remanded EB-1A Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 1, 2024 In Re: 29848738 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a civil engineer, 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 Texas Service Center Director denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish he 
had a major, internationally recognized award, nor did he demonstrate that he met at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&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 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants 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 in 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 
international recognition of his or her 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 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation 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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
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). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met the following six categories: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others in the same of allied field; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria relating to judging the work 
of others in the same or allied field and commanding a high salary for services, but that he had not 
satisfied any of the remaining categories. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the 
evidentiary criteria relating to each of the areas upon which the Director issued an adverse 
determination. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, not only do we agree with the Director 
that the Petitioner has satisfied the criteria regarding judging the work of others in the same or an allied 
field and high remuneration for services, but we also conclude he satisfies one additional criterion. 
Because we conclude the Petitioner has satisfied that additional criterion, we will provide analysis on 
that requirement. However, it is unnecessary that we evaluate the remaining claimed criteria because 
the Petitioner is only required to satisfy three of the regulatory requirements. 
2 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
To meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have 
performed in either a leading or critical role, and that the role was for an organization or establishment 
( or a division or department of an organization or establishment) having a distinguished reputation. A 
leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through the 
role's matching duties. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or 
was, in fact, leading. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2)(Appendices), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. If a critical role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner 
has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. It is not the title of the petitioner's role, but rather the petitioner's 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. In addition, this criterion 
requires that the organization or establishment be recognized as having a distinguished reputation. 
USCIS policy reflects that organizations or establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation are 
"marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence." See generally id. (citing to the definition of 
distinguished, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary /distinguished). The 
Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
The Director stated the evidence demonstrates the Petitioner performed a leading and/or critical role for 
his employer,~---------~ but the evidence did not establish this company held a 
distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional evidence regarding this company 
including that in 2021 it was recognized as the I !construction company in Brazil, and in 2020 
it was ranked as theI I best company in the field of civil engineering in Brazil. In addition, in 2018 
and 2019, the company was awarded the BIM SIM Seal of Excellence by thel I 
I I which represents the highest recognition in Brazil for the field of 
Construction Information Modeling. The Petitioner also provided evidence ofhowl Iwork within 
the construction sector has been extensively covered across a multitude of platforms including magazines, 
newspapers, blogs, and websites that emphasize their strong standing and influential role within the 
construction industry. The Petitioner submits additional evidence regarding the company's reputation, 
including an extensive list with supporting documentation showing the prizes and awards the company 
won. 
In summary, the credible evidence provided on appeal sufficiently demonstrates that, more likely than 
not, the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have 
a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner has, therefore, overcome the only stated ground for denial of the petition; the failure to 
satisfy at least three evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). However, granting the 
third initial criterion does not suffice to establish eligibility for the classification the Petitioner seeks. The 
Director must undertake a final merits determination to analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments and 
weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if they establish extraordinary ability in the Petitioner's 
3 
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 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the only stated 
ground for denial, we remand this proceeding so 
the Director can render a final merits determination in keeping with the Kazarian framework. 
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 also 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), supra (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). 
4