remanded EB-1A Case: Water Treatment

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 27, 2024 In Re: 34860055 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 
that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 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 this matter for the entry of a new decision 
consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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. 20 I 0) 
( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a water treatment specialist whose company provides services to resorts and other 
facilities in Turkey. He intends to continue his work in the United States. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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 met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (vi), 
which, respectively, relate to published material about the Petitioner and his authorship of scholarly 
articles. The Director concluded, however, that the Petitioner did not meet claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iv), (v), (viii), or (ix). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the claimed 
criteria. We will not disturb the Director's determination that the Petitioner met the requirements of 
the criteria at (iii) and (vi), and we conclude that the Petitioner has also met the criteria at (v). 
Evidence ofthe individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner submitted detailed letters from experts in his field and from former colleagues and 
clients discussing his work in Turkey, which includes the introduction of the country's first membrane 
bioreactor (MBR) wastewater treatment system. The letters describe technical challenges and 
solutions that the Petitioner applied to development of the system, which resulted in the municipality's 
ability to utilize previously unusable water for various private and public types of uses, including for 
drinking water, irrigation, and emergency services. The letters further explain how the Petitioner 
developed a solution for membrane tears in the system that remains in use nationwide for additional 
MBR systems that were developed following the Petitioner's oversight of the initial MBR installation. 
Expert opinion letters indicate that the Petitioner's introduction of the MBR treatment system was a 
notable improvement to previous wastewater treatment systems used in Turkey and the impact of his 
work can be measured beyond his companies and clients. 
The letters also describe how the Petitioner's development of a pool operator training program local 
to one of Turkey's tourist regions led to the country's health and education ministries enaction of a 
required certification program based on the framework and content ofthe original. The record includes 
documentation showing that the Petitioner's company is credited with the initial iteration of the 
program, and the letters of support highlight the Petitioner's leading role in developing the program. 
2 
Obtaining this certification is now a legal requirement for the operation of pools in Turkey to maintain 
certain standards of pool water treatment-a requirement which contributes significantly to human 
health and safety in the country. We conclude that the Petitioner has established by a preponderance 
of the evidence that he made a contribution of major significance within the field of water treatment. 
Thus, the Petitioner has met the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has met the requisite three often initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
(v), and (vi). We therefore need not consider whether he met additional claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iv), (viii), or (ix). 
We will withdraw the Director's denial of the petition and remand the matter for further review and 
entry of a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the 
new determination and any other issues. As such, we express no opinion regarding the ultimate 
resolution of this matter on remand. On remand, the Director should conduct a final merits review of 
the evidence of record. The new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the evidence 
evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained 
national or international acclaim, his status as one of the small percentage at the very top of his field 
of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b )(1 )(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 Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3