dismissed EB-1A Case: Animal Health And Welfare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8073220 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an animal health and welfare specialist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirement of either a one-time 
achievement or at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien 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 alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien'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 his or her 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 he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
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) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has served as~---------~for thel I in Spain, and intends 
to continue to work in the animal welfare field in the United States. She earned a degree in veterinary 
medicine from I !University i~ I in 1989, and a Master of Science degree in animal 
health from the University ofi 11992. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to her authorship of scholarly articles in her field and her 
leading role for an organization having a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that she also meets four additional evidentiary criteria. 
After review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner meets the two criteria he 
identified. S ecificall , she submitted evidence that an article she co-authored a eared in a re ort, 
and ~-----------------------------------~ another article appeared in the professional journal Medicina Veterinarina. Also, several reference 
letters and other evidence confirm that she served as th or department 
for the government of thel I for several yea~r-s-. ---------~ 
However, we disagree with the Director regarding the evidence of the Petitioner's participation as a 
judge of the work of others under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Director acknowledged the evidence 
of the Petitioner's work on the Technical Evaluation Committee for the Director General of 
Agriculture, but concluded that she had selected due to her official position rather than "invited as a 
2 
judge or reviewer on the basis of his [sic] extraordinary ability in the field." As noted by the Petitioner, 
the regulation does not require that an individual be selected as a judge on the basis of extraordinary 
ability. The evidence shows that as a member of this committee, she made decisions regarding funding 
applications submitted by local animal welfare groups. We therefore find that this evidence establishes 
that she meets this criterion, in addition to the two criteria mentioned above. 
Because the Petitioner has established that she meets three criteria, she has satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements, and we need not consider whether she meets the additional criteria mentioned in her 
appeal brief Rather, we will consider the evidence submitted in support of those criteria, together 
with the balance of the record, to determine whether she possesses the level of acclaim and standing 
in her field to establish her eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the 
field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown her 
eligibility. 
The Petitioner focuses on several aspects of her career as an animal welfare expert in asserting that 
she possesses the requisite sustained national or international acclaim in that field. She oints to the 
evidence of her role in the drafting of the ......... ---.---------------------' 
~--------- which was enacted on~~- 2016, as well as the regulations regarding 
compliance with this law. In a letter from the Director General of Agriculture, Livestock and Food 
for the~-------~' submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), he 
notes that while "different institutions and personnel intervene" in the drafting of any law, the 
Petitioner's role regarding this law "was the key one, for being the one determining and elaborating 
the draft." The Director General had also noted in a letter submitted with the initial filing of the 
petition that she was also "in charge of directing the technical group for developing, drafting and 
writing the first draft of the regulations" for this law. In addition, the Petitioner's role in drafting the 
law is supported by the minutes of a meeting of the Council of Animal Welfare held onl 1 J 
2015, which indicated that the Petitioner presented the draft of the law at the meeting and received the 
comments of those participating. 
Although this evidence demonstrates the Petitioner's lead role in the creation and implementation of 
this law, the record does not establish that this work impacted the field or other animal welfare experts 
1 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 4 (Dec.22.2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 
at a national or international level. An undated article from the website of the newspaper El Derecho 
reports that the draft law includes the.I"""'"'"~~~-----,_ ___ ~----------" and expands 
upon an existing law enacted by the in 1990. The article goes on to describe 
other aspects of the law, and notes that the policy was already in place at the 
'--------------------------------------' and will 
now apply to all municipal shelters in the region. However, the article does not indicate that the 
(etitioner': work on ris law has impacted the animal welfare field or other experts beyond the 
Similarly, reference letters in the record also describe the Petitioner's work on this law and its 
implementation as it relates to entities within the 
of the'---;:===::::;-------------,r=========,.--------.------,,, notes that as the 
head of I I the Petitioner initiated the I I policy and then incorporated it into her 
drafting of the pet protection law. Although I writes that the law "is undoubtedly a 
benchmark for animal protection in Spain," she does not elaborate on its impact on other Spanish 
communities or regions. Another reference letter, froml I a veterinarian in 
th~.__ _ __.brea, states that the new law "is one of the most innovative legislations in Europe," but also 
does not elaborate on this statement or indicate that the Petitioner's work on this law has influenced 
animal welfare law or policy at the national or international level. 
The Petitioner ;lso asserts that thd Is reef pt of the Animal Welfare Award from 
thd ~ r reflects national acclaim for her work 
on the Law on.__ ____________ __. In responding to the Director's finding that the 
Petitioner did not receive the award, she refers to the district court decision in Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CV-27312011 (E.D.N.Y. Sep.20.2011) and contends that it found that in lieu of actually receiving 
an award, an individual may meet this criterion by being "officially credited as being involved in the 
award-winning project." The court in that case found that our conclusions that that petitioner was not 
officially credited for his claimed role in a film, and had not received an award, were supported by the 
evidence. However, the court did not find that with respect to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
being officially credited on a film or other project which receives an award is an alternative for actually 
receiving an award. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has demonstrated that she la ed an important part in the draft 
and implementation of the Law on 1..,r----------i-----' and that I I awarded 
the Animal Welfare Award to the~-----.----...---~ based upon the enactment of this law. 
However, the evidence also indicates that ~---~ issued, as it had in the past, an award for 
individuals committed to animal welfare in 2016, and that it chose not to award the Petitioner in this 
way. The article in the record froml l's website which reports on its 2016 awards indicates 
that for the entity or organization award, it sought to recognize the collective work of several groups 
who contributed to the law, rather than any single individual. That article is also accompanied by a 
picture of the Petitioner holding the award, along with a group of several other individuals, none of 
whom are named in the caption below. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence of her service on other ro · ects 
for '--------------------------------------~ which she was selected to research European veterinary practice regarding the inspection of small 
4 
.__ ____ ____.I and to assess those ractices in Brazil. The record includes a report authored by the 
Petitioner as part of the ro ram between the European Union and Brazil. In 
addition, a reference letter from~----------~General Secretary ofl I, confirms 
her work as an expert on this project in 2016 and a similar study conducted in Israel in 2010. Although 
~-------~ writes that after visiting Brazilian I I the Petitioner "proposed 
novel and original measures in order to increase the protection of animals at the time oJ I" she 
later indicates that the Petitioner's work resulted in the adoption of European Union animal welfare 
standards. This latter statement, which conflicts with her earlier statement that the proposals were 
original, is supported by the report, which summarizes EU law and practices regarding the humane 
treatment of animals! I In addition, while the letter indicates that the Brazilian 
I lthat the Petitioner visited implemented many of her prorosed measures, which 
allowed them to meet European Union standards "so that I _ from Brazil meets the 
necessary animal welfare requirements," the record does not include documentary evidence that the 
Petitioner's work resulted in changes to animal welfare law or policy in Brazil similar to that seen in 
the.__ ______ ____. 
Other projects highlighted by the Petitioner on appeal include her assignment as an expert for the 
I ~arried out in Turkey. The evidence 
indicates that she was a speaker at a seminar concerning the welfare of I I animals, and 
therefore further documents her expertise in the area of animal welfare. However, the Petitioner's 
participation in this and other international projects described above does not demonstrate that her 
work garnered acclaim at the national or international level. 
As noted above, the Director found that the Petitioner has served in a leading or critical role for 
organizations having a distinguished reputation. Although the Director did not identify the qualilying I 
role or organization under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we note that her service as 
I I for the government of the'-----~----' meets this criterion. 
The evidence indicates that in this role, in addition to leading the drafting and implementation of the 
I I the Petitioner worked with community organizations and 
improved pet adoption rates in the region. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her position with this 
agency as well as her membership on the Council of Animal Welfare (CAW) and the Board of 
Directors of the Spanish Network for the Development of Alternatives to Animal Experimentation 
(REMA) are indicative of her position at the top of her field. Regarding CAW, the evidence indicates 
that it is "a consultative and advisory body" whose composition is regulated by order of the 
government of thel I and that its members are appointed according to their title 
or position in local or regional government, education, professional associations and community 
organizations. Although the Petitioner's activity in CAW and within the regional government reflects 
her standing as a top animal welfare expert in thq lregion, it does not establish that she is one 
of the small percentage at the top of her field on a national or international basis. 
Turning to the Petitioner's appointment to REMA, the minutes of a meeting reflect that she joined as 
an 1._ __________ _.~' andl lof the activities of this organization, along with other 
government officials. It does not indicate that she was a member of the Board of Directors, nor does 
a letter from~ _______ ___, the organization's secretary. Further, althoughl I 
states in his letter that "members are selected based on outstanding achievements in their field," 
Article 23 ofREMA's statutes indicates that members are "entities or associations that have an interest 
5 
in the development of the purposes of the Association." More importantly, while her selection as an 
I lfor REMA reflects its recognition of her position in the regional government and her expertise 
in the animal welfare field, the record lacks evidence regarding the organization's reputation or 
standing within the field and any specific duties or projects that the Petitioner took on in this role. 
As we noted above, the Petitioner's participation as a judge of the work of other experts in her field is 
demonstrated by the appointment letter to thel I 
I · tes of th -ommittee's meetin s. 
In both roles, she evaluated contracts or bids relatinJ to animal welfare services over the 
course of: several years on behalf of the I This evidence farther demonstrates 
the influence the Petitioner has had in the field of animal welfare in the region for many years, but 
does not show that this influence extended beyond I Is borders. 
The Petitioner notes on appeal that her career in animal welfare has spanned 28 years, during which 
she has played important roles for several organizations. The evidence demonstrates that during this 
career, she led the development and implementation of new animal welfare laws and policies in the 
worked with and advised nonprofit organizations in the region, and 
~su-c--c--e-s_s_fo_l_ly_p_ro_m_o_te_d_t~he humane treatment and increased adoption o~ ] animals. 
Although the evidence shows that the Petitioner made animal presentations in Israel and Turkey, and 
served as an advisor on European Unionl !policies in Brazil, the evidence does not 
demonstrate that these activities brought her acclaim in her field at the national or international level, 
or were indicative of a standing as one of the small percentage at the top of her field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals at the top of their 
respective fields. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of her 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 that she 
is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility 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. 
6