dismissed O-1A Case: Structural Engineering

U.S; Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., NW., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
b--8 
b ILE: EAC 06 075 53028 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101 (a)(15)(0)(i) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is..the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in yoh- case. All docuhents'have been returned to 
ided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
pbert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 06 075 53028 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the nonirnmigrant visa petition in a decision dated 
February 16, 2006. The matter is now before the Adrmnistrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
Immigration and Nationality .Act (the Act), in order to temporarily employ him in the United States as a structural 
. engineer for a period of the; years. 
The director denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is among the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. 
The petitioner, thou& counsel, submitted a timely appeal on March 21,2006. 
Section 101 (a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act provides classification to a qualified alien who has extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(3)(ii) defines, in pertinent part: 
Extraordinary ability in the$eld of science, education, business, or athletics means 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. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 214.2(0)(3)(iii) states, in pertinent part, that: 
Evidentiary criteria for an 0-1 alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics. An alien of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, 
business, or athletics must demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and recognition 
for achievements in the field of expertise by providing evidence of: 
(A) Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize; or 
(B) At least three of the following forms of documentation: 
(I) Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(2) Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is 'sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
EAC 06 075 53028 
Page 3 
(3) 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; 
(4) Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the work 
of others in the same or in an allied field of specialization to that for which classification 
is sought; 
(5) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
of major significance in the field; 
(6) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
journals, or other major media; 
(7) Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for 
organizations and establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(8) Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high 
salary or other remuneration for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable 
evidence. 
(C) If the criteria in paragraph (0)(3)(iii) of this section do not readily apply to the beneficiary's 
occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the beneficiary's 
eligibility. 
The beneficiary in this matter is a native and citizen of Spain. The petitioner filed the Form 1-129 petition on 
the beneficiary's behalf on January 17, 2006. As will be discussed, upon review, we concur with the findings 
of the director that the evidence contained in the record is insufficient to establish the beneficiary's 
classification as an alien with extraordinary ability. 
Receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, such as the Nobel Prize. 
Neither the petitioner nor counsel has asserted that the beneficiary meets this criterion and the record contains no 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or awards for excellence in 
theJield of endeavor. 
heither the petitioner nor counsel has asserted that the beneficiary meets this criterion and the record contains no 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
EAC 06 075 53028 
Page 4 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class~cation is sought, which 
require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines orfields. 
As evidence to satisfy this criterion, the petitioner submitted evidence that the beneficiary is a member of the 
Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), the National Council of Spanish Civil Engineers 
(NCSCE) and the Scientific-Technical Association of Structural Concrete (ACHE). 
pe director found this evidence was sufficient to establish this criterion. Upon review, we do not agree. The 
criterion specifically indicates that the associations in which the beneficiary is a member mist "require outstanding 
- 
achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts . . . ." In this case, the 
petitioner has not est ssociations listed require outstanding achievements of their members. For 
instance, the letter fro irector SEAoNY, indicates only that membership consists of "about 500 
members, includ[ing] individuals from most major structural engineering design firms in New York State." 
Similarly, the letter fi-om Conchita Lucas Serrano, General Secretary of ACE 
':member of this association since 2003," while the letter fi-on 
NCSCE state that the beneficiary "is enabled since [September 1y 
~nlv that the beneficiary is a 
iecretary General of 
= as a Civil Engineer 
with the totality of the practice's rights and legal attribution." The letters contain no description of how one 
becomes a member of the listed associations, whether any requirements must be met prior to becoming a member 
or any other evidence to establish that the associations require outstanding achievements of its members as judged 
, by recognized national or international experts. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the director's finding regarding this criterion and find that the petitioner has failed to ' 
establish that the beneficiary is a member of an association in his field which requires outstanding achievements of 
its members as judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. 
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 classijication is sought, which shall include the title, date, and author of such 
published material, and any necessaly translation. 
Neither the petitioner nor counsel has asserted that the beneficiary meets this criterion and the record contains no 
evidence to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation on a panel, or individually, as a judge of the .work of others in the same or in 
an alliedJield of specialization to that for which classzjkation is sought. 
As evidence to establish that the beneficiary has participated as "a judge of the work of others" counsel states that 
the beneficiary was a "panelist on the Congress of Structural Engineers of Spain in 2002 since his extraordinary 
design work in New Headquarters of the Provincial Authority of Granada." To support this statement, the 
~etitioner submitted a letter from 
 former General Secretary of ACHE who states: 
I certify that [the beneficiary] was a panelist for the project of the New Headquarters of the 
Provincial Authority of Granada during the Congress of Structural Engineers (Congress of 
EAC 06 075 53028 
Page 5 
Bridges and Building structures) organized by ACHE and held [in] Madrid between the 1 lth 
and 1 4th of November, 2002." 
While the letter does support counsel's contention that the beneficiary served on a panel, it does not establish that 
the beneficiary served as a judge of the work of othbs. The record contains no evidence to establish the 
beneficiary's duties on this panel, such as whether he was a guest speaker or whether he actually judged the 
designs or work of others in his field. Given that the record reflects that the beneficiary was one of the engineers 
of Granada's Provincial Authorit 's New Headquarters, it is unclear how he could be a judge of this project as 
indicated by 
Y 
ithout any further evidence regarding the beneficiary's responsibilities 
as a member o 
 s pane or ot er evl ence that the beneficiary judged the work of others in his field, we find the 
record is not sufficient to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scient$c, scholarly, or business-related contributions of major signijlcance in the 
$eld. 
In support of this criterion counsel claims that the beneficiary was: 
[Olne of the leading structural engineers in project (sic) of New Headquarters of Provincial 
Authority, Grenada Spain, which brought broad attention for its cutting-edge architectural 
design and the HIGHEST seismic loads in Spain and achieved national recognition since it 
was selected for the Spanish National Congress of Structures in 2002, which should be 
the strongest vindication of [the beneficiary's work]." [Emphasis in the original] 
While we do not dispute counsel's claim that the beneficiary's work was recognized in 2002 by the Congress of 
Scientific-Technical Association of Structural Concrete, the record does not establish how this work was original 
or how it was a contribution of major signiJicance in thejeld. Although counsel asserts that the beneficiary's 
project brought attention for "its cutting edge architectural design" she provides no description of how the design is 
original. Further, while counsel also asserts that the project carries the highest seismic loads in Spain, there is no 
1- 
evidence that this is the first building to carry such loads or that the beneficiary used new or innovative design or 
engineering techniques. The record contains no evidence that the beneficiary's project brought new techniques, 
ground-breaking designs, or other innovations to his field. Without documentary evidence to support the claim, 
the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of 
iaureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter ofRamirei-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). While 
counsel contends that the project's selection by the Congress is "the strongest vindication" of the beneficiary's 
work, the record contains no evidence regarding the Congress or the reasons why it chose the beneficiary's 
eroject. We note that the beneficiary's project was one of many others that were chosen by the Congress that year. 
Accordingly, we find that the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
3 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in thefield, in profesionaljoumals, or other major media. 
EAC 06 075 53028 
Page 6 
To establish this criterion, counsel states that the beneficiary's paper regarding his design of the New Headquarters 
of the Provincial Authority of Granada was published by ACHE in November 2002. Counsel then states that 
1 
ACHE is "the most prestigious trade organization for structural engineers in Spain." Upon review, while we do 
not dispute that the beneficiary has authored a scholarly article, the record contains no evidence which establishes 
the prestige of the ACHE or, more importantly, that the publication in which the beneficiary's article was 
published is considered to be "major media" or a "professional journal." As previously noted, the assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Id. 
1 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has been employed in a critical or essential capacity for organizations and establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
To support this criterion, the petitioner has submitted numerous letters regarding the petitioner's role in the project 
to build a headquarters building for the Spanish national oil company, Repsol YPF.' Upon review, however, 
the letters fail to establish that the beneficiary has been employed in a critical or essential capacity. 
For instance, the letter fiom 
 President of Halvorson and Partners, cites the beneficiary's 
fluency in English and 
 Spanish standards and building codes as being “Unique" and 
"invaluable" and states that the beneficiary has handled "the coordination with our (sometimes difficult) Spanish 
client with great elegance and tact." Similarly, the letter fko- Partner at Foster and Partners indicates 
the beneficiary is a "member of the design team." While we recognize that the petitioning fm is one of four firms 
which comprise the entire international design team, the record contains no indication of the beneficiary's 
r'esponsibilities within the international design team as a whole, much less his role within his own fm. Although 
the petitioner generally states that the beneficiary has "played a leading roll [sic] in the coordination, the design, 
and managing our construction services for this project," the petitioner fails to describe the beneficiary's specific 
duties and where he fits in the hierarchy of his own fm's team. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). From the evidence contained in the record, it appears that while the beneficiary is 
a member of the design team, he does not serve as the project manager or hold other responsibilities which 
demonstrate that he oversees the project in such as way as to be considered to be employed in a critical or essential 
capacity. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to establish that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
, 
 Evidence that the alien has either commanded a high salary or will command a high salary or other remuneration 
for services, evidenced by contracts or other reliable evidence. 
d Partners to build its headquarters building. In turn, 
 nd Partners 
in structural engineering, Foster and Partners in London for its expertise in 
architectural design, and Aguilera Ingenieros SA in Spain for its expertise in engineering. 
EAC 06 075 53028 
Page 7 
The record reflects the beneficiary's annual salary as $58,000. Neither the petitioner nor counsel has asserted that 
this salary is high in comparison to others in the beneficiary's field and the record contain no evidence to establish 
that the beneficiary meets this criterion. 
The extraordinary ability 
 of this visa classification are intended to be highly restrictive. See 137 
Cong. Rec. S18247 (daily ed., Nov. 16, 1991). In order to establish eligibility for extraordinary ability, the 
Statute requires evidence of "sustained national or international acclaim" and evidence that the alien's 
achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor through "extensive documentation." In this case, 
the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the beneficiary's receipt of a major internationally recognized award, 
I 
 or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained acclaim necessary 
to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Review of the record does not establish that the beneficiary has 
distinguished himself to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international 
acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
beneficiary's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field at the national or international 
level. 
The petition will be denied for the, above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought 
remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has not been 
met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.