dismissed O-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24017941 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 30, 2023 
Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability - 0) 
The Petitioner , an engineering business, seeks to classify the Beneficiary, a research engineer, as a person 
of extraordinary ability . To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant 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)(l 5)(O)(i), 8 U .S.C. § 1101 (a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of 
extraordinary ability in science: either receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or at least 
three of eight possible forms of documentation. 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(A)-(B). On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits additional documentation . It asserts that it satisfies at least three of the eight 
regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R . § 214 .2( o )(3)(iii)(B). 
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 I&N Dec. 537 , 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 1 0l(aX15)(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)(l 5)( o )(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o)(3)(ii), (iii). 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Beneficiary is a researcher specializing in thermofluidic engineering and bridge erosion. The 
Petitioner indicates that it has employed the Beneficiary since 2016 as a research en ineer on a su 
services contract for the JLaboratory at the _____ 
Research Center I I of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in----
Virginia. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)( 1)-( 8). The Director determined that the Petitioner provided evidence 
relating to four criteria: published materials at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(3 ); original contributions 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5); scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6); and 
employment in a critical or essential capacity at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)(7). The Director 
concluded that the Beneficiary did not meet any of those criteria. We do not agree with the Director's 
finding relating to the scholarly article criterion, discussed later. The Petitioner contends on appeal 
that the Beneficiary satisfies four criteria. After reviewing all the submitted evidence, the record does 
not reflect that the Beneficiary meets the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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). 
The Petitioner submitted articles authored by the Beneficiary to satisfy this criterion . This evidentiary 
criterion requires that the published material be "about" the beneficiary and the beneficiary's work. 2 
1 See also MatterofChawathe, 25 I&NDec. 369, 376(AAO 2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be dete1minednot 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, M.4(C)(2) , https: //www.uscis.gov /policymanual (providing as examples "published 
material that covers a broader topic but includes a substantia l discussion of the beneficiary's work in the field and mentions 
the beneficiary in connection to the work" or"focusessolely or primarily on work orresearch being undertaken by a team 
2 
However, articles co-authored by the Beneficiary are not articles about the Beneficiary and his work. 
Although the articles are about the Beneficiary's research regarding an in-situ scour testing device for 
determining soil erosion resistance and its testing in the field, the articles are not about him. The 
regulation requires that the published material to be about the Beneficiary relating to his work rather than 
self-authored articles reporting his own work. However, while these publications are not relevant to this 
criterion, they will be considered below as they relate to the significance of the Beneficiary's contributions 
and scholarly articles. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that not only has the Beneficiary made 
original contributions, but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner reasserts that the Beneficiary has presented his research at several professional 
international conferences and his work has been published in conference proceedings. Participation 
in conferences demonstrates that his findings were shared with others and may be acknowledged as 
original based on their selection for presentation. The record, however, does not show the significance 
of the Beneficiary's published work or conference presentations, whether the field views them as 
authoritative, whether they have been extensively referenced or cited by others, or other evidence that 
they were of "major significance." 3 
The Petitioner further maintains that the Beneficiary has made scientific contributions of major 
significance in the field, specifically, that he "has been instrumental in creating a new device that can 
help the United States build better infrastructure long-term and he has contributed to the scholarship 
surrounding scour and erosion." Although the Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the originality 
of the Beneficiary's research through recommendation letters praising him for his contributions, as 
discussed below, the authors do not provide specific examples of contributions that are indicative of 
major significance or support the Petitioner's claim that the Beneficiary has made significant 
contributions to hydraulic engineering in the U.S. and worldwide. In general, the letters recount the 
Beneficiary's research and findings. Although they reflect the novelty of the projects on which he 
worked , they do not show how his research and findings have been considered of such importance and 
how their impact on the field rises to the level required by this criterion. In support of these assertions, 
the Petitioner submitted several testimonial letters that address the significance of the Beneficiary's 
work. 
For example, in two letters, _____________ __,laboratory manager at l __ 
explains that the lab has been conducting research for decades on bridge scour, a flooding impact that 
results in the erosion of streambed or bank material undermining bridge foundations, and currently 
works on the FHW A's I Ire search program, conducting a series of small-scale bridge 
of which the beneficiary is a member , provided that the material mentions the beneficiary in connection with the work, or 
other evidence in the record documents the beneficiary's significant role in the work or research.") 
3 Id. (providing that published research that has provoked widespread commentary on its importance from others working 
in the field, and documentation that it has been highly cited relative to other works in that field, may be probative of the 
significance of the beneficiary's contributions to the field of endeavor.) 
3 
foundation scour experiments in the lab's Multi-Functional Flume System (MFS). He states that the 
Beneficiary has conducted outstanding experimental modeling research with the Bridge Engineering 
Research Team in improving the prediction of flooding-related damages and design guidance for 
mitigating impacts on bridges and other hydraulic structures. As examples of his specific 
accomplishments, he provides that the Beneficiary "is the only person specialized in advanced and 
automated experimentation" and exceeded expectations in assisting the lab's efforts to automate 
testing procedures by automating control of the lab's MFS to achieve remote operation of small-scale 
experiments. Further, he analyzed the uncertainties of data collected from the bridge scour 
experiments, streamlined the data analysis, and contributed to developing scour probability 
distributions. The Beneficiary is also "using his unique 3D CAD and 3D printing skills to fabricate 
small scale bridge foundation elements that are tested in the flume." 
In addition, in two letters, I I the Petitioner's lab manager atj I states that the 
Beneficiary has been performing physical experiments in the MFS that provide the basis for scour 
design in practice. He also developed the control program with the lab's ABB robotic arm installed 
on the MFS, which "greatly improved the quality and quantity of the data collection and advanced 
scientific understanding of scour mechanism." In addition, on the FHW A !program, the 
Beneficiary worked on the development and deployment of an In-situ Scour Testing Device (ISTD), 
participated in field tests of the device at multiple bridge sites, and developed the enhanced version of 
the ISTD, the Portable Scour Testing Device (PSTD). He describes the Beneficiary's achievements 
as "significant contributions to hydraulic engineering in the U.S. and worldwide." 
_________ the president of the petitioning organization, highlight several of the 
Beneficiary's additional achievements for the hydraulics lab, including building a research observation 
stage on top of the MFS and two safety protective systems for the research staff at the FHW A 
I 14 used while running large-scale concrete or metal structural tests to block 
dangerous debris. While the letters O men tion the Beneficiary' s deev velopment pment 
of the PSTD, the MFS research observation stage, and safety protective systems employed at 
the record does not include evidence showing that those items generated interest beyond the 
are being widely used in the hydraulic engineering field, or otherwise constituted a contribution of 
major significance in the field of hydraulic engineering . 
________ program manager in the FHWA Colorado, 
indicates that he works with the Beneficiary on a project to help in the development and deployment 
efforts of a new tool used to evaluate the erodibility of soils to improve the analysis of bridge scour, 
and that the Beneficiary has been involved in several demonstration sites to help the deployment 
efforts to the state departments of transportation. a a professor of mechanical 
engineering at California! !University, worked with the Beneficiary in 2011 on wind 
turbine design and praises his abilities both in the laboratory and in the field. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
4 letter explains that the petitioning organization provides support services to multiple laboratories in the 
I 
4 
regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. As stated, in order to satisfy this 
criterion, a petitioner must establish not only that the beneficiary has made original contributions but 
that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, it may support the record with 
evidence that a beneficiary's contributions have been widely implemented, have remarkably impacted 
or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
Demonstrating ability as a skilled hydraulics engineer is not itself a contribution of major significance; 
rather, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary has impacted the field as a whole. Cf 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013)(upholdingafindingthata ballroom dancer 
had not met a similar criterion in the regulations pertaining to immigrants of extraordinary ability because 
she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Here, the preceding letters of recommendation demonstrate that the Beneficiary is admired for his 
skills in the field of hydraulic engineering, and that his work on projects has benefited his employers, 
including the petitioning company, and earned the respect and admiration of those with whom he has 
collaborated. The authors speak highly of the Beneficiary's work in hydraulic engineering, 
specifically at the I I on the FHWA's I !research program. Although the authors 
indicate that the Beneficiary has performed admirably on the projects to which he was assigned and 
demonstrate that he is considered an innovator by those with whom he has worked, their letters are 
not sufficiently detailed to explain how the Beneficiary's research in the field is considered to be an 
original contribution of major significance; nor does the record include documentary evidence 
showing the widespread implementation of the Beneficiary's work, that it has been seminal, or that it 
otherwise equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
Further, a petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the expectation of the 
Beneficiary's future eligibility. For instance, I asserts that the Beneficiary's "exceptional 
automation and control work ... will result in a new design methodology." I lstated that the 
Beneficiary's research pertaining to a replacement bridge project in Michigan "potentially saves 
multiple millions of dollars" in bridge replacement costs, and the Beneficiary's "future work will lead 
to a multitude of contributions that will propel many fields to new heights." The Petitioner must 
establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time 
of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). The assertion that the 
Beneficiary's research results are likely to be influential is not adequate to establish that his findings 
are already recognized as original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Moreover, the recommendation letters also discussed the Beneficiary's skills, education, and talents. 
For instance, I I states that the Beneficiary "demonstrates an extraordinary balance of 
professional expertise in programming, automation, experimental analysis and practical skills while 
managing several robotic systems" and that "it will be nearly impossible to hire a person with similarly 
unique and extraordinary experimental skills." I I opines that the Beneficiary's 
apprenticeship as an industrial mechanic prior to receiving his mechanical engineering degree 
"equipped him with a unique set of skills compared to the majority of his peers." However, the letters 
do not explain how the Beneficiary's possession of unique skills is recognized as an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. Having a diverse or unusual skillset does not equate to 
an "original contribution." Rather, the record must be supported by evidence that the Beneficiary has 
already used those unique skills to make original contributions of major significance in the field. 
5 
I 
On appeal the Petitioner provides additional recommendation letters from _________ 
As the Petitioner did not present these documents to the Director in its initial filing or in response to 
the Director's RFE, we will not consider them in our adjudication of this appeal. See Matter of 
Soriano , 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the 
required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we 
will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the 
appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec 533 (BIA 1988). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that the Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien authorship of scholarly articles in the field , in professional 
journals, or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)( 6). 
The Director detennined that the published materials do not meet this criterion . On appeal, the 
Petitioner argues that the Director imposed additional conditions not found in the regulations in noting 
"the lack of a number of times Beneficiary's articles have been cited." We agree that this consideration 
does not relate to whether the Petitioner has met the plain language of this criterion. 5 Upon review, 
hd h Dir ' d in io Th d d h h B fi ia is h we with rawt e rrector s etenmnat10n. e recor emonstrates t at t e ene iciary 1s t e co-
author of at least two articles in nrofessional scientific journals: 
in Scour and Erosion! 
I and 
inl 
Scour and Erosion ____ 6 The evidence satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner established that the Beneficiary met the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C .F.R. 
§ 214 .2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6), but it did not demonstrate that he meets the criteria at 8 C .F.R. 
§ 214.2( o )(3 )(iii)(B)(3) and (5). Although the Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for one 
additional criterion on appeal , relating to employment in a critical or essential capacity at 8 C.F.R. 
5 The level ofrecognition received by the Beneficiary 's articles would be more relevant to an examination of the totality 
of the evidence. As discussed above, if the Beneficiary had satisfied at least three criteria, which he did not, then we wouki 
have analyzed his publications as partofthe totality of the evidence to detennineifhis successes are sufficient to establish that 
he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. Although we need not conduct such an analysis in this case, we briefly 
note that we do not find the record (including the evidence under this c1iterion) to be indicative of the sustained acclaim and 
recognition for achievements required for this highly restrictive classification . 
6 Three additional articles did notsa tisfythis criterion. A 2021 article published in Pro ceedings ofth e Institution of Civil 
Engineers - Forensic Engin eering did not indicate the Beneficiary's authorship . In addition , we will exclude from 
consideration any scholarly articles that have yet to be published . The Petitioner indicated that the Beneficiary 's 
manuscript was submitted for publication in ISSMGE International Joumal of GeoengineeringCaseHistori es and did not 
provide evidence that his 2021 FHWAresearchreport had been published . As stated , the Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the irnmigra tion benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) . 
6 
§ 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(7), 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(0 )(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). 7 Accordingly, we 
reserve these issues. 8 Consequently, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the 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. 
7 See also 2 USC IS Policy Manual,supra, at M .4(B). 
8 SeeINSv. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-6 (1976)(statingthat, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to 
make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also MatterofL-A-C-, 26 I&NDec. 516,526 n.7 
(BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7