remanded EB-1A Case: Robotics Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 9, 2024 In Re: 30624545 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an autonomous systems and robotics 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 )(1 )(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 had not 
satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen'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 their 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 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). 
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 fust 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 
The Petitioner is a researcher in the field of autonomous systems and robotics engineering. He intends 
to continue to conduct research in this field in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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). The Director determined that the Petitioner only met the plain language 
requirements of two evidentiary criteria relating to judging the work of others at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record 
supports this determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) related to original contributions of major significance in the field and contends that 
the Director did not sufficiently analyze his assertions and the submitted evidence with respect to this 
criterion. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner must establish that not 
only has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l) , https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. For example, the 
Petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance 
in the field. 
The Petitioner initially submitted documentation regarding his research, as well as copies of his 
scientific articles and citation records, scientific articles written by others who cite his work, evidence 
2 
of a patent, evidence of funding he received for his work, and testimonial letters from others in the 
field in support of his eligibility under this criterion. The Director found this evidence insufficient and 
requested additional evidence in the form of objective documentary evidence demonstrating that his 
contributions were both original and of major significance to the field. 
In response, the Petitioner asserted that the Director erroneously discounted evidence regarding 
funding he had received for his work from prestigious organizations in the field, noting that his work 
has been funded by grants from organizations such as National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA), the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), and the National Science Foundation 
(NSF). Noting that these organizations have international recognition for outstanding research, the 
Petitioner asserted that his receipt of fonding from these organizations demonstrates that leading 
groups in the field have recognized the originality and major significance of his work. 
The Petitioner further asserted that the Director did not afford sufficient weight to his citation history 
and testimonial letters. Specifically, he contended that the citations to his work by others in the field 
show that his research has garnered uncommon levels of attention. Regarding the testimonial letters, 
he asserted that the statements in the letters contain direct examples of how his work constitutes 
original contributions of major significance to the field. The Petitioner also submitted additional 
testimonial letters and an updated citation index in response to the request for evidence (RFE). 
In the denial decision, the Director stated that the testimonial letters discussing the Petitioner's work 
in the field lacked specificity regarding how his achievements have affected the field as a whole or 
how they are being reproduced within the field. The Director also determined the Petitioner's citation 
history was not indicative of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision did not address the evidence he submitted 
with any specificity and instead summarily concluded that the evidence was insufficient. The 
Petitioner's appellate submission provides an overview of evidence submitted initially and in response 
to the RFE and contends that the Director's decision "erred by dismissing or completely ignoring 
critical pieces of evidence." Specifically, the Petitioner states that the Director did not discuss any 
specific deficiencies regarding documents submitted to demonstrate his contributions of major 
significance, and further asserts that the Director improperly dismissed evidence without proper 
explanation. 
The record contains numerous letters from researchers in the field whose endorsements contain 
detailed discussions of their use of the Petitioner's research for their own projects, as well as 
descriptions of references made to the Petitioner's work in research publications. The record also 
includes the articles referenced and objective analysis concerning citation percentiles to support the 
Petitioner's claim of influence in the field of autonomous systems and robotics engineering. 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that it is difficult to discern based on the Director's decision 
what specific evidence was considered in reaching the unfavorable determination. As the decision 
only vaguely referenced the testimonial letters in the analysis of this criterion, without discussing the 
content of the letters or any other documentation provided, the Petitioner appropriately observes on 
appeal that "it is unclear if the officer has read the letters of support." In addition to detailed 
testimonial letters from researchers in the field, the Petitioner's evidence in support of this criterion 
3 
also included his citation records and information regarding the governmental entities that have funded 
his previous work. The Director's decision does not specifically address a single piece of that 
evidence, nor does it evaluate the Petitioner's response to the RFE or the additional evidence submitted 
aside from noting that the evidence "shows the [Petitioner] provides valuable research." 
An officer must fully explain the specific reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(l)(i). Here, for the reasons discussed above, the Director's decision did not adequately 
explain the reasons for denial. As such, the Petitioner was not provided a fair opportunity to contest 
the decision. See 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). 
On remand, the Director is instrncted to re-evaluate the evidence submitted in support of the petition 
to determine whether the Petitioner satisfied the plain language of at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and to issue a new decision. In doing so, the Director should also review the 
Petitioner's appellate brief, which further addresses the previously submitted evidence. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Director did not conclude that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements, the decision 
did not include a final merits determination. If after review the Director determines that the Petitioner 
received a major, internationally recognized award or satisfied at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3), the new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record evaluating 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national 
or international acclaim, 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. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
4