remanded EB-1A Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 10, 2024 In Re: 33376444 
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. 
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 Petitioner did not 
submit sufficient evidence establishing that he had satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria for this classification as set forth in the regulations. Namely, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner satisfied the requirements of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), which require 
evidence that he participated as a judge of the work of others in field and evidence that he wrote 
scholarly articles that were published in major trade publications, respectively. However, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he met the requirements of the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), which requires evidence that the Petitioner received a lesser nationally or 
internally recognized prize or award, or the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which requires 
evidence that that the Petitioner made original scientific or scholarly contributions of major 
significance in his field. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner disputes the adverse decision, arguing that the Director did not properly 
assess the submitted evidence. Regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5 h 3 i , the Petitioner 
refers to previously submitted evidence to su ort his ex lanation that the 
c=]"is the governing body that, by law, The 
Petitioner contends that the Director incorrectly assessed the role of the _________ 
as pertaining to only a sector of Peruvian engineers. 
We agree that previously submitted evidence supports the Petitioner's assertions. Namely, the record 
contains a copy of the award certificate showing that in 2022 the Petitioner was awarded the 
___________ medal by the National Council of the _________ in 
1 The Petitioner claimed that he met a total of the four criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (iv) - (vi). 
recognition "for his outstanding professional work in the practice of engineering in the country." 2 The 
record also contains other supporting evidence, such as: 1) a photograph of the medal itself; 2) a May 
2022 letter from the "National Dean" representing the National Council of the I ] 
confirming that the Petitioner was the recipient of the referenced national award; and 3) a 
corresponding June 2022 resolution from the National Council of the stating that 
pursuant to "the Statute of the ___________ it is "the responsibility of the 
to establish honorary distinctions to recognize and reward collegiate engineers who have exceptionally 
stood out in their professional practice or to people who have provided significant services to the 
I 3 
In addition, the Petitioner provided certified translations of the evaluation criteria used to determine 
the recipients of the award in question. Some of the factors considered include the prospective 
recipients' academic achievements, professional experience, contributions to engineering, and 
distinctions in engineering "for professional practice in Engineering granted by or"foror 
professional practice in engineering granted by other national or international organizations." 
In light of the evidence submitted, we conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated that he satisfies 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), which related to a lesser nationally or internally recognized 
prize or award. With eligibility under the three criteria discussed above, the Petitioner satisfied part 
one of the two-step adjudicative process described in Kazarian and has overcome the sole basis for 
the denial of his petition. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision. Because the 
Petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements of at least three criteria, it is unnecessary to discuss 
any additional eligibility claims relating to the regulatory provisions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
However, granting three initial criteria does not suffice to establish eligibility for the classification the 
Petitioner seeks or establish that the record supports the approval of the petition. Where a petitioner 
demonstrates that the beneficiary meets these initial evidentiary 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, 596 F.3d at 1115, section 
203(b )(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). The Director did not reach a finding on the 
final merits, and we decline to make the final merits determination in the first instance. We will 
therefore remand the matter for the Director to issue a new decision, including a final merits 
determination. 
2 Pursuant to USCIS Policy Manual, submission of certain awards from well-known national institutions or well-known 
professional associations are examples of the types of awards that may satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
3 Each of the mentioned foreign documents is accompanied by a full English language translation containing a translator's 
certification that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). However, the record also contains two documents that 
appear to contain articles that comprise the referenced statute and are only partially translated into English. One document 
is part of Exhibit E of the initially submitted evidence and purports to translate the document's title and Article 3 .07 of the 
statute; the other document has been submitted on appeal and purports to translate Article 1.05 of the same statute. Neither 
document is accompanied by a full English language translation containing a translator's certification as to the translation's 
completeness and accuracy and therefore we cannot meaningfully dete1mine whether these documents are accurate and 
support the Petitioner's claim. If the Petitioner seeks consideration of these two foreign documents, he must comply with 
the listed regulatory requirements. 
2 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3