dismissed O-1A Case: Automotive Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 16, 2023 In Re: 28840908 
Appeal of California Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a master automotive technician and test driver, as a 
person of extraordinary ability. To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonirnrnigrant classification, available 
to individuals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the California Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is among that small 
percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.3. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not properly weigh the entirety of the 
record in her totality determination. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define "extraordinary 
ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either 
of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 101 (a)( 15)( o )(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that the Beneficiary received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must satisfy at least three of the eight evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). The Petitioner asserted that the Beneficiary fulfilled six criteria. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner met three of the claimed evidentiary criteria, relating to 
nationally or internally recognized awards at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(]), published material at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3), and judging at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). The Petitioner's 
documenta evidence indicates that the Beneficiary placed first in the 2017 Ecuadoria~ I 
'-----....---------------' Tour of the Republic of Ecuador in the I I and third 
in the 200_._____.Tour of the Republic of Ecuador in the 'I 1"2 While we agree with the 
Director's determination that the record therefore demonstrates the Beneficiary's eligibility under the 
awards criterion, we do not agree with the Director's findings relating to the published material and 
judging criteria, discussed later. 3 Upon review of all the evidence, we conclude that the record does 
not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "trnth is to be dete1mined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 The evidence indicates that the Tour of the Republic of Ecuador motorsport event is a seven-day road race that vertically 
crosses the country and consists of seven categories: N4 turbocharged, +2000cc; T4 1650-2000cc; T3 1401-1650cc; T2 
1251-1400cc; Tl 0-1250cc; BUGGYS; and TT All-Tenain. 
3 On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute the Director's finding that it had not established the Beneficiary's eligibility 
under 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2) and (5), relating to membership in associations and original contributions. 
Additionally, the Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6) or (7) before 
the Director or on appeal. As the Petitioner provides no evidence or arguments addressing these four criteria on appeal. 
we consider these issues to be abandoned. See Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657. 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when 
a filing party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. 
Atty. Gen., 401 F.3d 1226. 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005). citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 
1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding plaintiffs 
claims abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about 
the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought, 
which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
As discussed earlier, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. In order to fulfill 
this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about the Beneficiary in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of the material. 4 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted four foreign-language articles dated 2022 and 
published on Vistazo.com, Eltelegrafo.com, Quenoticias.com, and in the print publication Carburando. 
The articles mention his degree in automotive engineering and experience as the owner of a "conventional 
and competition car workshop" in Ecuador. They also mention his work building race cars with his father, 
teaching automotive electronics, developing a tractor for harvesting African palm, and modifying a Honda 
Civic SI 2007 to meet the specifications of international rally competition rules. 
In this case, the documentation provided does not meet all the specific requirements of the criterion. The 
articles from Vistazo.com, Eltelegrafo.com, and Carburando do not include the required authors of the 
material. As those materials do not include an author, we need not make a determination regarding their 
status as professional or major trade publications or other major media. 5 In addition, although the 
remaining article from Quenoticias.com includes the required author, the Petitioner did not present 
sufficient evidence showing that it constitutes a professional or major trade publication or major medium. 
As evidence of a major medium, the Petitioner offered screenshots from Similar Web regarding rankings 
and traffic overview for Quenoticias.com. For example, Similar Web reflects that the website has a global 
ranking of 51,942, a country ranking of 520, and total visits of I.3M. The Petitioner, however, did not 
demonstrate the significance ofthe Internet rankings and viewing statistics or show how such information 
reflects status as a major medium. Specifically, it did not establish that the global or country rankings 
indicate major international or national media. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the decision of the Director for this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge ofthe work 
of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
As previously discussed, the Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. To satisfy this 
criterion, the evidence must show that the Beneficiary has participated, either individually or as part 
of a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization. 6 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner claimed the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on his having 
been "invited to be the director of graduation projects in the field of mechanical engineering" at 
4 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, M.4(C)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
5 See 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2) (reflecting that in evaluating whether a submitted publication is a 
professional publication, major trade publication, or major media, relevant factors include the intended audience (for 
professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major trade 
publications and other major media). 
6 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2). 
3 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included 
~a_l_e-tt-er-d-at_e_d_2_0_2_2_f_r_o_m_J--C---R---,-co_o_r_d-in_a_t-or_o_f_a-ut_o_m_o_t_iv~e engineering atl lwho states that 
the Beneficiary taught electronic injection, aerodynamics, and engine preparation at the College of 
Automotive Engineering at I Ibetween 2008 and 2010. He also indicates that the Beneficiary 
"was invited to direct several graduation projects which are required for students to obtain the 
engineering degree." He further provides that "only a very outstanding group of professors is honored 
with the direction of the graduation projects of the students, overseeing the evaluation and direction 
of undergraduate projects as a requirement for obtaining the university degree." 
In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must show that the Beneficiary has not only been invited 
to judge the work of others, but also that he actually participated in the judging of the work of others 
in the same or allied field of specialization. 7 Here, the above letter does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary actually completed the judging of graduation projects of automotive engineering students. 
Instead, as indicated above, the letter reflects that the Beneficiary was invited to direct several 
graduation projects, which would involve "overseeing the evaluation and direction of undergraduate 
projects." 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence establishing that the Beneficiary, in 
fact, performed the evaluation of graduation projects. Further, the Petitioner did not submit 
corroborating documentation showing how many or which graduation projects the Beneficiary 
evaluated between 2008 and 2010, and the nature of his participation. 8 Finally, the prospective 
graduation candidates were undergraduate students who were not yet employed in the field of 
automotive engineering or an allied field. Without further information or corroborating 
documentation, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the letter is sufficient to establish that the 
Beneficiary judged the work of others consistent with this regulatory criterion. Accordingly, we 
withdraw the decision of the Director for this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner established that the Beneficiary met the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l), but it did not demonstrate that he meets the criteria regarding published 
material at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) and judging at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). Although 
the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for one additional criterion on appeal, relating to high 
salary at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8), we need not reach this ground because the Petitioner cannot 
fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B). 
We also need not provide a totality determination to establish whether the Beneficiary has sustained 
national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has arisen to the very top of 
the field. See section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iii). 9 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 10 Consequently, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the 
7 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2) 
8 Id. (providing an example of peer reviewing for a scholarly journal, as evidenced by a request from the journal to the 
beneficiary to do the review, accompanied by proof that the beneficiary actually completed the review). 
9 See also 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
10 See INS v. Bagamashad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-6 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessaiy to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
4 
Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5