dismissed EB-1A Case: Transportation Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JUN 2 0 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigra tion Services 
Adminis trative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts 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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please fmd the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the 
documents related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please 
be advised that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen 
in accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F .R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, 
Texas Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an 
alien of extraordinary ability in the sciences. The director determined that the petitioner had not 
met the requisite criteria 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" ofthe alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe 
Act and 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that 
an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through 
(x). The petitioner must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory 
categories of evidence to establish the basic eligibility requirements. The director determined that 
the petitioner's evidence had met the categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner meets the regulatory category of evidence at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). For the reasons discussed below, the AAO will uphold the director's decision. 
I. 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, 
(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. 
(b)(6)
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 H.R. 723 101 st 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. Id.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the pehtwner demonstrate the alien's 
sustained acclaim and 
the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be 
established either through 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 at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030 (91h Cir. 2009) aff'd in 
part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the 
petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 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 users 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." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's 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 failed to 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)." !d. 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 matter, the AAO will review the 
evidence under the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner 
has failed to satisfy the regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. I d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
This petition, filed on November 30, 2012, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with 
extraordinary ability as a transportation engineer. The petitioner earned his Doctor of 
Engineering degree in Civil Engineering from in 2008. At the time of 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO 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 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page4 
filing the petition, the petitioner was working as a Transportation Engineer IV with the Traffic 
Design Engineering Division, 
. The petitioner has submitted 
documentation pertaining to the following categories of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)? 
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. 
The petitioner submitted evidence demonstrating that he peer-reviewed manuscriQtS for 
, the 
, and the -
- The petitioner also submitted documentation showing that he 
served as a Session Chair for at the 
. In addition, the petitioner submitted evidence 
indicating that he served as a Session Chair for at the 
and that he was a reviewer for the 
. Accordingly, the AAO affirms the director's finding that the petitioner's 
evidence meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the.field. 
The director's decision determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this 
regulatory criterion. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires 
"[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field." [Emphasis added.] Here, the evidence must be 
reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original scientific or scholarly-related 
contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 
2003). 
The petitioner submitted various letters of support discussing his work. 
, Professor and Founding Director, 
, states: 
I have known [the petitioner's] research since 2005, when he joined 
to pursue Doctor of Engineering degree and I was his advisor. 
2 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] research work in highway alignment design resulted in development of 
one of the currently available world's best methods of evaluating and designing highway 
alignments. He developed the multi-object optimization technique and implemented in 
the highway alignment design, which provides option of separating different highway 
design objectives such as environmental impact, economic impact, social impact, etc. 
while the alignment is being optimized. It is also one of the unique optimization methods, 
where objective values are discrete and not mathematically related to the decision 
variables. [The petitioner's] state-of-the-art method provides planners, designers and 
decision makers a powerful tool to generate highway alignment alternatives, compare the 
generated alternatives and choose one based on project requirement. The available 
highway alignment design methods developed by others do not have such capability and 
require considerable amount of time and effort to obtain few workable alternatives .... 
[The petitioner's] original research and findings have been published in prestigious 
international journals, such as 
, and 
------
While asserts that the petitioner "developed the multi-object optimization technique" and 
that it is "one of the currently available world's best methods of evaluating and designing 
highway alignments," he does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's technique 
has been widely implemented as a design tool for highways or that it otherwise equates to a 
scientific contribution of major significance in the field. In addition, states that the 
petitioner has published his original research and findings in prestigious journals, but there is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's specific work rises to the level of original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
further states: 
In the field of traffic operations, [the petitioner] has greatly contributed to the 
development of methods analyzing unconventional intersection and interchange design .... 
[The petitioner] developed a comprehensive method that provides massive opportunity to 
transportation planners in evaluating unconventional intersections and interchanges such 
as jughandle, quadrant, superstreet intersections, and diverging diamond, single point 
urban interchanges. . . . This method does not require expensive software, great deal of 
expertise in using the software, and detail understanding of the traffic operations. [The 
petitioner's] findings have been adopted and implemented by the greater scientific 
community in the field. For instance, the has 
adopted the tool developed by [the petitioner]. The 
is developing a Java based computer program 
implementing the methodology developed by [the petitioner]. Also, [the petitioner's] 
research on unconventional intersection and interchange analysis have been presented at 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
the 
and 
organized by He 
has co-authored a couple of papers in this subject, such as 
comments that the petitioner developed a method that assists transportation planners in 
evaluating unconventional intersections and interchanges such as 
~ _ and , single point urban interchanges, but 
fails to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's method is being utilized at a level 
indicative of a scientific contribution of major significance in the field. While the petitioner's 
employer, the adopted the 
developed by the petitioner, there is no evidence demonstrating that the tool was of major 
significance in the field as a whole. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's contributions be "of major significance in the field" 
rather than limited to his employer or its collaborative projects. In addition, while 
states that the petitioner has published and presented his research, there is no evidence showing 
that the petitioner's findings in the field of traffic operations were frequently cited by 
independent researchers or that they otherwise constitute contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
continues: 
[The petitioner's] another major prolific area of research is highway infrastructure 
maintenance. He has developed a 
which can analyze multiple type of infrastructure elements and come up with a 
maintenance schedule that meets the fiscal budget constraint and improves service life of 
the elements. 
comments that the petitioner "developed a 
" but does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's model has been 
extensively utilized by engineers for highway infrastructure maintenance projects or that it was 
otherwise of major significance in the field. 
, Professor, 
, states: ----------------------------~' 111111 
As the first author, [the petitioner] published his pronounced research achievement on 
highway alignment ·design in the 
As the Editor-in-Chief of I can testify to the 
quality of [the petitioner's] paper and its influence on the field. The method proposed in 
this paper enhances the existing highway alignment optimization technique and makes it 
more versatile in using the available connectivity information of the start and end points 
of the proposed optimized highway alignment. It is also an outstanding tool to find the 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
highway alignment of a bypass to avoid traffic congestion in downtown city areas. 
Because [the petitioner] included a traffic assignment model in this methodology, the 
developed model has provided a better view of the traffic flow in the new alignment as 
well as in the existing highway network. This has substantially contributed to our 
research effort to help traffic engineers during the alignment design process, to design 
traffic control systems most appropriate and efficient for the new highway. [The 
petitioner's] paper has been selected to be included in a new book titled ' 
," a volume to the 
book series to be released in 
publisher's 2013 copyright year. 
comments on the petitioner's work that was published in but the petitioner 
failed to submit citation evidence demonstrating that his article was frequently cited by 
independent researchers or that it was otherwise of major significance in the field. The 
petitioner's field, like most science, is research-driven, and there would be little point in 
publishing research that did not add to the general pool of knowledge in the field. In addition, 
there is no evidence showing that the highway alignment methodology proposed by the 
petitioner has been utilized by traffic engineers throughout the field at a level indicative of a 
contribution of major significance. also states that the petitioner's paper has been 
selected to be included in a new book entitled 
''that is "to be released in publisher's 2013 copyright year." 
Thus, any impact resulting from the publication of this book post-dates the filing of the petition. 
Eligibility must be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm 'r 1971 ). A petition cannot be approved at 
a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi , 22 
I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 
18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only 
subsequent to the filing of a petition." I d. at 176. 
further states: 
[The petitioner] has created marvelous solutions to major 
problems. Both his extraordinary expertise and profound knowledge 
are evidenced in his papers published by well-recognized journals. For instance, his 
paper was published in 2011 issue. In the classical problem, the best 3-
dimensional highway route is sought between two end points, subject to user 
preferences .... In this paper, [the petitioner] brilliantly departed from the traditional 
problem and investigated a road-users' preference in seeking a new highway route 
between his/her Origin-Destination (0-D) pair as opposed to previously available routes 
between those 0-D pairs. . . . He designed a for solving the 
optimization problem. This new methodology by [the petitioner] has paved the way for 
promising new road design and bypass construction because benefit maximization and 
cost minimization can finally be performed simultaneously while attaining user 
equilibrium. Moreover, this new methodology is in the process of being employed and 
further tested in various real-world road planning and design projects . [The petitioner's] 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
remarkable accomplishment in highway alignment optimization is indeed an original 
contribution of major significance to the field of transportation engineering. 
asserts that the petitioner's "has paved the way for promising new 
road design and bypass construction" and that the petitioner's "methodology is in the process of 
being employed and further tested in various real-world road planning and design projects," but 
fails to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has already been 
implemented in the transportation engineering field at a level indicative of contributions of major 
significance. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be 
approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. In addition, while asserts that the petitioner's 
"accomplishment in highway alignment optimization is indeed an original contribution of major 
significance to the field of transportation engineering," merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 civ 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
continues: 
It is noteworthy that [the petitioner] has discussed his outstanding research on 
in his doctoral dissertation and subsequent 
works. In this area of research, he developed an excellent · 
that has exceptional ability of optimizing objectives that cannot be mathematically 
formulated and related to the decision variables. He also developed a unique and 
outstanding methodology which could be used in solving many real-world problems such 
as railroad yard location, station location, highway infrastructure maintenance, etc. 
While asserts that the petitioner's methodology "could be used 
in solving many real­
world problems," there is no evidence demonstrating that petitioner's work has been widely 
implemented in the transportation industry or that his work was otherwise of major significance 
in the field at the time of filing the petition. Rather than providing specific examples of how the 
petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field, appears to speculate about how 
the petitioner's findings may affect the field at some point in the future. Once again, eligibility 
must be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. Matter oflzummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. 
states that the petitioner "has published his research on 
(such as the 
in top-ranked journals 
and ) and prestigious conferences (such as 
and the conference 
on ." With 
regard to and comments regarding the petitioner's published and presented 
work, the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles. 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO will not presume that evidence relating to or even meeting the 
scholarly articles criterion is presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. The 
regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for 
authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions of major significance, users clearly 
does not view the two as being interchangeable . To hold otherwise would render meaningless the 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at 
least three separate criteria. Publications and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance ." Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not 
abuse its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major 
significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. Thus, there is no presumption that every published article or 
conference presentation is a contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner must 
document the actual impact of his article or presentation. 
The petitioner submitted citation evidence reflecting an aggregate of 32 cites to his body of 
research work. Ten of the submitted citations are self-cites by the petitioner's coauthor 
Self-citation is a normal, expected practice . Self-citation cannot , however, demonstrate the 
response of independent researchers. The AAO notes that the number of independent citations per 
article is minimal to moderate. For instance, the submitted documentation reflects that none of the 
petitioner's articles was independently cited to more than ten times. Specifically: 
1. " 
was independently cited to ten times (plus six self-
citations by ); 
2. " 
~ was independently cited to zero 
times (plus two self-citations by ); 
3. ' 
4. ' 
to twice; 
5. " 
-
was independently cited to three times; 
[ 
was independently cited 
' (petitioner 's Ph.D. thesis) was 
independently cited to twice; 
6. "1 
) was independ ently cited to three times; 
7. 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
) was independently cited to once (plus two self-
citations by _J; and 
8. 
(Proceedings of the 
decision making) was independently cited to once. 
Merely submitting documentation reflecting that the petitioner's work has been cited by others in 
their published work is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion without documentary 
evidence reflecting that the petitioner's work has been of "major significance in the field." 
Generally, the number of citations is reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that the 
field has taken some interest to the petitioner's work. It is not, however, an automatic indicator 
that the petitioner's work has been of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
established that the minimal to moderate number of independent cites per article for his research 
work is indicative of original scientific contributions of major significance in the field. 
__; Associate Professor and Graduate Program Coordinator, 
, states: 
[The petitioner] developed the multi-objective optimization technique and implemented 
in the highway alignment design. His developed model provides option of separating 
different highway design objectives such as construction cost, environmental impact, 
economic impact, social impact etc., while the alignment is being optimized. . . . His 
state-of-the-art method provides planners, designers and decision makers a powerful tool 
to generate highway alignment alternatives and compare the generated alternatives based 
on project requirements. . . . [The petitioner's] original research and findings have been 
published in 
and. 
states that the petitioner "developed the " but 
fails to provide specific examples indicating that the petitioner's work has substantially 
impacted the transportation 
engineering field or that his work was otherwise of major 
significance in the field. According to the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner, none of 
the petitioner's articles in 
- -
1, and had been independently cited to 
more than ten times per article. The petitioner has not established that this minimal to moderate 
level of citation is consistent with or indicative of contributions of major significance in the 
field. 
further states: 
[The petitioner] developed a comprehensive method that provides massive opportunity to 
transportation planners in evaluating and 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
. . . The analysis process developed 
by [the petitioner] takes into account the traffic volume of the critical movements and 
adds them logically to come up with a comparable critical lane volume. The developed 
method is outstanding and does not require expensive software, great deal of expertise 
and in-depth understanding of the traffic operations. [The petitioner's] findings have been 
adopted and implemented by the and the 
. Also, his research on unconventional intersection 
and interchange analysis has been presented in the 
and 
organized by 
While the petitioner's employer, the adopted the 
methodology developed by the petitioner, and the at the 
developed a computer application based on the analysis procedure 
introduced by the petitioner, there is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work 
substantially impacted the transportation engineering field beyond his projects in Maryland or 
that his work was otherwise of major significance in the field as a whole. As previously 
discussed, the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the 
petitioner's contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited to his 
employer or its collaborative projects. In addition, states that the petitioner's research on 
unconventional intersection and interchange analysis has been presented in the 
and the - -
,but there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's presented findings were frequently 
cited by independent researchers or that his findings otherwise equate to contributions of major 
significance in the field. also lists the petitioner's published articles entitled ' 
" " ' ," and " ." The petitioner failed to 
submit a citation history for the preceding three articles or other documentary evidence 
demonstrating that his findings were of major significance in the field. 
Professor, 
----------------------~111111 states: 
As an independent member of his dissertation committee, I am familiar with [the 
petitioner's] outstanding research on 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] original research and critical findings on highway alignment design 
have considerably influenced the research community and the transportation industries. 
The he has developed and implemented in 
research on 
to the 
t is unique and very effective. . . . [The petitioner's] innovative 
has added a new dimension 
. His new method has the ability to keep the design 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
objectives separate during optimization process and yield multiple competitive solutions 
as required by practitioners. This groundbreaking method has demonstrated its ability to 
save substantial amounts oftime and money, as well as being environmentally friendly. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has also played a leading role m the research area of highway 
infrastructure maintenance scheduling. He has published his research work in 
an internationally acclaimed journal. His work has 
been referred by as the noted research paper for research 
work on the Many independent researchers have cited his paper in 
their research publications. I have also cited his research on highway infrastructure 
maintenance scheduling published in in one of my 
papers .. .. 
describes the petitioner's as 
"groundbreaking" and adding "a new dimension to the " but 
fails to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's technique has substantially 
influenced the research community, significantly impacted the transportation industry, or 
otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major significance in the field. users need not 
accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). In addition, while states that he cited to the 
petitioner's work in there is no documentary evidence showing 
that the petitioner's findings were of major significance in the transportation engineering field as 
a whole. According to the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner, his article in 
has been independently cited to ten times since its publication 
in 2007. The petitioner has not established that this moderate level of citation is indicative of a 
contribution of major significance in the field. 
, a principal transportation planner and engineering consultant, states: 
I know [the petitioner] from our mutual participation in the 
funded research project titled " , 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has very extensive knowledge and experience in traffic operations, 
highway geometries, data collection techniques for traffic engineering studies, traffic 
simulation software and research related to transportation engineering. . . . [The 
petitioner] has outstanding knowledge and experience in traffic simulation software. 
* * * 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
[The petitioner] is exceptionally well versed with the global positioning system (GPS), 
Bluetooth and video monitoring systems used in traffic engineering data collection .... 
His outstanding research skill is very helpful to the research panel. 
* * * 
The research panel is benefitted with [the petitioner's] outstanding knowledge, 
experience and research experience in traffic operations and safety. While working for 
, he acquired vast experience in traffic 
operations and safety. [The petitioner] has significant knowledge in statistics and used in 
many of his research work. . . . [The petitioner's] outstanding knowledge in traffic 
operations is facilitating the research panel to select and review the impact of work zone 
traffic management strategy on traffic operations. He further assists in identifying how 
the work zone traffic management strategy can affect the crash pattern within the work 
zone. 
comments on the petitioner's research skills, experience in the field, and 
technical knowledge, but fails to explain how the petitioner's work was both 
original and of major significance in the field. Assuming the petitioner's knowledge and skills 
are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill shortages in a 
given field. In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor 
through the alien employment certification process. See Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 221 (Comm'r 1998). 
Professor and Director of the 
, states: 
I have met [the petitioner] in several project meetings held at 
1, observed his critical role and inputs into the research projects. 
My project team has adopted [the petitioner's] 
prototype for developing a user-friendly computer application intended for the 
traffic-engineering professionals. I am intrigued by [the petitioner's] innovativeness and 
outstanding ability in developing the prototype analysis tool. 
* * * 
is a unique traffic engineering analysis tool for including 
and 
. [The petitioner] developed the 
, out of which the diverging diamond is an 
innovative type of interchange design. . . . The critical lane volume based analysis 
procedure developed by [the petitioner] is easy to use and less time consuming. More 
importantly, this method leads to significant savings in traffic engineering analysis cost. 
Moreover, with this tool, highway planners can easily compare the three different types 
of and choose the one with the lowest critical lane volume for 
(b)(6)
Page 14 
detailed study. My research team has adopted the critical lane volume based analysis 
procedure introduced by [the petitioner] and developed a full functional computer 
application for the traffic-engineering professionals. . So far, [!he petitioner] has 
presented his research findings on this method in the 
local chapter meeting, and 
. . . 
. His original research paper titled " 
"has been 
accepted for presentation in the prestigious 
to be held from January 13 to 17, 2013. To put it into perspective, each year 
more than 10,000 transportation researchers and professionals all over the world attend 
this conference. 
comments that his project team adopted the petitioner's prototype, but 
fails to provide specific examples ofhow the petitioner's prototype is being utilized in the 
traffic engineering field at a level indicative of a contribution of major significance. The plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's contributions 
be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited to projects in the state of Maryland or 
the petitioner's local collaborators. In addition, states that the etitioner has presented 
his research findings on the method in the local chapter 
meeting and the The AAO notes that 
many professional fields regularly hold meetings and symposia to present new work, discuss new 
findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are promoted and 
sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational . institutions, and government 
agencies. Participation in such events, however, does not equate to original contributions of 
major significance in the field. There is no documentary evidence showing that any of the 
petitioner's specific conference presentations are frequently cited by other research engineers, 
have significantly impacted the field, or otherwise rise to the level of contributions of major 
significance in the field. While presentation of the petitioner's work demonstrates that his 
findings were shared with others and may be acknowledged as original contributions based on 
their selection for presentation, the AAO is not persuaded that presentations of the petitioner's 
work at various meetings and symposia are sufficient evidence establishing that his work is of 
"major significance" in the field as a whole and not limited to the engagements in which his 
work was presented. The petitioner has failed to establish, for example, the impact or influence 
of his presentations beyond those in attendance so as to establish that his work was of major 
significance in the field. 
further states that the petitioner's research paper'" 
:' has been accepted 
for presentation in the prestigious to be held 
from January 13 to 17, 2013." The preceding meeting and presentation occurred subsequent to 
the petition's November 30, 2012 filing date. Thus, any impact resulting from the petitioner's 
presentation post-dates the filing of the petition. As previously discussed, eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
at 49. A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a 
new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175. Regardless, there is no documentary 
(b)(6)
Page 15 
evidence demonstrating that the findings presented by the petitioner qualify as contributions of 
"major significance" in the field. 
Team Leader of the Data and Analysis Tools Team, 
states: 
~----------------------~ 
I was a member of [the petitioner's] dissertation committee and am familiar with his 
dissertation research at 
* * * 
[The petitioner's] considers cost, 
environmental impact, economic impact and social impact as the objectives and searches 
for the best set of alternatives within a given region. The result from the model is a set of 
highway alignment alternatives that has non-dominated objective values. Designers using 
[the petitioner's] developed model can now obtain truly optimized highway alignment 
alternatives. . . . Presently, developing highway alignment alternatives takes considerable 
time and effort. However, [the petitioner's] model saves time, reduces effort in preparing 
alternatives, and generates an optimum solution. He demonstrated considerable 
intelligence and knowledge in highway design, computational mathematics and computer 
programming to develop such a noteworthy highway alignment optimization model. 
[The petitioner] has published his doctoral research work in several outstanding, peer­
reviewed journals and conference proceedings .... 
comments on the petitioner's but there 
is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's methodology has been extensively 
applied in the traffic engineering field, that his published findings were heavily cited by 
independent researchers, or that his work otherwise equates to original scientific contributions of 
major significance in the field. In addition, lists the petitioner's articles entitled 
" 
,"and' 
" " ' 
, 
" There is no documentary evidence showing that the 
preceding articles were frequently cited by independent researchers or were otherwise of major 
significance in the field. While the petitioner's doctoral research is no doubt of value, it can be 
argued that any research must be shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive 
funding and attention from the engineering community. Any doctoral thesis or postdoctoral 
research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer 
new and useful information to the existing pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every 
engineer who performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge has 
inherently made a contribution of "major significance" in the field as a whole. 
further states: 
(b)(6)
Page 16 
[The petitioner] has also played a valuable role in research related to highway safety and 
made substantial contributions on integrating highway design with 
.... I managed development from 1997-2006. 
is used to identify the inconsistent sections of a highway alignment that may 
pose safety issues to the motorist. . . . It is a sophisticated process and adopting the 
process will make highways safer to all motorists. [The petitioner's] model can replace 
the manual iterative process with his automated computer based method. He has 
presented his research work in the conference, 
, and it was subsequently selected for publication as 
a book chapter ip. the conference proceedings. 
asserts that the petitioner's "model can replace the manual iterative process with 
his automated computer based method" and that the petitioner's "process will make highways 
safer to all motorists," but fails to provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's original methodology has already been implemented throughout the transportation 
industry at a level indicative of a contribution of major significance in the field. Once again, 
eligibility must be established at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. In addition, while states that the petitioner 
"presented his research work in the conference, 
' and that the petitioner's work was "subsequently selected for 
publication as a book chapter in the conference proceedings," there is no documentary evidence 
showing that the petitioner's published and presented work was frequently cited by independent 
researchers or was otherwise of major significance in the field. 
Director of Business Development, , states: 
I had been the Director of 
petitioner] ... since he joined 
till June 2012, and I have personal knowledge of [the 
in August 2007. 
* * * 
offered [the petitioner] the position 
of Senior Transportation Engineer in August 2007. He played a critical role in the 
research effort together with the to develop 
analysis tools for analyzing unconventional intersections and interchanges. Due to his 
extraordinary expertise and creativity, he developed the first prototype of 
which has been adopted by the for 
office-wide use. This tool can analyze such as regular 
and 
and provide critical lane volume based level of service information for each 
interchange type. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] is the first to perfectly blend traffic engineering with 
His research work titled " 
(b)(6)
Page 17 
' is the perfect example where highway alignment is 
designed based on traffic distribution between existing highway and the newly designed 
highway .... [The petitioner] innovatively applied the user equilibrium model, a type of 
traffic assignment model, to develop a new methodology for 
that maximizes the use of the new highway while keeping the impact and cost to the 
minimum level. In fact, [the petitioner] is a pioneer to successfully use the user­
equilibrium model in the . . . . The methodology developed by 
[the petitioner] in this research is groundbreaking because it can be used to optimize the 
based on maximization of traffic distribution between the 
existing and newly designed highway alignment, as well as affording the opportunity to 
further improve and maximize the utility of the newly designed highway. 
states that the petitioner developed the first prototype of the 
but there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's prototype has been widely 
utilized in the transportation industry or was otherwise of major significance in the field. In 
addition, comments on the petitioner's article entitled " 
" There is no evidence 
showing that the petitioner's article is frequently cited by independent researchers or that his 
findings otherwise equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. Moreover, 
while states that the petitioner's methodology "can be used to optimize the highway 
alignment design based on maximization of traffic distribution" and can provide "the opportunity 
to further improve and maximize the utility of the newly designed highway," there is no evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's work is already recognized as of major significance in the 
field. As previously discussed, eligibility must be established at the time of filing the petition. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, 
,____ __ , states: 
[The petitioner] has developed a that can optimize 
objective functions, which are not mathematically related to the decision variables. On 
top of that, his model can generate a Pareto-optimal front for two or more objective 
functions. This is a major breakthrough in the area of optimization. He has applied the 
developed method in , which improved the accuracy of 
the results obtained and saved analysis time significantly. 
* * * 
In recent years, [the petitioner] has published numerous high quality research papers on 
highway alignment design in top-notch international journals such as 
related to transportation 
research paper in 
·, and reputed conferences 
engineering. Particularly, this year (2012) he presented a 
which is one of the 
impressive research-work on three dimensional 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
* * * 
[The petitioner] is equally brilliant in traffic engineering operations analysis, 
unconventional intersection and interchange design and transportation infrastructure. He 
has published his outstanding research work on these subjects in several reputed 
international journals and international conferences. For instance, his paper titled 
" 
published in is a highly regarded research work in the 
area of highway infrastructure maintenance. Other researchers have cited this paper 
favorably. The other paper titled ' 
" published in 
is also a significant contribution in 
the area of traffic operations. 
asserts that the petitioner's "is a maJor 
breakthrough in the area of optimization," but fails to provide specific examples 
indicating that the petitioner's work has substantially impacted the transportation engineering 
field or that his work was otherwise of major significance in the field. As previously discussed, 
USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of 
the United States, 745 F. Supp. at 15. In addition, comments on the petitioner's 
conference presentations and his articles in 
7 ,, 
, and 
According to the citation evidence submitted by the petitioner, none of his 
publications or presentations had been independently cited to more than ten times per article. 
The petitioner has not established that the minimal to moderate level of citation of his work rises 
to the level of contributions of major significance in the field. 
, Street Transportation Director and City Engineer for the 
, states: 
I have served with [the petitioner] on a panel to provide technical oversight for a 
sponsored research project titled ' 
" 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has a very rare combination of extensive skill and knowledge in traffic 
operations and highway geometries. The research project that [the petitioner] is 
involved with requires experience in roundabout traffic operations, geometries, latest 
technologies for data collection, and an understanding of the framework to conduct 
research. His exceptional research experience and technical expertise are reflected 
through his participation in panel meetings. 
* * * 
(b)(6)
Page 19 
[The petitioner] also made original contributions of major significance in 
He has developed a 
technique that considers design objectives such as environmental impact, 
construction cost, impact to commercial property, and other factors to obtain an optimum 
highway alignment. The model developed through this process generates multiple 
working alternatives for comparison and provides enormous opportunity to the decision 
makers and stakeholders to review and select an alignment that satisfies their 
expectations and needs. This is a substantial advancement to the present practice of 
and software used. [The petitioner] has published his 
outstanding research in respected journals and conferences. 
comments on the petitioner's "rare combination of extensive skill and knowledge in 
traffic operations and highway geometries" and his "experience in roundabout traffic operations, 
geometries, and latest technologies for data collection," but assuming the petitioner's skills and 
experience are unique, the classification sought was not designed merely to alleviate skill 
shortages in a given field. As previously discussed, that issue properly falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien employment certification process. See 
Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. In addition, 
asserts that the petitioner's "is a 
substantial advancement to the present practice of highway alignment design," but 
fails to provide specific examples indicating that the petitioner's work has been widely utilized 
throughout the transportation engineering field or that his work was otherwise of major 
significance in the field. 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered by 
both the director and the AAO. 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). USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of reference letters 
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 795-796; 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"). Thus, the content of the references' statements and 
how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when 
written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in support of an immigration petition 
are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a 
transportation engineer who has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's original work has been 
unusually influential, widely applied throughout his field, or has otherwise risen to the level of 
contributions of major significance, the AAO cannot conclude that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
(b)(6)
Page 20 
The petltwner has documented his authorship of scholarly articles and, thus, has submitted 
qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the AAO affirms the 
director's finding that the petitioner's evidence 
meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfY the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
III. 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 has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary 
categories, in accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be 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 the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the 
AAO concludes that the evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small 
percentage at the very top of the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need 
not explain that conclusion in a final merits determination. 3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the 
petitioner has failed to satisfY the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. 
Id. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The AAO may deny an application or petitiOn that fails to comply with the technical 
requirements of the law even if the Service Center 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. DOJ, at 145 
(noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
3 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a fmal merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also section 103(a)(l) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
(b)(6)
- --- --- - - ----- - ---· 
Page 21 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the 
appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.