remanded EB-1A Case: Aerospace Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2024 In Re: 34830194 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an engineer specializing in spacecraft life support systems, seeks classification as an 
individual 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The matter is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with extraordinary 
ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit the 
United States. The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x), including 
items such as awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a pet1t10ner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we assess whether the record shows sustained national or international 
acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field 
of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 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). 
The Petitioner has worked forl lspace program since 1991. The Petitioner works "in the design, 
development, and integration of life support and water supply systems . . . that allow the filtering, 
recycling, and reusing [ of] wastewater [on] spacecrafts and space stations," such as "the space toilet 
ordered by NASA which was located [on] the International Space Station (ISS)." The Petitioner has 
intermittently visited the United States since 2007 as an A-2 nonimmigrant employee of a foreign 
government. He has remained in the United States since his most recent entry in December 2022. A U.S. 
company seeking to build a private, commercial space station seeks to employ the Petitioner. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied eight of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, pertaining to awards and judging. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the other six claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of at least 
one more criterion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) calls for evidence of the individual's 
authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of several of his scholarly articles, published in journals and in 
conference proceedings. The Director did not dispute the scholarly nature of the articles, but 
concluded that that the Petitioner's "evidence ... does not show that the articles were published in 
professional publications, trade publications, or other major media." The Director cited the 
Adjudicator's Field Manual, Chapter 22.2(i)(l)(A), which required circulation data for all published 
scholarly articles. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner correctly observes that "as of May 2020, USCIS retired its Adjudicator's 
Field Manual" and replaced it with the USCIS Policy Manual. 
The superseding guidance acknowledges that the wording of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) does not 
require professional publications to be "major." Instead, a "relevant factor" would be "the intended 
audience." See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The record 
sufficiently establishes that the intended audience for the Petitioner's published articles and published 
conference presentations consists of professionals in the aerospace field. 
The evidence of record establishes that the Petitioner is the author of scholarly articles that have appeared 
in professional publications. This is sufficient to satisfy the regulatory requirements. 
Because the above discussion shows that the Petitioner has satisfied at least three of the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), which is sufficient for the case to proceed to a final merits determination, we 
need not discuss the other claimed criteria, and therefore reserve discussion on them. 1 
As discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner submitted the required initial evidence. The next 
step is to determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his 
sustained national or international acclaim; 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. A final merits determination involves analyzing an individual's accomplishments and 
weighing the totality of the evidence to determine if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate 
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, and see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(8)(2). 
We will remand the matter in order for the Director to make a final merits determination. 
In doing so, the Director must bear in mind that the determination involves consideration of the totality 
of the record, rather than simply re-evaluating the evidence submitted regarding the individual 
underlying criteria. The Director must determine whether the record as a whole shows that the 
Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessmy to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
3