sustained EB-1A Case: Environmental Engineering

MATTER OF Y-X-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 20, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a researcher in environmental engineering, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences. See 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 Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria but that she 
had not demonstrated eligibility in the final merits discussion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that she qualifies as an individual 
of extraordinary ability in the final merits analysis. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of Y-X-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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); R(jal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true.'' Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a researcher in environmental engineering. As she has not established that she has 
received a major, internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Acting Director found that the Petitioner met the following criteria: judging at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and authorship of 
scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We agree with these conclusions. The evidence in 
the record indicates that she has reviewed manuscripts for several journals. She has received 11 
patents that were granted by China's state intellectual property office as utility patents. The record 
reflects that she has developed methods of purifying water that companies in China have 
successfully utilized, which has resulted in significant reduction in costs, thus demonstrating that her 
research is impacting the field. Finally, she has authored articles that have appeared in professional 
publications. Accordingly, the Petitioner has satisfied three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). We will evaluate the totality of her documentary evidence in the context of the final 
merits determination below. 
2 
.
Matter of Y-X-
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence , we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. 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. In this matter, we find that she has shown her eligibility. 
The record indicates that in 2004 the Petitioner received her Ph.D. degree in Engineering from the 
in China. She served as an associate professor at the 
from 2006 to 2015, apart from one year in 2008 as a visiting scholar at the 
As mentioned above, she has reviewed manuscripts, made original 
contributions of major significance, and authored scholarly articles. 
Regarding the Petitioner's participation as a judge of others' work, the record demonstrates that the 
Petitioner has a consistent history of completing a substantial number of review requests for highly 
rated journals. We find that this judging experience, together with the achievements described 
below, is consistent with a determination that she is among the small percentage at the top of her 
field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2). 
With respect to the Petitioner's original contributions in the field, the Acting Director held that the 
Petitioner met the initial evidentiary criterion but concluded in the final merits analysis that she had 
not shown how her contributions amounted to contributions of major significance. We note that the 
evidentiary criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires original contributions of major 
significance, which the Acting Director held was met; thus, the inquiry in the final merits should 
have focused on whether the evidence in the record establishes that she has risen to the very top of 
the field and that she has sustained national or international acclaim. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
Here, the record reflects that the Petitioner has risen to the very top of her field. She has developed 
11 patents based on her research, which were granted by China's state intellectual property office as 
utility patents. The record demonstrates that numerous companies have utilized her developments 
from these patents to improve water quality while increasing profits and reducing costs. 
an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at 
indicates that the Petitioner has "devoted her professional career to potable water 
purification science and engineering for more than 15 years," and that she has "made significant 
contributions on enhancing drinking water quality and developing the sustainability of water recover 
and reuse in China." professor of civil and environmental engineering at 
notes in his letter that the Petitioner "put forward an innovative process, which integrates 
the nucleation of floes re-growth with membrane to purify potable water." He then acknowledges 
that "Chinese water treatment companies certified that carrying out this pioneering technology not 
3 
.
Matter of Y-X-
only enhanced the finished water quality but also generated huge profits in 2012-2015.'' Other 
evidence in the record establishes that the Petitioner has frequently been a consultant to water 
treatment companies in China, she was the first to report quinolone antibiotics in drinking water 
treatment plants, and she developed immersed membrane system applications utilized by several 
Chinese aquatic companies. This demonstrates the Petitioner has risen to the very top of her field. 
As to her acclaim in the field, the record reflects that the Petitioner has presented at international 
conferences held by national institutions such as the and the 
as well as academic entities such as the and the 
Colombia. She has been invited to present her research at 
conferences in her field in China,, Portugal, Germany, Italy, France, and Australia. The record also 
demonstrates that in 2013 she won a second place science and technology award in 
China, for her 
which was presented by the governor of the 
province. In 2016, the Petitioner won another second place science and technology award for her 
research in 
Together, this evidence demonstrates that she has 
sustained acclaim for her accomplishments. 
The record contains evidence showing that the Petitioner has authored numerous scholarly articles 
from 2003 to 2017 which have been published in prominent journals. The Acting Director compared 
the Petitioner's experiences to those who had written letters on her behalf and held that she had not 
reached the level of these individuals to demonstrate that she is at the very top of the field with 
sustained acclaim. On appeal, the Petitioner states that a comparison to these individuals is an 
inaccurate assessment due to the longevity of the careers these individuals have had in the field. We 
agree. We conclude here that the evidence in the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has a strong 
publication history with a large number of citations to her work in relation to others in her field. 
This demonstrates that the importance of her research is widely acknowledged in the field, which is 
corroborated by the evidence that companies are successfully putting her developments into use as 
well as the international presentations she has given or been invited to give. In the totality of the 
evidence, we find that the record sufficiently establishes that the Petitioner has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of her field. See section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has shown that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). She has also demonstrated sustained national and international acclaim and that 
her achievements have been recognized through extensive documentation. She therefore qualifies 
for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
4 
Matter of Y-X-
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of Y-X-, ID# 1819611 (AAO Dec. 20, 2018) 
5