remanded EB-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22668216 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 3, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a professor of engineering, 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 the record did not establish, 
as required, that the Petitioner met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the 
classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . Upon de novo 
review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter to the Director for the entry 
of a new decision . 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b )( 1) 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 their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they 
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to their occupation. 
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 did not indicate or establish that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he was required to satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Background and procedural history 
The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary had sustained national and international acclaim in the 
field of mechanical, aeronautical, and aerospace engineering, stating that he met eight of the ten 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner contended that he had received a 
lesser national or international award for excellence, consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
pointing to his receipt of a military duty medal from the President of Egypt in 2002 for his 
approximately 26 years of service as a high-level military officer acting in mechanical, aeronautical, 
and aerospace engineering academic and research and development positions with the Egyptian 
military. Further, the Petitioner stated that he had demonstrated his membership in associations 
requiring outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the discipline or field as set forth by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The Petitioner emphasized 
his membership in the Egyptian I since 1972, the American Institute of 
I since 1998, and the !Institute beginning 
in 2009. 
The Petitioner further asserted that several of his research papers had been published in mechanical, 
aeronautical, and aerospace engineering scholarly journals thereby meeting the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and that he had participated as a judge of the work of others, consistent 
with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), based on his participation as a judge of doctoral dissertations and his 
2 
performance of peer review for his professor colleagues. The Petitioner also contended that he had 
made original contributions of major significance as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The 
Petitioner emphasized his 28 published scientific research papers, asserted breakthroughs in aerospace 
guidance and control (including Euler parameters), design and development of highly technical 
defense systems and aerospace vehicles while working with the Egyptian military, creation of 
mechanical engineering undergraduate and graduate programs for the Egyptian 
formulation of engineering curriculum as a professor at College in Canada, and supervision of 
doctoral and master of science theses leading to publications and citations. 
In addition, the Petitioner pointed to his participation in college open houses while working as a 
professor and the inclusion of some of his scholarly research papers at industry conferences. The 
Petitioner stated that this represented the display of his work at artistic exhibitions or showcases as set 
forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The Petitioner also contended that he played a leading a critical 
role for an organization with a distinguished reputation, consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), 
noting his former leadership roles at the Egyptian strategic defense center from 
1986 to 1995, the I Company from 1983 to 1992, and his formation of 
curriculum at the School of Aviation and Flight Technology atl College in Canada from 2005 
to the present. Lastly, the Petitioner indicated that he that he commanded a high salary in relation to 
others in his field, as reflected at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), while working as a professor at I I 
College. 
In denying the petition, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner met the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), requiring the authorship of scholarly articles, and confirmed that he had 
judged the work of others, consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). However, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that he met any of the other six asserted 
criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not sufficiently analyze his assertions 
and the submitted evidence with respect to each criterion. 
B. Criteria adopted and affirmed 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish: 1) his membership in associations 
requiring outstanding achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in the discipline or field as set forth by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii); 2) that his work was 
displayed at artistic exhibitions or showcases as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii); 3) that he 
made original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); or 4) that he commanded a high 
salary in relation to others in the field as reflected at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Upon review, since 
the Petitioner does not specifically articulate on appeal why the Director's conclusions with respect to 
these four criteria were incorrect, we will adopt and affirm the Director's conclusions. See Matter of 
Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[W]e 
join eight of our sister circuits in ruling that the Board [ oflmmigration Appeals] need not write at length 
merely to repeat the IJ' s [Immigration Judge's] findings of fact and his reasons for denying the requested 
relief, but, rather, having given individualized consideration to a particular case, may simply state that it 
affirms the IJ's decision for the reasons set forth in that decision."). 
C. Criteria remanded for further analysis 
3 
However, the Director did not sufficiently analyze two of the other claimed regulatory criteria. For 
instance, with respect to whether the Petitioner received lesser national or international awards for 
excellence, consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the Director only stated that "the submitted 
evidence is insufficient." The Director did not specifically analyze and discuss the evidence provided 
by the Petitioner, including his assertion that a military duty medal he received from the President of 
Egypt in 2002 met this regulatory criterion. 
The Director also did not adequately address whether the Petitioner demonstrated that he had 
performed in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization consistent with 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The Director only indicated with respect to this criterion that the "letters 
do not explain how the [Petitioner's] accomplishments went beyond a department or project or the 
organization or establishment and impacted the organization or establishment as a whole." However, 
this analysis appears to ignore the Petitioner's assertions with respect to this criterion. For instance, 
the Petitioner pointed to his former leadership roles at the Egyptian strategic 
defense center, thel I Company, and his formation of curriculum at the School 
of Aviation and Flight Technology at I I College in Canada. The Director's decision lacks 
specific discussion of these statements and the supporting evidence meant to support his assertions 
with respect to this criterion. 
Therefore, we agree with the Petitioner's contention that the Director did not sufficiently consider all 
the evidence submitted in support of two criterion, as discussed above. An officer must fully explain 
the reasons for denying a visa petition to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision 
and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see 
also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the 
reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 
determination on appeal). 
D. Final Merits Determination 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements for this 
classification, and thus did not conduct a final merits determination. For the reasons discussed above, 
the Director shall issue a new decision that evaluates the assertions and evidence submitted in support 
of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). If after review the Director 
determines that the Petitioner satisfies at least one of these criteria, thereby demonstrating he met three, 
the decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim and 
whether the record demonstrates 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. 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. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4