sustained EB-1A Case: Intelligent Transportation Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Z-L-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 5, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a specialist in intelligent transportation research, seeks classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(I )(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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
meets only two of the regulatory criteria, of which a Petitioner must satisfy at least three. 
Specifically, the denial notice states that the Petitioner has demonstrated that he served as a judge of 
the work of others and authored published articles, but has not received a nationally or 
internationally recognized award or an invitation for admission to an association that requires 
outstanding achievements of its members. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner offers additional evidence and 
states that the record demonstrates his eligibility. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 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, 
(b)(6)
Matter ofZ-L-
(i) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(ii) 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 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her 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 he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least 
three of the ten categories 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an associate professor in the System Engineering, 
He contends that he has risen to the very top of his field 
and has received national acclaim for his work on intelligent transportation systems. He seeks to 
enter the United States to expand his company, which is involved in intelligent transportation system 
design, equipment import and export, traffic signal control systems, and traffic information systems. 
Documentation in the record confirms that the Petitioner's consulting company is operational and 
pursuing projects, including one funded by a loan. 
The Petitioner did not indicate, and the record does not establish, that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). He must therefore demonstrate 
his eligibility under at least three criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As noted by the 
Director, the Petitioner has served as one of several associate editors for the 
has reviewed manuscripts for 
and has authored several scholarly articles in professional publications. Accordingly, he satisfies the 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofZ-L-
judging criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(vi). 
The first issue is whether the Petitioner meets a third criterion as required. For the reasons discussed 
below, we find that he demonstrated contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). Next, we find that the record in the aggregate, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
shows that he enjoys sustained national acclaim and is situated among the small percentage at the top 
of his field. 
A. Contributions ofMajor Significance 1 
The record contains several reference letters discussing the Petitioner's work in his field. For 
example, executive director of the 
affirms that the Petitioner established international communication channels and promoted the 
development of intelligent technology. professor of civil and environmental 
engineering at the explains that he invited the Petitioner to that 
university after meeting him at another campus in 2011. confirms that the Petitioner 
chaired workshops, which forged new collaborations. These letters present the Petitioner as a 
knowledgeable member of the field who has coordinated with others. 
The Petitioner also presented two letters that contain more specifics. chief of the Division 
of Technology at the describes the Petitioner as "an expert in 
[the] transportation sector" who "participated in the design of the framework of [an] integrated 
traffic management system in confirms that the Petitioner supervised research 
projects, including various projects relating to the stated that the 
projects serve "a pilot role in establishing demonstration project[ s] for the construction of practical 
[intelligent traffic] systems in and concluded that these systems have "brought huge social, 
economic value in reducing vehicle travel costs, saving travel time, alleviating land resources and 
investment in transport infrastructure, promoting the development of related industries and 
technological progress." a professor in the 
further stated that the Petitioner "has played an integral role in participating in the 
Specifically, "he 
constructed a regional traffic signal control system in to dynamically control the traffic 
through a variety of detectors," improving the overall capacity of the network by 15 percent. 
Supporting the statements in the letters, the Petitioner documented two 
first prize in 2009 and second prize in 2011. He also supplied awards 
from the the 
and local and regional entities. The Petitioner 
submitted evidence pertaining to the significance of the two 
1 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
3 
. ·-·- ~--·~·-·--·---~--------------------
(b)(6)
Matter of Z-L-
The materials the Petitioner provided regarding the 
confirm a level of national recognition. Article 54 of the 
included in the record, explains that the government 
will award "to the citizens or 
organizations that have 
made outstanding contributions in the application and popularization of advanced scientific and 
technological achievements, the accomplishment of major scientific and technological projects, 
plans and programmes, and the improvement of science and technology management." An article 
from the website describes the ceremony in which the 
Chinese government issued awards to several individuals. The article mentions that 
and other leaders met with some of the winner representatives. These awards demonstrate a national 
awareness ofthe Petitioner's projects. 
Finally, the record confirms that several of the Petitioner's articles have individually garnered 
notable levels of citation. Citations may serve as an indication that others in the field have found the 
Petitioner's published results useful. Considering the specifics in the letters, the two national 
awards, and the citation record in the aggregate, the Petitioner has demonstrated an influence 
commensurate with contributions of major significance in the field. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In the final merits determination, we consider the totality of the record to determine if a petitioner 
has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation, 2 making him one of the small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor. If so, a petitioner has met the requisite burden of proof and established eligibility for 
visa classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." See § 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
As noted above, the Petitioner has received several awards that have at least some recognition at the 
national level. In addition, he is a credited associate editor of 
and has served on the editorial boards of the 
and the These positions 
demonstrate a degree of recognition and name exposure that is consistent with national or 
international acclaim. Further, the Petitioner's contributions and publication record is consistent 
with an experienced researcher who has influenced the field at a level consistent with national or 
international acclaim. 
2 While the statute requires extensive documentation, eligibility is to be determined not by the quantity of the filings 
alone but by their quality. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r I 989)). 
We "examine each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and within the 
context of the totality of the evidence." !d. 
4 
Matter ofZ-L-
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate distinguishes the Petitioner as one of "the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." The record establishes that the Petitioner is 
an experienced systems designer specializing in intelligent traffic management who has worked on 
important, nationally recognized projects, served in a credited editorial position, and published 
influential studies. The Petitioner has met his burden of demonstrating that these accomplishments 
are commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim in his field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence and established his extraordinary ability when 
considered in a final merits decision. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. By demonstrating that he 
seeks to continue to work in his area of extraordinary ability, and there being no indication 
otherwise, we are satisfied that the Petitioner's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the Petitioner has met the burden of 
proof necessary to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. Sections 203(b)(l)(A), 291 of the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofZ-L-, ID# 17433 (AAO Aug. 5, 2016) 
5