sustained EB-1A Case: Structural Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services· 
MATTER OF X-X-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 10,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a structural.engineer, seeks classification as an "alien 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, although the 
Petitioner submitted documentation satisfying initial evidence criteria, the totality of the evidence 
did not demonstrate his extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submit~ additional documentation and a brief, and indicates that he has 
satisfied at least three initial evidence criteria and has shown that he has extraordinary ability as an 
engmeer. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent pmi: 
(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 o.fX-X-
(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 implenienting 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 ofthe ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria , however , does not, in and of itself , establish eligibility for this 
classification . If a petitioner meets three criteria , we then examine the evidence of record in the 
context of a final merits determination. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a two-part review); 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 ); Maller of'Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 
369, 376 (AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence 
alone but by its quality" and that 
we examine "eac h 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. ANAL YSlS 
The Petitioner is a civil engineer specializing in airport 
construction and design. The Director found 
he submitted the necessary evidence to meet three of the initial evidence criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director denied the petition after a finals merits determination, however , 
concluding that the record as a whole did not demonstrate the Petitioner's extraordinary ability. 
We agree that the Petitioner has provided evidence that satisfies the necess ary initial evidence 
criteria. The outstanding issue is therefore whether the totality of evidence demonstrates that he is 
an individual of extraordinary ability . After reviewing all evidence submitted, we conclude that the 
Petitioner has shown a history of achievements and experience indicative of someone at the top of · 
his field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner received a PhD in Structural Engineering from 
He received a PhD in Civil Engineering from the 
he also worked in a variety of engineering positions around the globe. 
features an interview with the Petitioner . 
responsible for designing the new development for 
2 
Ill 1995. 
in 2009. During this period, 
An article in 
The article notes that he IS 
Ill 
(b)(6)
Matter of X-X-
Kenya, which is increasing its capacity from 1.5 to 20 million people. He has overseen development 
projects at New York's and airports, New Jersey's and 
airports, and Pennsylvania's airport. The Petitioner is currently the Manager of Airport 
Engineering for 
The documentation provided shows the high esteem attributed to the Petitioner in his native China, 
the United States, and other countries. In China, the Petitioner received the National Award for 
awarded by the 111 
both 2012 and 2014. The evidence provided indicates that the honor is given biennially to around 
individuals who have made major contributions to masonry. Letters of recommendation indicate 
that only 10 individuals have ever received the award more than once. The Petitioner received the 
award for "fundamental research involving scientific experiments, technology innovation and 
academic exchanges in the field of masonry structures, and active participation in developing and 
revising China's national standard." 
The Petitioner served as a member of the 
' issued by the 
a professor at 
establishing and developing 
for the' 
notes that the Petitioner "has been working for[, and] 
over 15 years." The 
Petitioner also helped develop and revise the national 
' 
issued by the 
Documentation provided indicates that "is entrusted by the 
Chinese government to establish, develop and manage national engineering construction standards, 
organize the academic activities, provide the training of how to use the standards, publish 
Engineering Construction Standardization Journals and the related books." 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence of his recognition in the United States. He served for seven 
years as a panelist for the The is funded by 
the and "carries out applied research on problems that are 
shared by airport operating agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal 
research programs." As a panel member, the Petitioner worked on four different research projects to 
"provide[ ] technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project . . . . The panels 
prepare project statements and select contractors based on evaluation of the proposals they received; 
they guide the projects and ... serve voluntarily without compensation." According to 
a senior program officer for "[the Petitioner] was repeatedly selected to serve on 
project panels based on his expertise in the highly technical tield of airport infrastructure as it 
relates to safety and his desire to share his considerable technical knowledge with others in the 
airport industry." 
/ The Petitioner's publication record includes four academic articles published in 1987 in 
in 2002 in the and in 2006 and 
2009 in the Recommendation letters provided by the 
Petitioner focus on the substantive contributions outlined in these articles. The letters also note the 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of X-X-
senes of presentations the Petitioner has made at the 
the and the 
mentioning in particular that the Petitioner has "provided a means to assess the integrity of masonry 
structures, and to predict masonry fracture in a broad range of scenarios." 
The evidence provided shows that the Petitioner's accomplishments and expertise are recognized at 
national and international levels. As a result, we conclude that he has demonstrated his 
extraordinary ability as a structural engineer. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has sufficiently shown that he is one of that small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of his field of endeavor. Section 203(b)(l )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of X-X-, ID# 123016 (AAO Mar. I 0, 201 7) 
4