dismissed EB-1A Case: Transportation Analysis

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
P~LIC COPY 
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: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 53(b)(l)(A). The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and resubmits previously submitted evidence relating to citation of 
the petitioner's work. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the petitioner has not established 
that he meets any of the regulatory criteria. While the director appears to have concluded that the 
petitioner meets two of those criteria (three of which are required for eligibility), the record does not 
support that conclusion. While we do not lightly reverse favorable findings by the director, the AAO 
maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On appeal 
from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in making 
the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. US. 
Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de novo authority has 
been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 
1989). Thus, the AAO is not bound to give deference to the director's decision. Black's Law 
Dictionary 725 (7th ed. 1999). Our conclusion that the petitioner has not established eligibility for 
the classification sought is based on a review of the evidence under the regulatory criteria and a 
review of the evidence in the aggregate. 
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, 
(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. 
Page 3 
U.S. 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 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (Nov. 29, 
1991). As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 5 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that 
an alien has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise 
are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. 
It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as a senior 
transportation, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Analyst. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
$204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award). Barring the 
alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be 
satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in thejield of endeavor. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner had been continuously recognized for his expertise 
"through academic awards." Counsel listed a dissertation completion award, a travel fund award, a 
student paper award, scholarships and student fellowships. The director's request for additional 
evidence advised that prizes or awards restricted to students could not serve to meet this criterion. In 
response, counsel stated: "Though not national in nature, [the petitioner] meets other criteria necessary 
to qualify for classification as an 'extraordinary alien."' Thus, the director concluded that the petitioner 
had acknowledged that his awards were not nationally or internationally recognized and, thus, could not 
serve to meet this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel reiterates previous assertions and concludes: "The honors bestowed on [the 
petitioner] reflect the regard in which his expertise and his dedication to the field with respect to 
continuing to contribute his extraordinary ability to the U.S." 
It is not clear from counsel's assertions on appeal whether she is still asserting that the petitioner meets 
this criterion. We concur with the director, however, that the academic recognition received by the 
petitioner cannot serve to meet this criterion. Experienced experts in the field are not seeking student 
awards or scholarships. Thus, such awards cannot establish that the petitioner is one of the very few 
at the top of his field. 
1 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien S membership in associations in the field for which classiJication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner is a member of "prestigious organizations." The petitioner 
submitted evidence that he is an associate member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the 
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The petitioner did not submit the requirements for 
associate membership in either association. In response to the director's request for additional 
evidence, counsel asserts that the petitioner is a member of professional organizations that require 
outstanding achievement in the field. Counsel references a letter from the petitioner's former Ph.D. 
advisor at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, -1 
asserts that the petitioner has been a member of the Simulation Modeling 
Subcommittee of the National Academies Transportation Research Board's (TRB) Committee on 
Freeway Operations since 2005. - asserts that membership "is 'limited only to 
recognized researchers who have an established record of research achievements in fieeway simulation 
modeling." 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Chair of the Simulations Subcommittee 
of the TRB, confirming the petitioner's membership on that subcommittee. asserts that 
membership "is offered to those experts who have established a superb track record of research 
achievements and have been well recognized by their peers in the field of traffic signal operations and 
simulations." further asserts that TRB committees "depend on the members' voluntary 
efforts." 
Finally, , in a March 18,2008 letter addressed to the petitioner, advises the petitioner that 
he has been approved for membership on the Transportation & Development Institute's (T&DI) 
Transportation Safety Committee and thanks the petitioner "for volunteering to be a part of this 
committee." 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established the official membership requirements of 
the above committees and subcommittees and noted that the petitioner was not a member of the T&DI 
committee as of the date of filing. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in rejecting the 
testimony of, who is independent of the petitioner. 
First, we concur with the director that the petitioner's membership on the T&DI committee cannot be 
considered because it postdates the filing of the petition. The petitioner must establish his eligibility as 
of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1971). 
Regardless of whether 
 is independent of the petitioner, his broad assertion that members must 
demonstrate a "superb track record of research achievements" is insufficient. First, a subcommittee is 
not an association. Thus, subcommittee "membership" by someone volunteering their services to the 
subcommittee cannot serve to meet the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Moreover, the petitioner has not provided the official bylaws of the TRB establishing 
the minimum requirements for subcommittee membership. Finally, the petitioner has not established 
that recognized national or international experts judge applications or nominations for membership. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedjeld of speciJication for which classlJication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts for TRB annual meetings and the 
Journal of Transportation Systems. The petitioner also reviewed manuscripts for the Journal of 
Inpastructure Systems while still a doctoral student as verified by an assistant professor at the 
University of Hawaii at Manoa. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, , Chair of the TRB 
Traffic Signals Committee, notes the importance of volunteer peer reviewers. #- 
Managing Editor of the Journal of Transportation Systems, asserts that the editors "only invite a few 
researchers who have outstanding research reputation and superb history of research publications in 
their specific field to review the manuscripts submitted for potential publication." The petitioner, 
however, did not perform any reviews for ths journal until May 2007, after the petition was filed. 
Finally, Paper Review Chair for the TRB Highway Capacity and Quality of Service 
Committee, asserts that peer reviewers for the committee are "limited solely to those experts who have 
established a superb track record of research achievements." 
As stated above, the petitioner served on TSB subcommittees, but the letters attesting to these 
"memberships" do not reference any duties involving judging the work of others. 
The director appears to have concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion. On appeal, counsel 
merely asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion. We find that the record does not support the 
director's conclusion. 
Regarding the petitioner's review for the Journal of Transportation Systems, these reviews postdate the 
filing of the petition and cannot be considered evidence of the petitioner's eligibility as of that date. See 
8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Regarding the remaining manuscript reviews, we cannot ignore that scientific journals are peer 
reviewed and rely on many scientists to review submitted manuscripts. Thus, peer review is routine in 
Page 6 
the field and is not necessarily indicative of or uniquely consistent with national or international 
acclaim. While we do not question the sincerity of the petitioner's references, the record lacks evidence 
that TSB or the Journal of Inzastructure Systems boast a small elite group of peer reviewers, such as 
evidence that the reviewers are credited by name in the journals or other official materials. Without 
evidence that sets the petitioner apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has reviewed an 
unusually large number of manuscripts as of the date of filing, received independent requests from a 
substantial number of journals, or served in an editorial position for a distinguished journal, we cannot 
conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientiJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signijkance in the jeld. 
The petitioner submitted published articles, presentations, citations and reference letters as evidence to 
meet this criterion. Once again, the director appears to have concluded that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel reiterates the assertions made in the reference letters. For the reasons 
discussed below, the record does not support a finding that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Specifically, as will be explained below, the most influential aspect of his work has been his data sets, 
which, while utilized by others, have not been shown to be more influential than other data sets in the 
field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. To be considered a contribution of major 
significance in the field of civil engineering, it can be expected that the algorithms and modules 
would have already been reproduced and confirmed by other experts and applied in their work. 
Utilization of data sets, in the absence of evidence demonstrating the data sets were obtained with 
innovative and influential means and utilized to a far greater extent than other data sets available to 
the public, is insufficient. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner has authored articles and presented his work at seminars. 
Authorship of scholarly articles is a separate criterion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Thus, 
authorship of scholarly articles cannot serve as presumptive evidence to meet this criterion if the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence and the regulatory requirement that an alien meet at 
least three criteria are to have any meaning. The petitioner submitted a self-serving list of articles 
that cite his work. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r 1972)). Regardless, this list of citations reveals that several of the citations are self-citations 
by the petitioner or his coauthor. While self-citation is a normal and expected process, it cannot 
demonstrate the petitioner's influence beyond his own circle of collaborators. The most independent 
citations for any one article by the petitioner are four. As noted by the director, the petitioner provided 
these independent articles, which all cite the petitioner's survey results indicating that drivers claim to 
Page 7 
slow down when driving in the rain. While the director asserted that these results are intuitive, we 
acknowledge that there are times when research may be required to confirm expectations. Regardless, 
this number of citations is not indicative of or consistent with a contribution of major significance. 
As stated above, the petitioner also submitted several reference letters. The opinions of experts in the 
field, while not without weight, cannot form the cornerstone of a successful claim of sustained 
national or international acclaim. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements 
submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 
1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as 
to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even give less weight to 
an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. 
Id at 795; see also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
Calfornia, 14 I&N Dec. at 190. 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are the most persuasive. Ultimately, evidence in 
existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries greater weight than new materials prepared 
especially for submission with the petition. An individual with sustained national or international 
acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited materials reflecting that acclaim. 
The petitioner received his Ph.D. from the University of Hawaii at Manoa in 2004. Subsequently, the 
petitioner began working for Cambridge Systematics, Inc. in California. 
the petitioner's Ph.D. advisor, praises the petitioner's ability as a researcher and his 
academic excellence. 
 More specifically, asserts that the petitioner's survey of 
motorists regarding traffic signals made the front page of the Honolulu Advertiser. According to Dr. 
the petitioner used this data to develop three novel methods to evaluate signalized 
intersections. 
 asserts that the petitioner published this work and that these methods 
have had "direct impacts on improving the efficiency of allocating limited funds and valuable resources 
to developing and improving traffic signal systems and other transportation facilities." 
does not identify a single agency that utilizes the petitioner's methods in allocating funds. 
work will have a significant impact on the state-of-practice in this area. Similarly, 
I 
, another member of the petitioner's Ph.D. dissertation committee, merely s eculates that this 
I) 
another member of the petitioner's Ph.D. dissertation committee, predicts that this work will help 
transform this area of research into a motorist-driven discipline. A contribution of major significance 
should already demonstrate such an impact. 
In addition, asserts that the petitioner developed an algorithm that can predict travel 
time, an important statistic for metropolitan areas in diverting traffic to un-congested roadways. 
While the petitioner received a regional best student paper award for this work, 
not identify a single metropolitan jurisdiction using this algorithm. Similarly, praises does 
an intelligent traffic control algorithm "proposed" by the petitioner, but fails to identify a jurisdiction 
using this algorithm. 
 asserts that the petitioner, as a research 
simulation results and recommendations to the Hawaii Department of Transportation. 
does not, however, explain how this work rises above merely fulfilling the job duties inherent to the 
petitioner's occupation at a level that can be said to be indicative of a contribution of major 
significance. 
also discusses the petitioner's survey on protected left-turn phasing, but states that this 
work had yet to be published. Thus, its impact was as of yet unknown. 
, Vice President of Cambridge Systematics, asserts that he is the principal 
investigator for the Next Generation Simulation (NGSIM) program funded by the U.S. Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA). - explains that the petitioner is "a7' lead researcher for 
this program, for which the petitioner has "successfully collected more than 10,000,000 vehicle 
trajectory data points using an innovative method to track vehicle movements in recorded videos." Dr. 
I asserts that no one had previously been able to collect this data and that the data had proved 
"an invaluable asset for national and international transportation research and development of traffic 
simulation tools." 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a self-serving chart 
listing the number of downloads for his data sets. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of 
SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). The 
petitioner did, however, also submit 16 electronic mail requests for data sets. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted letters from independent sources world wide attesting to their use of the petitioner's data sets. 
asserts that based on the petitioner's data set, he "successllly developed an oversaturated freeway flow 
algorithm." , Director of the Institute for Highway Engineering and Transport 
Planning at Graz University of Technology in Austria, asserts that he has utilized the petitioner's 
NGSIM data sets for his own research 
 successfully developing two published papers based 
on the research. -:.a former research associate at the Massachusetts Institutes of 
Technology (MIT), asserts that he and collaborators at MIT are using the petitioner's data set to 
develop "traffic flow, operations, and simulation models." , a professor at Technical 
University of Catalonia in Spain (a stakeholder of the NGSIM research project), asserts that he has used 
the petitioner's data set to "develop traffic flow, operations, and simulation models." 
Page 9 
The above letters are notable. Without evidence regarding how many data sets are publicly available 
and how the utilization of the petitioner's data sets compares with other publicly available data sets, 
however, we cannot conclude that the data sets alone constitute a contribution of major significance. 
Far more persuasive would be evidence that the petitioner's methodology in collecting or utilizing this 
data has proven influential. We acknowledge that the petitioner is one of five coauthors of a user's 
manual for the data collection device. The manual is "disseminated by FHWA "in the interest of 
information exchange." A notice in the manual advises that the U.S. government "assumes no liability 
for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, 
specification or regulation. The U.S. Government does not endorse products of manufacturers." The 
record lacks evidence that the petitioner developed this technology or that the manual is widely used. 
While 
 asserts that the petitioner was also working on other algorithms, such as lane- 
changing and vehicle pre-position models, 
 does not assert that the petitioner completed 
these algorithms or that they have been widely adopted. Similarly, asserts that the 
petitioner has worked on guidelines for work zones sponsored by FHWA, but does not suggest that 
FHWA has already adopted these guidelines. 
asserts that the petitioner developed an innovative adaptive traffic signal control algorithm, 
known as the fuzzy logic controller, but does not provide examples of the algorithm being applied by 
any jurisdiction. Similarly, asserts that the petitioner contributed to a new microscopic 
simulator but does not provide any examples of its adoption. 
Clearly, the petitioner's work has value. According to the Department of Labor's Occupational 
Outlook Handbook, available at http://www.bls.~ov/oco/ocos027.htm (accessed June 25, 2009 and 
incorporated into the record of proceeding), however, it is inherent to the occupation of engineer to use 
science and math to develop economical solutions to technical problems and to simulate how systems 
operate. Thus, not every civil engineer who develops a simulation algorithm or proposes a solution to a 
traffic problem has made a contribution of major significance that sets him apart fiom other civil 
engineers. Without evidence of widespread application of the petitioner's engineering contributions or 
evidence that sets his data sets apart fiom other publicly available data sets, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted published articles in Transportation Research Record and the Journal of 
Transportation Engineering. He also submitted an NG-Video User's Manual and a FHWA report 
listing the petitioner as a coauthor. A notice in the manual states that it is being "disseminated" by 
FHWA. The record also contains several manuscripts, some of which were accepted for presentation at 
TRB annual meetings. Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence of his conference presentations. 
According to the evidence submitted in response to the director's request for additional evidence, none 
of the petitioner's articles have been cited more than four times by independent research teams. The 
director concluded that the petitioner's publication record was not indicative of or consistent with 
national or international acclaim and, thus, could not serve to meet this criterion. 
On appeal, counsel notes that the petitioner's data sets have been widely downloaded. The petitioner's 
data sets, however, are not scholarly articles but collections of data. 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that the publication of articles alone sets him apart from other civil 
engineers. ASCE alone publishes 31 civil engineering journals, described as the medium through 
which civil engineers exchange technical and professional knowledge. See 
http://pubs.asce.or~/iournals/ (accessed June 25, 2009 and incorporated into the record of 
proceeding). Without additional evidence that sets the petitioner's publication record apart from 
others in the field, such as evidence that his articles are widely and frequently cited, we cannot 
conclude that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
While not addressing this criterion specifically, counsel stated in her conclusion that the petitioner 
"plays a vital and leading role in his ongoing work, and experts regard him as a leader in ongoing and 
prospective research." 
At issue for this criterion are the role the petitioner was hired or selected to fill and the reputation of the 
organization or establishment that hired or selected him. In other words, selection for the role in and of 
itself should be indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim. Counsel does not 
identify the organization or establishment for which the petitioner has performed a leading or critical 
role or the title of the role itself. - Human Resources Manager for Cambridge 
Systematics, confirms that the petitioner is a "Senior Professional" there. The record, however, does 
not include an organizational chart or other evidence that would allow us to determine whether this role 
is leading or critical for the organization beyond the company's obvious need to employ competent 
senior professionals. Previously, the petitioner worked as a research and teaching assistant. The record 
does not reflect that the petitioner has been hired or selected for a role that is leading or critical for an 
entire organization or establishment that enjoys a nationally distinguished reputation. 
Even in the aggregate, the evidence does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner relies on his academic 
recognition, associate and subcommittee memberships, manuscript reviews, collection of original data, 
- 
and publications. All of the petitioner's references who submit curriculum vitae list an extensive 
publication record. Moreover, is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering. 
- an associate professor at the University of Hawaii who supports the petition, 
has reviewed research proposals for the National Science Foundation. - is an editor for two 
ASCE journals. is the founder and Scientific Director of a Barcelona-based company that 
designs and develops cutting-edge traffic computer simulation software. He has also served as principal 
Page 11 
investigator for projects funded by both the Spanish government and the European Union. Thus, the 
top of the petitioner's field seems far higher than the level he has attained. 
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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a senior 
transportation/ITS analyst to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a senior transportation1ITS analyst, but is not persuasive that 
the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 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. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.