remanded EB-1A Case: Aerospace Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23249897 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 01, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a research scientist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by 
demonstrating his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa '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. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim, and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation . Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. In addition, the individual must seek to 
enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability and their entry must be of 
substantial prospective benefit to the United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) and (iii) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, the petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet 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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a research scientist who has developed and enhanced computational and 
mathematical tools and models for simulating gas and fluid flow dynamics, with applications in 
aerospace and mechanical engineering and software simulation technology. He received his Ph.D. in 
aerospace engineering and mechanics from the University ofl lwhere he also worked as a 
graduate and post-doctoral research associate. At the time of filing, he was employed by the Scientific 
Computation Research Center atl University. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established 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 three of these criteria: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of 
specialization; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; and 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles in the field in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the three claimed criteria, relating to judging 
the work of others and authorship of scholarly articles. However, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not establish his original contributions of major significance, and therefore did not meet 
the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification. As such, the Director did not proceed to a 
final merits determination. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner has judged the work of others in his field by peer reviewing 
manuscripts for professional journals and conferences and that he has authored scholarly articles in 
professional publications including Aerosol Science and Technology, Computers & Fluids, and 
Physics of Fluids. Therefore, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he has also made original contributions of major significance 
and that the Director did not properly weigh the evidence submitted in support of the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the Director did not appear to 
2 
give evidentiary weight to detailed letters from experts in his field which discuss his contributions and 
their impact on the field. In addition, the record contains supporting evidence indicating how other 
scientists in the field, including researchers at NASA, have relied on the Petitioner's work and used 
his computational models as a benchmark to further their own research. 
For example, a letter from the former chief of the Applied Aerosciences and Computational Fluid 
Dynamics Branch at NASA's Johnson Space Center addresses the significance the Petitioner's 
published research. Specifically, he notes that the Beneficiary's work at the University ofl I 
was incorporated into the Direct Simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) tools NASA uses for rarified gas 
assessments for spacecraft flight and for the analysis of rocket exhaust impingement of vehicles 
docking to the International Space Station. He states: 
One of [the Petitioner's] specific contributions included the development of an 
advanced and robust, generic computational geometry engine fundamental for the 
embedded multi-topological domain discretization used by our NASA simulation tools, 
which has been directly implemented in our codes. He also has custom developed 
specialized computer modules that have been implemented in the NASA tools, ... 
Each of these advancements have dramatically advanced the state-of-the-art 
capabilities of the NASA tools which are relied upon by not only NASA, but also by 
other U.S. government agencies, Department of Defense, and commercial industry for 
similar applications. 
In addition to the submitted letters from experts in his field, the Petitioner provided a 2019 article 
authored by scientists from NASA Ames Research Center and Sandia National Laboratories and 
published in Physics of Fluids, which discusses the history of the DSMC method and significant 
advancements in the field. The authors single out the Petitioner's work among "several notable 
parallel DSMC codes ... developed over the last 30 years to leverage the increasing computation 
power of parallel machines," and mention the incorporation of the Petitioner's original work into 
NASA's own DSMC tools. 
Based on this evidence and other evidence not discussed here, the Petitioner has provided sufficient 
detail to establish the nature of his original contributions to the advancement of DSMC methods and 
applications and the significant impact of this work on his field. We conclude that the Petitioner met 
his burden to establish that he meets the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The 
Petitioner has, therefore, overcome the only stated ground for denial of the petition. Accordingly, the 
Director's decision is withdrawn. 
However, meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) does not, by itself, 
establish eligibility for the requested classification. As the Petitioner has satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements, we will remand the matter to the Director for entry of a new decision that includes a final 
merits determination consistent with Kazarian. 
On remand, the Director must analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments to determine if he 
demonstrated his extraordinary ability in his field of endeavor. The new decision should include an 
analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether the Petitioner has established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, that 
3 
he is one of the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2),(3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the only stated ground for denial, we are withdrawing the 
Director's decision and remanding the matter so that the Director may conduct a final merits 
determination. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4