dismissed EB-1A Case: Traffic And Roadway Safety Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE:OCT 0 1 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
U.S. Department of 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 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion 
to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 
days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms 
for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not 
file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank yo~ 
~ · ~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on May 6, 2014. The petitioner, who is also the beneficiary, appealed the decision to the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on June 6, 2014. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According the petition and accompanying documents the petitioner filed on September 26, 2013, the 
petitioner 
seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as an engineering researcher in the 
field of traffic operations and roadway safety, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The director determined that the petitioner did 
not establish her 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 requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section § 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien, as 
initial evidence, can present 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)-(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least 
three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits an appellate statement without any additional supporting evidence. 
The petitioner asserts that the director erred in concluding she did not meet the original contributions 
of major significance criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The petitioner does 
not specifically challenge the director's adverse final merits determination. For the reasons discussed 
below, the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
Specifically, the petitioner has not met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) with relevant, probative evidence, and in the final merits determination, she has not 
demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who are at the very top of the field and has not 
demonstrated her sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
Accordingly, we dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. THE 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 whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and 
Naturalization 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. 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 recognition of his or her achievements in the fi~ld. Such acclaim must be established 
either through initial evidence of a one-time achievement, that is a major, internationally recognized 
award, or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of 
evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 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 our 
decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of the 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 about the significance of 
the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a 
subsequent "final merits determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our 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 did 
not 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)." Kazarian, 596 F.3d 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 case, the petitioner has not satisfied the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting at least three types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and has not demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who 
are at the very top in the field of endeavor, or that she has achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). 
1 Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those 
set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner , as initial evidence, may present evidence 
of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the petitioner 
has not asserted or shown through her evidence that she is the recipient of a major, internationally 
recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as initial evidence, the 
petitioner must present at least three of the ten types .of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Based on the petitioner 's receipt of the the director concluded that the 
petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record does not support this conclusion. We may 
deny an application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law even if 
the director does · not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. Dep 't of Justic e, 381 F.3d 143, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that 
we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petitioner has submitted evidence showing she received a number of awards , including the 2011 
from the of the 
The petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that this award constitutes a lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of traffic operations 
and roadway safety. The prestige of the alone is insufficient; at issue is whether 
the award itself is nationally or internationally recognized within the field. 
According to Ph.D., P.E., Senior Research Engineer, the petitioner was involved in 
the project and the paper from the project "received 
appreciation nationwide and won the prestigious award." Similarly, 
_, Ph.D., Director of Research, 
states that the is a "prestigious" award. Dr. Dr. and the 
petitioner, are coauthors of the article ' 
that won the 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted materials from the 
website and a January 2014 letter from Director of the Technical Activities 
Division , stating that the "is given annually to the outstanding paper 
published in the 
in the field of operation, safety, and maintenance of transportation facilities." Mr. 
2 The petitioner does not claim that she has satisfied the regul atory categories of evi·dence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
further states that "[ r ]esearchers/paper authors from across the world and all experience levels are 
considered for this award. After multiple rounds of peer-reviews, one paper is selected for this award." 
The primary evidence submitted to show the recognition of the petitioner's award is from individuals 
who received the award and from the entity that issued the award. Such self-promotional evidence has 
minimal evidentiary value. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO 10 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), 
aff'd, 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to rely on self-serving 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). 
Although the petitioner has also submitted other evidence relating to the reputation and prestige of the 
award, the remaining evidence does not establish that the award is a qualifying award under the 
criterion. Ph.D., P. Eng., Associate Professor and 
states that the 
is "prestigious," but does not provide specific information establishing his conclusion that the 
award is prestigious. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. United 
States Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The petitioner has submitted a 2012 article 
from published by the 
stating that the petitioner, Dr. and Dr. won the 
for their "work on crosswalk markings that is influencing national policy decisions." 
The institution that employs the authors of the article who won the award published this notice. The 
article does not provide details on the national policy decisions that the article has influenced. The 
petitioner has not supported the self-promotional evidence with more independent evidence, such as, 
but not limited to, independent journalistic coverage of the 2011 award in professional or nationally 
circulated publications. 
Moreover, the information provided in Mr. letter is not indicative that the 
is a qualifying award under the criterion. Although Mr. states that "[r]esearchers/paper 
authors from across the world and all experience levels are considered for this award," he does not 
provide information relating to approximately how many papers the considers for the award 
annually, or the selection criteria for the award. As such, the petitioner has submitted insufficient 
evidence showing that the is a qualifying award under the criterion. 
In the alternative, even assuming the petitioner had established that the IS 
qualifying, the petitioner has not met this criterion. The plain language of the criterion requires 
evidence of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards, in the plural, for excellence in 
the field of endeavor. This requirement is consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. As such, even if the is 
qualifying under this criterion, the record lacks evidence showing that the petitioner has received 
another qualifying award. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence showing that she has received other awards, including a 
from the and 
academic awards. The petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence relating to the nomination and 
selection process and criteria for these awards, evidence relating to the reputation or prestige of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
awards or the organizations that issued the awards, or evidence showing that the awards are for 
excellence in the field of traffic operations and roadway safety. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of her receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards (in the plural) for excellence in the field of endeavor. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence in the record supports the 
director's finding. Specifically, according to Assistant Professor of Civil and 
Environmental Engineering, the petitioner is "a regular technical paper reviewer 
for [the Operational Effects of Geometries Committee] and other committees" and "was 
invited to be one of the reviewers for a special session on the 
" Dr. states that the petitioner "has been a technical paper reviewer for 
the 
since 2009; reviewing about I 0 technical papers every year." According to a 
January 2014 letter from P.E., Engineer of Traffic and Operations, Senior Program 
Officer, the petitioner has reviewed a total of 20 submitted papers for their technical correctness 
and originality for the publication Accordingly, the petitioner 
has submitted evidence of her 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. The petitioner 
has met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the alien'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). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion. As supporting evidence, the petitioner 
points to a January 2014 letter from Dr. the petitioner's research projects, her published 
scholarly articles and other scientists' comments about her projects and articles. The evidence does not 
support the petitioner's assertions. 
First, the petitioner's research completed in collaboration with Dr. and Dr. does 
not meet this criterion, because the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that the 
impact of her research constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field, such that it 
fundamentally advanced or changed the field as a whole. The petitioner has submitted two letters from 
Dr. _ J who has collaborated with the petitioner on projects the petitioner claims constitute 
qualifying contributions. According to Dr. first letter, as a graduate research assistant, the 
petitioner worked on a project, which "resulted in 
changes to the traffic sign standards and regulations for the state of Texas." In addition, the petitioner 
has worked on three additional projects with Dr. First, the petitioner worked on a 
sponsored project "Crosswalk Marking Field Study." The petitioner's "findings on driver preference 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
of crosswalk markings were critical to the study and widely used by practitiOners nationwide ." 
Second, the petitioner was involved in a funded project and wrote papers on this project that 
"were selected for presentation at the January 2013 
through a rigorous and competitive peer review process." Third, the petitioner was involved in the 
project "Driver Workload at Higher Speeds ." According to Dr. "Methodology and 
findings from this study were presented at the meeting at Washington, D.C in 
January 2012. This work contributed to the decision to raise the speed limit in the state of Texas ." 
The petitioner has presented email correspondence with the verifying her invitation to participate 
and present at its annual meetings. 
Although Dr. L first letter, dated September 26, 2013, states that the petitioner has been 
involved in projects that have had some impact in the field of traffic operations and roadway safety 
through implementation in Texas, the letter does not indicate that the impact is indicative of original 
contributions of major significance in the field, such that these projects fundamentally advanced or 
changed the field as a whole. At best, the letter establishes (1) that the petitioner's research has value 
to her government clients who commissioned the projects on which she worked and (2) that conference 
organizers have found her research worth disseminating. According to the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), http:ijwww .bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/civil­
engineers.htm#tab-2, "Transportation engineers plan, design, operate, and maintain everyday 
systems, such as streets and highways, but they also plan larger projects, such as airports, ports, mass 
transit systems, and harbors." (Emphasis in original.) Commissioned designs and design standard 
recommendations are inherent to the occupation of transportation engineers and are not necessarily 
contributions of major significance in the field of transportation engineering. Regardless of the field, 
the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of 
an impact in the field as a whole, beyond one ' s employer and clients or customers . See Visinscaia v. 
Beers,_ F. Supp. 2d _, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 16, 2013) (upholding a finding that a 
ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a 
whole). Moreover, any research must be original and likely to present some benefit if it is accepted for 
publication or receives attention from the engineering community. In order for a university, publisher , 
or grantor to accept any research for graduation, publication, or funding, the research must offer new 
and useful information to the pool of general knowledge. Evidence that the petitioner has performed 
original research that added to the general pool of knowledge is insufficient to meet this criterion. 
Dr. states in her first letter that a set of research projects that included "( 
has "resulted in changes to the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 
which sets the standards for roadway markings and signs nationwide." Dr. does not specify 
the types of changes that were made in the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices or 
provide evidence that the changes constituted original contributions of major significance in the field 
as a whole. The petitioner did not provide copies of pages of the manual that credit her with any of the 
information in the manual or cite her work. 
In her second letter, dated January 3, 2014, Dr. states that the petitioner "is the rare traffic 
engineer who always thinks about all drivers, young and old, slow and fast, when designing 
roadways." At issue is not the strength of the petitioner's approach to research. Rather, at issue is the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
impact that the petitioner's research has had in the field as a whole. Dr. reiterates that the 
petitioner's "research work has resulted in changes to the traffic sign 
standards and regulations for 
Texas and Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices" and that the petitioner work has 
provided "key information" and "key insights" on areas relating to crosswalk markings, roadway signs, 
driver lane change behaviors and driver behavior on highways. According to Dr. who also 
collaborated with the petitioner and Dr. in the crosswalk marking project, the petitioner's 
papers "made a significant contribution to the current state of knowledge on the relative visibility of 
different crosswalk marking patterns" and that the petitioner's work "is a significant breakthrough as it 
provides guidance for practicing traffic engineers to make informed design decisions regarding 
crosswalk markings." Dr. states that the petitioner's work on driver comprehension of 
signing and marking practices for complex interchanges "provides significant guidance for designers 
and practicing traffic engineers to make informed design decisions," but provides no examples of 
designers who have relied on that guidance. The letters from Dr. and Dr. indicate 
that the petitioner's research and paper have contributed to certain limited aspects of the field of traffic 
operations and roadway safety, including crosswalk marking, roadways signs and driver behavior, but 
they are insufficient to show that the petitioner's work has had an impact consistent with contributions 
of major significance in the field, such that the petitioner's work fundamentally changed or affected the 
field as a whole. The petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence showing that there has been wide 
acceptance and adoption, beyond a limited regional area, of the guidelines she proposed in her 
research. 
Second, the evidence in the record relating to the petitioner's research completed in collaboration with 
Ph.D., P.E., Senior Research Engineer, does not meet this 
criterion. Dr. has submitted two letters in support of the petition. According to Dr. 
who collaborated with the petitioner in the " 
project that studied the use of concrete barriers in work zones, the petitioner was a lead researcher on 
the project. The project "identified a method for DOTs [departments of transportation] to become 
compliant with 2008 rulemaking pertaining to work zone traffic control." In Dr. second 
letter, he states that the petitioner's paper "I 
of which Dr. is a coauthor, is "of major 
significance as it provides guidance for designers and practicing traffic engineers across the nation for 
design of efficient and safe work zones." According to Dr. guidance developed through the 
petitioner's " - · 
" "helps state transportation agencies in becoming compliant with the Federal 
Highway Administration's 2008 rulemaking pertaining to work zone traffic control" and "this 
guidance is an indispensable tool for transportation engineers across the nation in designing efficient 
and safe work zones." The evidence shows that the has relied on the petitioner's work on 
issues involving placing barriers in work zones. Dr. states that the 
Department has shown interest in sponsoring a similar barrier in work zone projects. The evidence 
shows that the petitioner's work has value in the field and has been implemented and adopted in a 
limited geographic area. It does not, however, show that her work has impacted the field as a whole. 
In addition, although the petitioner's research in the area of barriers in work zones has provided 
"guidance" to working and practicing engineers and scientists in the field, the petitioner has not shown 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
that her "guidance" has been widely 
accepted and/or implemented in the field beyond the state agency 
for which she performed the study and, potentially, one other state. 
The petitioner has submitted an email from the verifying the invitation for her to 
participate in the in January 2012 as a presenter of' 
The petitioner 
has also submitted evidence an invitation for her to present her work at the 
of India. Being invited to be a presenter at a conference shows that the 
scientific community considers the petitioner's work to have value. At issue is the impact of the 
petitioner's work in the field of traffic operations and roadway safety after the dissemination of her 
research findings. The record lacks evidence that the petitioner's work in the area of placing barriers 
in work zones has been widely adopted in departments of transportation in any country after the 
meeting or the conference in India. In her appellate statement, the petitioner quoted two engineers, one 
states that the petitioner's paper "might assist him in answering questions" and the other states that he 
appreciated the petitioner's work and presentation. The petitioner also points to a online 
printout relating to comments individuals made about the petitioner's study. This evidence, at best, 
shows a handful of scientists have taken notice of the petitioner's work. It does not establish an impact 
in the field of traffic operations and roadway safety as a whole. 
Third, the petitioner's work involving sign retroreflectivity and tribal area vehicle crash issues does not 
establish she meets this criterion. According to , Safety Discipline Champion for the 
the petitioner's work on sign retroreflectivity in tribal communities 
resulted in a presentation "at the in Washington, DC in January 2013, 
which was highly appreciated by many tribal representatives present." Mr. also states that the 
petitioner's work "provided a synthesis of available research reports and fact sheets on the topic [of 
tribal motor vehicle crash trends and causative factors] and summarized the current and research status 
of transportation safety in tribal communities, along with gaps in available data and research needs to 
further understand and address tribal transportation safety issues." The petitioner has submitted 
insufficient evidence showing that her work relating to sign retroreflectivity and tribal area vehicle 
crash issues has impacted the field as a whole. At best, the evidence shows that the petitioner's work 
was appreciated by individuals and tribal communities associated with the studies. To meet this 
criterion, the petitioner must show impact in the field as a whole, beyond those who sponsored or are 
associated with the study. See Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6. 
Fourth, the evidence that shows the petitioner's research has added to the general pool of knowledge in 
the field and her research findings have been adopted and implemented in a limited geographical 
region is insufficient to meet this criterion. The level of impact of the petitioner's work is not 
consistent with contributions of major significance in the field, as required under the criterion. Dr. 
indicates that the petitioner has contributed to the general pool of knowledge, stating that the 
petitioner's Master's thesis "provided an understanding of the factors affecting the safety performance 
of exclusive truck facilities .... " P.E., Research Project Manager, indicates that 
the petitioner's impact is limited to Texas. Mr. states that the petitioner's work relating to 
guidance on work zone conditions and positive protection devices that "is currently being incorporated 
into work zone standards for use on roadway construction projects in Texas" and that the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
"identified characteristics of pedestrian crashes in Texas and identified potential safety treatments or 
combinations of treatments that would reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries." Mr. also states 
that the petitioner has conducted a research project that "led to the development of a reliable speed 
prediction model ," which "is particularly 
crucial in the design of roadway facilities with proposed 
operating speeds of 75 miles per hour and greater." Mr. however, does not specify which or 
how many scientists in the field have used or relied on the petitioner's prediction model. A description 
of the petitioner's work without evidence also showing the work's impact in the field as a whole is not 
sufficient to meet this criterion. See Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6. 
Fifth, the petitioner has submitted reference letters stating that she has the potential to make 
contributions in the field. Evidence of potential contributions is not sufficient to meet this criterion, 
which requires contributions already at existence at the time the petitioner filed her petition. 
According to Dr. the petitioner "will be an asset to the academic community in the United 
States." According to Dr. the petitioner "is a key researcher on (a] ... project that will provide 
critical information on safety impacts of various work zone design decisions and guidance on potenti al 
crash countermeasures." According to B.E. (civil), M.E., Ph.D., Associate Professor, 
in India, he "could see that [the petitioner's] work had the potential to add value to 
[his] own work in India" and he worked with the petitioner on a proposal for projects that ultimately 
did not receive funding. Dr. states that the petitioner "will prove to be an asset to this country." 
Dr. states that the "benefit-cost implementation guidance on positive protection use and other 
traffic control strategies , developed through this study will help decrease the likelihood of highway 
work zone fatalities and injuries to workers and road users." Mr. asserts that the petitioner ' s 
work on traffic safety issues in tribal communities "will help stakeholders in establishing a baseline for 
their efforts towards tribal transportation safety ." Research studies that have the potential to be 
contributions of major significance, however, are not sufficient to meet this criterion. The petitioner 
must establish an impact in the field as a whole through evidence such as wide acceptance and 
adoption of her guidelines and research findings. 
Vague, solicited letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field as a whole are insufficient. 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 {9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115? The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, 
in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec . 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. /d. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may, as this decision has done above, 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 evidence as to "fact"). USCIS may 
even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in 
3 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that " letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language ." 596 F.3d 
at 1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
any way questionable. !d. at 795; see also 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 Comm'r 1972)); 
Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *6 (upholding our decision to give minimal weight to vague, 
solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions of major 
significance in the field). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that she has made original 
scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the 
field. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. The evidence of record, including the 
petitioner's authorship of articles published in the Transportation Research Record, supports the 
director's determination. The petitioner has met this criterion. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
On appeal, the petltwner does not specifically challenge the director's adverse final merits 
determination. Instead, the petitioner only challenges the director's finding that she did not meet the 
contributions criterion under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Accordingly, we dismiss the 
appeal, as the petitioner did not timely challenge the adverse final merits determination, which is the 
sole basis of the director's denial of the petition. Sepulveda v. United States Att'y 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 United States District Court found the plaintiffs claims to be 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). 
Even if the petitioner did not abandon this issue, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence 
under at least three evidentiary categories. Although the petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence 
regarding her participation as a judge under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and her 
scholarly articles under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the petitioner meets no other 
criterion. Notwithstanding this finding, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, given that the 
director's sole basis of denial was a final merits determination, we will also conduct 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 [she] is one of [a] small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that she "has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that [] her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 
203(b )(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. For the 
reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we dismiss her 
appeal. 
The petitioner received her Master of Science (MS) degree in civil engineering in 2007 and, according 
to a December 16, 2013 letter from Senior Human Resources Manager at 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
was employed as an Assistant Research Engineer in the Roadway Design Program of the 
Transportation Operations Group at The evidence shows that during her years as a student and 
after she received her MS degree, she worked on a number of projects in Texas relating to certain 
aspects of the larger field of traffic operations and roadway safety, including crosswalk marking, road 
signs and driver behavior. She has authored a handful of scholarly articles that are published in 
and presented her work at conferences. The petitioner has provided a 
document indicating that her articles have garnered a few citations since their publication. The 
awarded one of the petitioner's articles the For the reasons discussed 
below, these achievements, while consistent with a skilled and successful engineering researcher in the 
field of traffic operations and roadway safety, are insufficient to establish national or international 
acclaim and do not place her within that small percentage at the top of the field. 
With regard to the prizes or awards for excellence criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), as discussed above, the petitioner has not met this criterion. See section 203(b)(1)(A) 
of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Specifically, the 
evidence in the record is insufficient to show the petitioner's is a qualifying 
award under the criterion. In addition, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of her receipt of 
qualifying prizes or awards, in the plural, as required by the plain language of the criterion. 
Furthermore, the record includes insufficient information on the impact of the article that received the 
award, as the petitioner has provided information that the article has been cited merely a handful of 
times. 
With regard to the participation as a judge criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), although the 
petitioner meets this criterion, she has not shown that this evidence is indicative of national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. The nature of the beneficiary's judging experience is a relevant 
consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative of national or international acclaim. 
See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. The evidence, including the petitioner's curriculum vitae, shows that the 
petitioner has been a reviewer for one publication, _ According to Mr. 
"has a stringent selection process for its referees. [The 
petitioner] has been chosen to be a reviewer because of her superior expertise in the area of traffic control, 
visibility, pedestrian, and roadway geometric design." The petitioner has not submitted detailed 
information relating to how one becomes a reviewer for or how selective 
the publication is when choosing its reviewers. The record also lacks information relating to how many 
other scientists have been invited to serve as reviewers for the publication, such that her invitation is 
indicative of her national or international claim. 
In addition, the petitioner's review experience does not match that of some of her references. 
According to Dr. he has been "an active reviewer for more than 15 internationally recognized 
journals, including 
just to name a few." Moreover, he has served as a reviewer of proposals for 2restigious organizations, 
including the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
He also served on the special Task Force to review the Highway Safety 
Manual. In comparison, the petitioner has served as a reviewer for one publication. 
With regard to the original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), as discussed above, the petitioner has not met this criterion. See section 203(b )(1)(A) 
of the Act; 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. The solicited letters 
from the petitioner's colleagues do not demonstrate that the petitioner has already made contributions 
of major significance in the field of traffic operations and roadway safety. Although the evidence 
shows that the petitioner's work has been accepted and adopted in a limited regional area 
commensurate with a competent transportation engineer working on commissioned projects, the 
evidence does not establish that her work's impact in the field as a whole is significant, such that it 
fundamentally advanced or changed the field as a whole. 
In addition, even if the petitioner has met this criterion, she has not shown her sustained national or 
international acclaim in the field. The petitioner's articles have garnered minimal citation from other 
scientists and the record lacks evidence that her findings and conclusions have received wide 
acceptance or adoption in the field. Many of her references indicate that her work has provided 
guidance to working and practicing traffic engineers in the field, but the record lacks evidence relating 
to how many working and practicing traffic engineers have relied on her guidance or evidence showing 
that there is general consensus among working and practicing traffic engineers of the value and 
applicability of the petitioner's work. Ultimately, the evidence of contributions is not indicative of the 
petitioner's national or international acclaim or status at the top of the field. At most, the petitioner has 
shown that her work has contributed to the general pool of knowledge in the field and has been 
accepted and adopted in a limited geographic area, primarily the state that commissioned the studies on 
which she worked. 
With regard to the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), as 
discussed above, the petitioner has presented evidence of her papers being published in the 
and she has presented her work at conferences. According to Dr. 
"[p]apers are selected for presentation through a rigorous peer review process resulting in 
roughly 40% of papers submitted being accepted for presentation, then a second review process results 
in 25% of presented papers being selected for publication." Pursuant to the reasoning in Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122, the field's response to these articles may be considered in a final merits 
determination. The petitioner has submitted a document noting that her articles have received minimal 
citations from other scientists. This citation frequency is not indicative of a significant impact of the 
petitioner's articles upon dissemination. For example, Dr. indicates that he has authored more 
than 120 articles and that his work has garnered more than 2, 700 citations, indicating that the 
petitioner's publication record is not indicative of national or international acclaim or status among the 
small percentage at the very top of the field. The small number of articles and minimal citation of the 
petitioner's work is not indicative of a publication history consistent with national or international 
acclaim. 
Ultimately, the record does not support the petitioner's claim that she is an alien of extraordinary 
ability in the field of traffic operations and roadway safety. Even considered in the aggregate, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor. In support of the petition, the petitioner, an assistant research engineer, has provided 
evidence relating to her receipt of a J involvement in projects that have received 
attention from the field and regional adoption, participation as a reviewer for a professional publication, 
participation in committees and her limited publication record that has garnered minimal citations. 
This evidence is insufficient to show that the petitioner is at the very top of her field. 
II. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary 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. 
A review of the evidence in the aggregate does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished 
herself to such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not 
persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at 
a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established her eligibility pursuant to 
section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
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 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.