dismissed EB-1A Case: Academia

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 24, 2024 In Re: 33950340 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is an assistant professor who seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Petitioner had a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did she demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate 
eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 
291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in 
this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents additional arguments and evidence relating to some of the criteria, but 
none that fully addresses all of the regulatory requirements while also overcoming the Director's analysis. 
After reviewing the entire record, we adopt and affirm the Director's decision . See Matter ofBurbano, 
20 l&N Dec. 872,874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting the 
practice of adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other 
circuit that has squarely confronted the issue"); Edwards v. U.S. Att 'y Gen., 97 F .4th 725, 734 (11th Cir. 
2024) (joining every other U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt 
and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
The Petitioner abandoned her claims relating to prizes or awards and a high salary or significantly high 
remuneration. Further, she still does not offer evidence that the organizations in which she is a member 
utilize nationally or internationally recognized experts to judge the achievements of prospective members 
to determine if the achievements are outstanding, nor did she show that some entities require outstanding 
achievements as a condition of membership versus exhibiting excellence and high ethical standards. And 
still lacking from the record is evidence that the publications that published material about her and related 
to her work in the field were one of the regulatory required publication types despite the Director 
addressing that aspect in the denial. We do not question the originality of her research, but she continues 
to fall short of demonstrating her contribution have significantly impacted the field through incremental 
recognition from the field. And finally relating to performing in a leading or critical role, she has not 
adequately addressed and overcome the Director's determination that she did not show she contributed 
to the organizations that is of significance to the entity itself 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2