirm professional 
competence." The Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish the significance of the competition. 
The competition's own promotional materials do not suffice in this regard. Cf Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 
06 5105 SJO (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that a magazine 
publisher's self-serving assertions are not reliable evidence of the magazine's status as major media). 
Also, thel Icompetition had not yet taken place when the Petitioner filed the petition in Febrnary 
2024. A petitioner must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). 
The Petitioner showed that his work improved models of vehicles produced by his employer in Russia, 
but the Petitioner did not demonstrate that this work went beyond the expected role of a mechanical 
engineer and had wider repercussions in the industry, resulting in recognition rising to the level of 
sustained national or international acclaim. Letters from collaborators and employers are not direct 
evidence of the wider recognition that the statute and regulations demand. 
The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's critical role for organizations or establishments with 
distinguished reputations, but concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that these roles resulted in 
broader recognition commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. We agree with 
the Director that the Petitioner has not established a wider pattern of recognition. We also observe 
that the Petitioner's U.S. company appears to be in an early startup phase, and the Petitioner has not 
established that this new company has earned a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner submitted letters from several individuals discussing a platform that the Petitioner 
developed. These individuals have business relationships with the Petitioner, by employing him, 
collaborating with him, or investing in his company. These letters shed light on the nature of the 
Petitioner's accomplishments, but do not serve as first-hand evidence of acclaim and recognition 
beyond those who have worked with him. 
5 
Also, the letters contain descriptions of the Petitioner's contributions to particular projects, but do not 
show how the Petitioner's work has led to national or international acclaim in his field. For example, 
one of the Petitioner's collaborators asserted that the Petitioner helped to develop a telematics platform 
that "is pivotal for the transportation industry," but did not show that the system has been widely 
implemented and that the Petitioner's work on the platform has resulted in recognition beyond his 
employers and collaborators. 
Statements in such letters should be corroborated by documentary evidence in the record. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(3). Therefore, assertions regarding specific instances 
of impact on the field have little weight without corroborating evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We have reviewed the record in the aggregate, and it does not support a conclusion that the Petitioner 
has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown a degree of recognition of his work that 
indicates the required sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6