dismissed EB-1A Case: Aquaculture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 20, 2024 In Re: 33941201 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a chief executive of an aquaculture company in a foreign country 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. § 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 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 he demonstrate that he 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 (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 
291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (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 
To qualify under this immigrant 
classification, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 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-step analysis. In the first 
step, a petitioner can demonstrate international 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 criteria 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 move to the second step to 
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, 
1121 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-step 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 Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner worked in the information technology field for several decades then in approximately 
2019 he applied much of that knowledge to the aquaculture industry, involving the farming of fish, 
shellfish, plants, and other organisms in water. 
A. The Beneficiary's Field of Expertise 
In Part 6 of the petition, the Petitioner listed the Beneficiary's job title for the proposed employment 
as chief executive and provided the Department of Labor's standard occupational classificational code 
for the occupation by that same title. In the material accompanying his initial petition filing, the 
Petitioner discussed his recent achievements as a chief executive for a company in the aquaculture 
industry in a foreign country and he indicated that upon approval of this petition, he will continue in 
that industry and bring the aquaculture internet of things technologies to the United States where he 
will start a new company. 
The statute requires those filing for this immigrant classification to show they have extraordinary 
ability by demonstrating their "achievements have been recognized in the field'' and that they seek "to 
enter the United States to continue to work in the area of extraordinary ability." Section 
203(b)(1 )(A)(i)-(ii). The statute uses these terms synonymously. Stemming from that statutory 
concept, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) defines extraordinary ability as "a level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that smal 1 percentage who have risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that a foreign national's "achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise" through either a one-time achievement or through a sufficient 
number of criteria listed thereafter. And 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(S) mandates the foreign national "is 
coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise." (Emphasis added in each 
citation). 
Therefore, congress created, and the agency promulgated, this immigrant classification providing an 
overarching structure requiring that one's achievements have been recognized in the same field of 
expertise that the individual intends to work in as a permanent resident in the United States. Federal 
2 
courts agree with the prospect-and favorably cite to the USCTS Policy Manual-that where one's 
historical achievements rely on different skillsets than the area of expertise they intended to engage in 
within the United States, that USCIS acts within its authority to decide the historical accolades do not 
satisfy the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See Mussarova v. Garland, 562 
F. Supp. 3d 837, 843--44 (C.D. Cal. 2022) (citing Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 
2002)); see also Integrity Gymnastics & Pure Power Cheerleading, LLC v. United States Citizenship 
& Immigr. Servs., 131 F. Supp. 3d 721, 729-31 (S.D. Ohio 2015) (finding it appropriate to disregard 
distant claims and evidence as a competitor under the regulatory criteria when the foreign national is 
applying as a coach or instructor). 
These requirements relate to this case in the following way. The Petitioner had a career and 
accumulated achievements outside of the aquaculture industry and only joined that field in the late 
twenty-teen years. When he filed the petition, the Petitioner indicated he "is one of the few best chief 
executives," and that he "will continue working in the aquaculture industry, bringing IoT [internet of 
things] technologies that have been proven successful to the United States." As a result, the Petitioner 
must satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) through his accomplishments in the aquaculture 
industry, as that is his field of endeavor in which he intends to engage in the United States. Also, were 
he to satisfy at least three of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), USCIS would limit their 
totality of the evidence analysis to his claims and evidence in the field of aquaculture, as well as any 
claims he presents as comparable evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
We observe the USCTS Policy Manual provides the following relating to the final merits 
determination: 
At this step, officers consider any potentially relevant evidence in the record, even if 
such evidence does not fit one of the above regulatory criteria or was not presented as 
comparable evidence. The officers consider all evidence in the totality. Some evidence 
may weigh more favorably on its own, while other evidence is more persuasive when 
viewed with other evidence. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)( 1 ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. But we further 
observe that the statute and the regulation operate under the rubric that a foreign national must 
demonstrate their achievements have been recognized in the same field of expertise that the individual 
intends to work in as a permanent resident in the United States. As a result, the USCTS Policy Manual's 
language comes into play in which it states, "officers consider any potentially relevant evidence in the 
record." The phrase "any potentially relevant evidence" here refers only to the Petitioner's area of 
extraordinary ability or area of expertise rubric, as the policy does not expressly depart from the 
statutory and regulatory requirements that the foreign national is coming to the United States to 
continue to work in those areas. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met four of the regulatory criteria. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied one of the criteria relating to published material, but 
3 
that he had not satisfied the criteria associated with original contributions, authorship of scholarly 
articles, or performing in a leading or critical role. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets 
the evidentiary criteria the Director declined to grant. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, 
we agree with the Director's overall determination that the petition does not warrant an approval. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The primary requirements here are that the Petitioner's contributions in their field were original and 
they rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an 
organization. See Amin, 24 F.4th at 394 (citing Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 
2013)). The regulatory phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. 
Nielsen v. ?reap, 586 U.S. 392, 415 (2019) (finding that every word and every provision in a statute 
is to be given effect and none should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate 
another provision or to have no consequence). Further, the Petitioner's contributions must have 
already been realized rather than being potential, future improvements. Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The Petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
As we noted above, the Petitioner is applying to continue working in the field of aquaculture, and his 
claimed contributions must fall under that umbrella. We therefore will not factor in his claimed 
contributions from his career prior to joining the aquaculture field in the areas of virtual and augmented 
reality technology. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this 
criterion. Making that determination, the Director acknowledged the originality of the Petitioner's 
contributions through his research, but incorrectly permitted his contributions from fields outside of 
his claimed area of extraordinary ability or expertise in which he will continue to work in the United 
States. Ultimately, the Director recognized the Petitioner's patents and claims relating to inventions 
and intellectual property, but decided the record lacked adequate documentation to corroborate his 
claims. 
I Ifounded The Petitioner is now the chief executive 
of that company and it is where his efforts in aquaculture have been recognized. MrOstated in his 
letter that in China, the aquaculture industry's adoption of technology was at a bare minimum but 
when he brought the Petitioner into the company, the Petitioner's efforts changed that over the 
preceding years. Other letters within the record reflect a similar view of the Petitioner's effect in this 
field in China. As the Petitioner's patents relating to the aquaculture industry in his home country 
reflect, his contributions are original as it relates to that country. But the Petitioner did not address 
that other very similar devices and methods already existed in other countries when he joined I I 
I I 
The regulation and the USCIS Policy Manual require the Petitioner's contributions to impact the 
broader field and not simply the industry within his home country. We note scholarly work that 
preceded the Petitioner's efforts by several years call into question the originality of his contributions 
to the broader aquaculture field. For instance, two published works at a 201 7 conference were 
presented relating to automating water quality in a controlled aquaculture environment similar to some 
4 
of the Petitioner's advancements in Chinese aquaculture. 1 And in 2013 Ifounded 
a smart feeding technology that changed the way aquaculture farmers feed their fisheries 
through a similar internet of things feeding solution as the Petitioner describes as his contribution to 
the aquaculture field. 
The evidence the Petitioner presented is not adequate to show his contributions to the aquaculture field 
are both original and of major significance, especially considering much of his claimed achievements 
already existed outside of his home country. The Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion's 
requirements. 
Evidence of the alien'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 evidence the Petitioner provided under this criterion was a 1998 article he published about how 
different materials behave under stress, especially when cracks are present in the material. He also 
provided a 2006 article he published in a computer graphics periodical relating to using an algorithm 
to extract symbols from topographical maps to simplify the digital scanning process. 
We review this criterion under the rubric that the Petitioner's achievements under the regulatory 
criteria must be in his field of aquaculture. Applying that to the authorship of scholarly articles at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the Petitioner's articles themselves must have been published in the same 
field of endeavor in which he intends to continue working in the United States. Although the Petitioner 
has a background in circuitry and systems engineering, as we note above, he is applying within this 
petition as a chief executive who intends to start a company in the United States that is similar to his 
company in another country. His foreign company is an internet of things organization specializing 
in the aquaculture market. The Petitioner has not established that an article in the field of structural 
or materials science, nor one related to geospatial information science and digital image processing 
has a sufficient nexus to: (1) his field or area of extraordinary ability (statutory terms); or (2) his field 
of endeavor, field of expertise, or area of expertise (regulatory terms). 
As a result, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion's requirements relying on evidence from a 
different field from the one he intends to engage as a lawful permanent resident in the United States. 
We conclude that although the Petitioner satisfies the published material criterion, he does not meet 
the criteria regarding authorship of scholarly articles or original contributions of major significance. 
While he argues and submits evidence for one additional criterion on appeal relating to leading or 
critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), it is unnecessary that we make a decision on this additional 
ground because he cannot numerically meet the required number of at least three criteria. As the 
Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), we reserve the remaining issues. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328,332 (2022) (citing INS 
1 A. D. M. Africa, J. C. C. A. Aguilar, C. M. S. Lim, P.A. A. Pacheco and S. E. C. Rodrin, Automated aquaculture system 
that regulates Ph, temperature and ammonia, 2017IEEE 9th International Conference on Humanoid. Nanotechnology. 
Information Technology. Communication and Control. Environment and Management (HNICEM), Manila, Philippines, 
2017, pp. 1-6; M. C. De Belen and F. R. G. Cruz, "Water quality parameter correlation in a controlled aquaculture 
environment," 2017IEEE 9th International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology. Information Technology. 
Communication and Control, Environment and Management (HNICEM), Manila, Philippines, 2017, pp. 1--4. 
5 
v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision)); see also Matter ofLarios-Gutierrez 
De Pablo & Pablo-Larios, 28 I&N Dec. 868, 877 n.8 (BIA 2024) (declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered an independent and 
alternative basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6