remanded EB-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17302836 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 02, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an engineer who specializes in.__ _________ _, system design, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, as required. The matter 
is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361; MatterofChawaihe, 25 
I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and 
remand the matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently em lo ed as an Executive Assistant Chief En ineer and Mana er of 
Research Center with .__-------------------------===' i-----------~in China. She indicates her intent to continue employment in the design o~ 
.__ ______ _ systems in the United States . 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)--(x) . The Petitioner claims that she can satisfy five of these ten criteria, 
summarized below. 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation . 
The Director determined that the Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others in her field 
and authored scholarly articles that appeared in professional publications and therefore meets the criteria 
at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and(vi). The record supports the Director's determination thatthe Petitioner 
satisfies these two criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets the three remaining claimed 
criteria. 
After reviewing the Director's decision and the evidence in the record, we conclude, for the reasons 
discussed below, that the Director did not adequately explain the reasons for denial with respect to the 
2 
awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and did not apply the plain language of the regulation to 
the evidence presented with respect to the leading and critical roles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). We will thereforewithdrawthe Director's decision and remandthematterforfurther 
review and entry of a new decision. 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner submitted evidence relating to her receipt of 12 awards in the engineering design field, 
only some of which were specifically referenced in the Director's decision. The Director determined, 
in paii, that "the [petitioner] must demonstrate her own receipt of prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor and it appears her employer was the recipient of an award in some instances." 
The Director did identify which awards were excluded from consideration for this reason. 
Nevertheless, we note that all the awards documented in the record were attributed to both the 
Petitioner's employer and to named individual contributors who worked on the award-winning 
engineering projects, including the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner provided evidence that she 
received individual recognition in the fmm of award ce1iificates from the entities that issued the 
awards. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) does not impose a requirement that the Petitioner 
be the sole recipient of an award. 
The Director also stated that "the evidence appeared to indicate award recipients were limited to those 
affiliated with I l inherently excluding the entire field." We note that some, but not all, of 1he 
awards documented in the record were presented by thel I 
I I for engineering design projects that were either completed in I lor completed by 
I ~based firms. The evidence does not support a determination that all the awards documented 
in the record had a limited geographical scope. In fact, the Director acknowledged that the Petitioner 
submitted evidence of two awards from the Architectural Society of China, a national organization, 
but did not evaluate evidence submitted to establish that such awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the Petitioner's field. 
The Director further determined that some of the foreign language materials submitted in support of 
this criterion "were not accompanied by certified English translations in accordance with 8 CFR 
103.2(b )(3)" and as such were not considered probative. The Directordidnotidentifywhichmaterials 
were excluded from consideration for this reason and we agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the 
English translations submitted with her foreign language materials were in compliance with the 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The Director concluded his analysis of this criterion with a citation to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(g)(l ), which relates to requirements for initial supporting documents for employment-based 
immigrant classifications. This regulation addresses the submission of photocopies and evidence 
related to qualifying experience or training. The Director did not explain how the cited regulation 
relates to the evidence submitted in support of this criterion or reach a conclusion that the Petitioner's 
evidence was not in compliance with this regulation. 
3 
An officer must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition in order to allow the Petitioner a 
fair opportunity to contestthe decision and to allow us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter ofM-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). For the reasons discussed above, the Director's 
analysis of the evidence submitted in support of the awards criterion did not adequately address the 
evidence submitted or provide the Petitioner with adequate notice of the reasons such evidence was 
determined to be deficient. 
The plain language of this criterion requires that the Petitioner be a recipient of an award, that the 
award was granted for excellence in the Petitioner's field of endeavor, and that the award is recognized 
at the national or international level. 1 Therefore, on remand, the Director should reevaluate this 
evidence to determine whether the Petitioner was a recipient of an award, as well as whether any 
awards she received were for excellence in the field of engineering design. If so, the Director should 
then determine whether any such awards are nationally or internationally recognized in the Petitioner's 
field. 
Evidence that the individual has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In evaluating the Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion, the Director acknowledged that the 
Petitioner provided a letter from her current employerJ I I l which describes her position as Executive Assistant Chief Engineer and 
Manager of thl !Research Center. 
However, the Director's discussion of this criterion primarily focused on whether the evidence 
established that the Petitioner had made original contributions of major significance in her field, a 
separate evidentiary criterion found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which the Director had already 
addressed in his decision. For example, in discussing the leading or critical roles criterion, the 
Director emphasized that "the [petitioner's] original contributions in the field must be demonstrated 
by preexisting, independent corroborating evidence." Further, the analysis of this criterion concludes 
with a determination that" [ w ]ithout extensive documentation showing that the [petitioner's] work has 
been unusually influential, highly acclaimed at the national or international level, or has otherwise 
risen to the level of original contributions of major significance in the field, we cannot conclude that 
she meets this criterion." The Petitioner does not need to establish that she has made nationally or 
internationally acclaimed original contributions of major significance to satisfy the plain language of 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The issue of whether a petitioner's achievements have resulted in the sustained national and 
international acclaim required for this classification is an evaluation to be made in the final merits 
determination in cases where the individual has satisfied the initial evidence requirements at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 ); this standard should not be applied to individual evidentiary criteria. In addition to the 
language quoted above, the Director's analysis of this criterion included a statement that "[t]here is no 
1 Sec Kazarian, 596F.3d at 1121 
4 
evidence to indicate reactions from the scientific community, professional organizations or references 
by researchers or experts places her at the top of her field" and observes that the evidence does not 
show the Petitioner's "acclaim in the field." Again, in evaluating an individual's eligibility as an 
extraordinary ability alien under the multi-part analysis required by the regulations, a determination 
as to whether the Petitioner is at the "top of her field" should be reserved for a final merits 
determination. SeeKazarian, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 2 
The repeated references to "original contributions" and the imposition of a requirement that the 
Petitioner establish that she is "at the top of her field," reflect that the Director did not apply the plain 
language of this criterion or the appropriate standard to the evidence submitted in support of this 
criterion. The Director only briefly addresses the elements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii) and did not evaluate the evidence according to those elements. The decision 
mentions that the Petitioner did not provide "a hierarchical chart" or similar evidence to support the 
assertion that she held a leading role for an organization or establishment. However, the record 
contains a detailed chart illustrating the placement of her position within the management structure of 
I ~ It appears that the Director did not review this 
relevant evidence in evaluating whether the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Finally, the record reflects that the Petitioner also claimed that she erformed in a leadin or critical 
role with her prior employer, ______ -==------------------- The 
Director's decision does not acknowledge this claim or address the evidence the Petitioner submitted 
to establish that she held a qualifying role with this company. 
On remand, the Director should re-evaluate the Petitioner's claims and evidence submitted in support 
of this criterion to determine if she has performed in leading or critical roles for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements for this 
classification, and thus did not conduct a full final merits determination. On remand, the Director 
should review the evidence of record consistent with the analysis provided above, including the 
Petitioner's claims and evidence submitted on appeal. If the Director determines that the Petitioner 
meets the requisite three evidentiary criteria, he should 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 Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2 We observe that, theDirector's analysis of the original contributions criterionat8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(5) was generally 
sufficient to inform the Petitioner why her evidence did not establish the major significance of her contributions in her 
field. However, the Director also noted that the evidence submitted in support of this criterion did not "demonstrate her 
national and international acclaim." The Director should refrain from applying this standard when evaluating this criterion 
on remand. 
5