dismissed EB-1A Case: Wireless Communications Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8999311 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL Y 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a wireless communications engineer, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . 
This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in the 
small percentage at the very top of the field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability 
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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned his raduate degrees at the University I After holding engineering 
positions at I I an he started working in his current position as a senior staff 
engineer/researcher at~---------~' in February 2019, four months before filing the 
present petition. He holds 0-1 nonimmigrant status. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner claims to have met six criteria, summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the three evidentiary criteria numbered (iv), (vi), and (ix). 
The Director made contradictory findings regarding criterion (v), first stating that the Petitioner met 
its requirements, but then stating that the Petitioner had not established that his original contributions 
2 
were of major significance in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets all six claimed 
evidentiary criteria. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has 
met at least three criteria. Therefore, rather than discuss the specific requirements of the evidentiary 
criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination 
below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, sustained national or international acclaim and that 
he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1119-20. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The record establishes that the Petitioner is an experienced and accomplished engineer in his field, but 
these factors do not necessarily add up to sustained national or international acclaim; not everyone 
with a productive career is among the small percentage at the very top of their field. 
The Petitioner has submitted emphatic and enthusiastic letters from various peers and colleagues, but, 
significantly, the objective documentation in the record is not on par with the assertions in those letters. 
For instance, the Petitioner is a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 
(IEEE). The Petitioner claims that this membership satisfies 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), which requires 
documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields. A chief scientist at I I who is also a Fell ow of 
the IEEE, states: "Senior membership is highly selective and awarded solely to those candidates who 
have been judged by their accomplished peers as having attainted [sic] outstanding achievements in their 
field." 
The Petitioner submits a copy of the IEEE's Bylaws. Relevant excerpts of section 1-104 draw crucial 
distinctions between "Senior Member" and "Fellow" status: 
2. Fellow. The grade of Fellow recognizes unusual distinction in the profession and 
shall be conferred by the Board of Directors upon a person with an outstanding record 
of accomplishments in any of the IEEE fields of interest .... The accomplishments 
1 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 4 (Dec.22.2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 
that are being honored shall have contributed importantly to the advancement or 
application of engineering, science and technology, bringing the realization of 
significant value to society .... 
3. Senior Member. The grade of Senior Member is the highest for which application 
may be made and shall require experience reflecting professional maturity. For 
admission or transfer to the grade of Senior Member, a candidate shall be an engineer, 
scientist, educator, technical executive, or originator in IEEE-designated fields. . . . 
The candidate shall have been in professional practice for at least ten years and shall 
have shown significant performance over a period of at least five of those years. 
The Bylaws specify that "significant performance" can take the form of "[p ]ublication of papers, 
books, or inventions." The requirements to become a Fellow appear to be align much more closely with 
the regulatory language than the requirements for the Senior Member grade. It is also significant that one 
can apply for the Senior Member grade, whereas elevation to Fellow requires nomination and election at 
the highest levels of the organization. 
Because the aforementioned writer is, himself: an IEEE Fellow, who quotes from IEEE governance 
documents in his letter, he is demonstrably aware of the above distinctions between membership grades. 
Rather than acknowledge those distinctions, he selectively quotes from the bylaws, stating: 'The grade 
of Senior Member is the highest for which application may be made," but omitting vital context from 
the same document. This omission of critical details is a factor to consider when judging the overall 
credibility of the assertions in his letter. We may give less weight to a letter of opinion that is in any way 
questionable. Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
In the above case, objective documentation in the record directly establishes a degree of exaggeration in 
the quoted letter. Many other claims in the submitted letters are not so immediately amenable to 
comparison with documentation in the record, but this lack of documentary evidence should not be 
construed to give the other letters a presumption of credibility, when those letters contain similarly 
hyperbolic statements to the example discussed above. Subjective evaluations of the Petitioner's work 
as "remarkable" and "excellent," and referring to the Petitioner as "one of the foremost researchers in the 
wireless telecommunications field," have some weight, but must be viewed in the context of the record 
as a whole, including independent documentary evidence. 
This need to balance solicited letters against documentary evidence is evident, for example, when 
considering the Petitioner's involvement in peer review. The Director determined that peer review of 
manuscripts for journals and conference presentations is a routine function in academia, rather than a 
privilege reserved for those at the top of the field. Letters in the record indicate that peer review "is a 
valued service" performed by "distinguished experts," but rather than submit documentation from the 
entities that publish the journals and organized the conference in question, showing how those entities 
select peer reviewers, the Petitioner provides background information about the reputations of those 
organizations. Such information does not address the question at hand. 
The Petitioner has worked with technology involving the~-------------~' the 
manner in which many everyday devices connect to the Internet (for instance, a home security system 
4 
that can be remotely activated and monitored with a smartphone ). Much of this work has been in the 
context of thel I, which is involved in developing international 
telecommunications standards. The work of this project, taken as a whole, impacts the 
telecommunications industry and, as a result, affects millions of people worldwide who rely on 
telecommunications in various ways. It does not follow, however, that only the top engineers were invited 
to participate, or that participation directly resulted in sustained national or international acclaim. 
Colleagues within the project call the Petitioner "a leading figure inl I" who "has made key 
contributions that have substantially impacted today's telecommunications technologies." 
The nature of the Petitioner's involvement is described in narrow, technical terms, referring for instance 
to his service "as rapporteur of the stud item, 
1r--------,,_ ___ ....1' and "a rapporteur of the normative specification stage in ~---~as 
L_ __ ...,------,...i" The record does not provide sufficient information about how these roles fit within 
the lar er framework. For example, the record does not say how many working groups there are 
within~-~ or how many study items each working group handles. Without this information we cannot 
conclude that the Petitioner's asserted leadership role within specific, granular aspects ofD translate 
into significant impact or influence over the standards project as a whole. 
We agree with the director of~ ~ at I I that "[t]he number of 
services and applications served by I technologies and the impact is massive," but the record does 
not adequately show that this "technology is widely deployed" "[b]ecause of [the Petitioner's] work" or 
that the Petitioner "has been instrumental in bringing this technology into international standardization." 
The record does not include key information aboutD such as the overall size and organization of the 
project. Without this information, the record does not warrant a finding that the importance of the 
Petitioner's work is commensurate with the overall importance ofc=J as an international endeavor. 
Other assertions in the letters are broad and vague. A master researcher at I I states that the 
Petitioner "made highly advanced and original contributions toward the development of important 
features," and that the Petitioner's "initiatives inl I technology have been nothing less than 
remarkable," but does not elaborate with regard to the nature of these contributions and initiatives. A 
common feature in many of the letters is the use of highly technical language without sufficient 
explanation as to how the Petitioner's contributions are significant. Furthermore, while it is helpful to 
explain a given contribution's useful practical applications, those applications themselves do not 
necessarily establish the major significance of that contribution. 
The Petitioner's work has resulted in a number of patents, but the approval of a patent application attests 
only to originality rather than significance. Evidence of their existence is not evidence of their impact. 
Similarly, published articles and conference presentations have the potential to influence the field, but the 
burden is on the Petitioner to show the actual extent of the impact of his work. 
The Petitioner claims "an impressive record of citations" of his published work. Thel I chief 
scientist quoted earlier states that, because the Petitioner is "an industrial researcher where publications 
are not emphasize [sic], like in academia," the Petitioner's citation rate "is very good indeed." The 
Petitioner provides no documentary evidence to support this claim about citation rates for engineers in 
5 
industry rather than academia. The record does show that the Petitioner's most-cited articles2 date from 
when he was a graduate student (and thus publishing in an academic rather than industrial context), but 
the Petitioner does not provide context to show that these articles were cited more than others of their 
kind. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence in this regard. See Matter of Obaigbena, 
19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter o_f Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980)). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has met the requirements of several individual evidentiary 
criteria, but when viewed under the lens of a final merits determination, these separate pieces do not 
assemble into a complete picture that persuasively shows the Petitioner to be a nationally or 
internationally acclaimed figure at the very top of his field. Success and productivity are not the same as 
acclaim, and the Petitioner has not established the significance of his role in projects of indeterminate size 
and scope. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 At the time of filing, the Petitioner's two most-cited articles had earned, respectively, 38 citations over 14 years and 28 
citations over 11 years. 
G