dismissed EB-1A Case: Agriscience

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20636111 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 5, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a vocational agriculture teacher , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1XA). 
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 the record does not 
establish the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision was erroneous and that he has established eligibility for 
the requested classification. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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, 
(ii) the [noncitizen] seeks to enterthe United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [noncitizen]'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 implementing 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 their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the 10 categories 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
We first note that the record does not establish what the field of endeavor would be. On the Form 
1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, the Petitioner stated that the job title is "vocational 
agriculture teacher," and that the duties include "training next generation of graduates in [ m ]olecular 
[b ]iology and [b ]iotechnology as related to [ a ]griscience." In a letter submitted in support of the 
petition, the Petitioner stated that he "seeks employment in the area of [ m ]olecular [b ]iology and 
[b]iotechnology ... in accord with [his] research andfieldofrecognition." However, the record does 
not clarify whether the "vocational agriculture teacher's" field of endeavor would be working as an 
instructor of vocational skills for agricultural workers, working as an academic professor of science in 
a college or university, combining academic instruction with continued research in molecular biology 
and biotechnology in a college or university, or other possible fields of endeavor. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that he received a major, internationally 
recognized award under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); therefore, he must satisfy at least 
three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner asserted that 
he satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(ii), (v)-(vi), and (viii)-(ix); however, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner satisfied none of the criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that he 
satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(ii), (v)-(vi), and (viii)-(ix). After reviewing the 
record in its entirety, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria, for the reasons discussed below. 
Documentation of the [ noncitizen] '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. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Director acknowledged thatthe record establishes that the Petitioner is a member of the American 
Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Association for Career and Technical 
Education (ACTE). However, the Director advised the Petitioner that the record did not establish that 
the AAAS or the ACTE require outstanding achievements of their members in a request for evidence 
(RFE) and requested the Petitioner to submit such evidence. The Director acknowledged that the 
Petitioner provided additional information regarding the AAAS and the ACTE in response to the RFE; 
however, the Director noted that the inf 01mation did not establish that either the AAAS or the ACTE 
2 
require outstanding achievements of their members, as required by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The Director concluded that the record did not establish that either the AAAS or the 
ACTE satisfied the plain language of the criterion of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that his memberships in the AAAS and the ACTE satisfy the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), without elaborating on how the Director may have erred in 
concluding the contrary. Instead, the Petitioner states that the AAAS is a "[p]]re eminent association 
providing policy leadership and peer engagement in [ s ]cience, technology, and public policy" and that 
the ACTE is a "[p]]reeminent association providing leadership in technological education at the 
secondary and post-secondary levels." 
Even if we consider the AAAS and the ACTE to be preeminent associations, the plain language of 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) states that only 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 the disciplines or fields satisfy the criterion. The 
Petitioner does not assert, and the record does not support the conclusion, that either the AAAS or the 
ACTE require outstanding achievements of their members. Therefore, the Petitioner's memberships 
in the AAAS and the ACTE do not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Evidence of the [noncitizen] 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The record contains copies of articles co-authored by the Petitioner, which he asserts are under peer 
review. The Director acknowledged those articles; however, in the RFE the Director requested the 
Petitioner to provide evidence that the articles were published in professional publications, trade 
publications, or other major media, including circulation information specific to the media format in 
which it was published. The Petitioner's RFE response reiterated assertions already in the record, 
without providing the evidence the Director requested. Because the record did not contain evidence 
that the articles co-authored by the Petitioner were published in professional publications, trade 
publications, or other major media, the Director concluded that the record did not satisfy the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner references "[t]hree research manuscripts in review ... being revised for 
publication," that he was the co-inventor of a patent assigned tol I University, 
and that he submitted two additional patent applications. The Petitioner also states, "Ph.D. dissertation 
published." The Petitioner further references "[p]]resentations in scientific conferences and meetings." 
None of the information referenced by the Petitioner on appeal relates to evidence of his authorship of 
scholarly articles in the field published in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. Manuscripts "being revised for publication" have not been published as of the date of filing 
therefore, they cannot establish eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Patents filed with the U.S. 
Patent and Trademark Office are neither "scholarly articles in the field" nor "in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Similarly, simply stating 
that the Petitioner's Ph.D. dissertation has been published does not establish that it is a scholarly article 
in the field published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Likewise, the 
3 
Director noted that the Petitioner referenced that he "co-authored conference presentations" in 
response to the Director's RFE but thatthe Petitioner did not submit evidence to support that assertion. 
The Petitioner's reference to "[p ]resentations in scientific conferences and meetings" on appeal is not 
supported by corroborating evidence to establish the Petitioner satisfies the criterion relating to 
authorship of scholarly, published articles, nor does the Petitioner specifically address how the 
Director may have erred in reviewing any infonnation in the record. It is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 of the Act. In summation, because the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner has written scholarly articles in the field published in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, it does not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence that the [ noncitizen] has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The record contains the Petitioner's curriculum vitae and recommendation letters from a professor 
emeritus of biology at _.University and from a professor of biology at 
I I University. In the RFE, the Director infonned the Petitioner that neither the 
curriculum vitae nor the recommendation letters establish that the Petitioner performed in a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation, and the Director 
requested the Petitioner to provide such evidence. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner referenced 
information already in the record including his curriculum vitae and the recommendation letters. The 
Petitioner also addressed funding he received and he asserted that he continued to teach during the 
COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Director concluded that the record did not establish that the 
Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations that have a distinguished 
reputation; therefore, it did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that his graduate and post-doctoral research work and his activities 
"[t]raining school students in [ v ]ocational [ a ]griculture and [b ]iotechnology atl I School 
District during 2017-2021" satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The Petitioner does 
not elaborate on how the Director may have erred in concluding that the record did not establish that 
the Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations that have a distinguished 
reputation. 
For a leading role, officers look at whether the evidence establishes that the person is ( or was) a leader 
within the organization or establishment or a division or department thereof. A title, with appropriate 
matching duties, can help to establish that a role is ( or was), in fact, leading. See 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual F App 'x, https://www.uscis.gov/po licymanual. 
The Petitioner does not assert, and the record does not support the conclusion, that he led ___ 
I luniversi or a de artment thereof, while he was conducting graduate research; or that he 
led The University o r department thereof, while he worked as a post-doctoral 
research associate; or that he led the __ School District, or a department thereof, while he was 
"[t]rainingschool students in [v ]ocational [a]gricultureand[b ]iotechnology." Therefore, the record does 
not establish that the Petitioner performed in a leading role at any of the organizations he identified. 
4 
For a critical role, we consider whether the record establishes that the person has contributed in a way 
that is of significant importance to the outcome of an organization or establishment's activities or those 
of a division or department of the organization or establishment. 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 
appendix. The Petitioner also does not elaborate how he contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of any of the referenced organization's activities, or to the outcome of a 
division or department of any of the referenced organizations. Therefore, the record does not establish 
that the Petitioner performed in a critical role at any of the organizations he identified. See id. 
Moreover, even if the record established that the Petitioner performed either a leading or critical role 
at any of the organizations he identified, which it does not, the record does not establish how any of 
the organizations have a distinguished reputation through documentation of their eminence, 
distinction, or excellence. See id. Because the record does not establish that the Petitioner performed 
in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation, it 
does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Evidence that the [ noncitizen] has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In the RFE, the Director informed the Petitioner that the record did not establish that he commanded 
a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field, and 
the Director requested such evidence. In response to the RFE, the Petitioner provided a photocopy of 
his 2020 IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, indicating that his gross annual income was 
$64,001.45. The Petitioner also submitted information regarding his income in the prior full tax year 
of 2019, and six paystubs from the beginning of 2021 in response to the RFE. The Petitioner also 
submitted a copy of an excerpt from an agreement between thel I Public School District #1 
and the I I Education Association for the period of 2019-2020, in relevant part setting the 
salary schedule for foll-time teachers of the district. The agreement states that "[t]he minimum salary 
for teachers employed by the District on a nine month basis is ... [$]55,450" for the highest level of 
qualification, "MS+ 3 2." The Director acknowledged the information regarding the Petitioner's 
income; however, the Director noted that "[t]he record contains no objective earnings data 
demonstrating that you have commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field," citing Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1994); Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965,968 (N.D. Ill. 1996); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 
440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Because the record did not establish how the Petitioner's income relates 
to that of others in the field, the Director concluded that the record did not satisfy the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The extent of the Petitioner's assertions on appeal regarding the criterion at 8 C.F. R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ix) 
is: "[a]s per the Teachers Union contract for the School District, I drew the highest salaries allowed 
in the contract based on educational qualification and experience." 
The Petitioner's reliance on the above-referenced agreement between the I I Public School 
District# 1 and thel !Education Association for the period of2019-2020 is misplaced. First, 
as the Director explained, the record does not contain evidence of the actual salaries earned by others 
in the field, to which the Petitioner's salary may be compared. Specifically, the recorddoesnotcontain 
evidence of what other "vocational agriculture teachers" with "MS+32" qualifications-or any other 
level of qualification-actually earn, to compare to the Petitioner's income in order to detennine 
5 
whether he commands a high salary or significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to 
others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Second, the record does not contain a copy of the 
agreement for the period of 2020-2021, to address the Petitioner's income earned in the autumn and 
winterof2020 as reflected in his annual Form W-2 for that year. Third, the Petitionermischaracterizes 
the import of the agreement. The copy of the agreement-in its excerpted form-in the record 
indicates that the Petitioner's income during 202 0 was greater than "[ t]he minimum salary for teachers 
employed by the District" for the period of 2019-2020, notthathe "drew the highest salaries allowed." 
On the contrary, the copy of the agreement-in its excerpted form-does not appear to limit what "the 
highest salaries allowed" may be. 
We note that, after the Petitioner filed the appeal, he submitted a copy of an employment offer letter 
to him from University dated December 2022. The offer letter indicates that his position title 
would be "Scientist III," his employment would begin in February 2023, and his annual salary would 
be $68,000. However, the offer letter does not elaborate on the job duties of a "Scientist III" and the 
record does not establish how a salary of $68,000 is a high salary or significantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the "Scientist III" field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(ix). 
Because the record does not satisfy the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (vi), (viii), and (ix), and 
because the Petitioner does not assert, and the record does not supp01i the conclusion, that the record 
satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (vii), or (x), we need not determine whether the 
record satisfies the criteria at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) or(v) because, even if it did, it would not satisfy 
at least three criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, we reserve our opinion regarding the 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (v). In summation, the record does not satisfy a least three of 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
evidence that meets at least three of the 10 criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
24, 25 ( 197 6) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which 
is unnecessary 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). Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not 
support a conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the 
classification sought. 
The Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203 (b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6