dismissed EB-1A Case: Archivist

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
'Services 
MATTER OF G-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 25,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an archivist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(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 acclai~ 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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits additional 
documentation and a brief maintaining that he meets three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismrss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -An alien is described in this subparagraph 
if-
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national 
or inten1ational 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 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-A-
(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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner served as the of the national archives division for the 
As the Petitioner has not 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). In denying the Petition, the Director found that that·the Petitioner met 
only the scholarly articles criterion under 8 
C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that he meets the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the judging 
· criterion under criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and the leading or critical role criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record of 
proceedings, and it does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-A-
shall include the title, date, anfi author of the material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) . 
The record indicates that the Petitioner submitted Internet articles from 
and the 
The evidence, however, does not contain the authors of the articles as required by the 
regulation . . Further, although the Petitioner is mentioned in the artiCles, they are not about him 
consistent with the meaning of the plain language of this regulatory criterion. For instance, the 
article is about the ambassador visiting the The articles from talk about 
changes in public access to national records, meetings with archivists from other countries, and 
upgrades to electronic documents. ·The artiCles comment on conference proceedings and 
Persian manuscripts. As the articles do not discuss the Petitioner, feature him, or otherwise focus on 
him and his work in the field, they do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. 
Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles 
about a show are not about the actor). 
The Petitioner requests that if his evidence does not meet the requirements under this criterion it 
should be accepted as comparable evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
Accordingly, the petitioner must demonstrate why this regulatory criterion is not readily applicable 
to his occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Here, the Petitioner does not explain why the published material 
criterion does not apply to his occupation as an archivist. Where a petitioner is simply unable to 
meet or submit documentary evidence of this criterion, the plain language of the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. 
Even if the Petitioner had established that the published material criterion does not apply to his 
occupation, he did not demonstrate how his contention that the material shows that his 
"achievements happened under [his] direction and leadership of is comparable to the 
published material criterion. Indeed, the evidence is more appropriate for consideration under the 
leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which will be discussed later in 
this decision. For these reasons , the Petitioner does not meet the published material criterion , and 
his evidence cannot be considered comparable to this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation , either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record contains evidence reflecting that the Petitioner served as a scientific referee of articles for 
the journal, Accordingly, the Petitioner established that he meets this 
criterion. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-A-
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 Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in a quarterly 
journal of As "such, the Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion, and the record 
supports that finding. 
Evidence that the alien 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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he performed in a leading role as deputy of the national 
archives division for In general, a leading role should be apparent by its position in the 
organizational hierarchy and the role's matching duties. The Petitioner submits an organizational 
chart placing his position as one of the prominent positions within Specifically, the deputy of 
national archives is one of four deputy positions that reports to director. Further, the record 
contains examples of the Petitioner's responsibilities, including meeting with ambassadors and 
foreign 
dignitaries, convening conferences, and being a spokesperson on behalf of Based on 
the preponderance of the evidence, the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that 
he performed in a leading role for 
The plain language ofthe regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) also requires the organizations or 
establishments to have a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that "is 
a very prominent organization" and refers to the approval of its bylaws by and its 
supervision by a board of trustees headed by as evidence of its reputation. The 
record also contains evidence that served as the Director of the 
as well as a visit by the ambassador 
to the organization. We are not persuaded that organizations or departments under the auspices of a 
national government inherently possess distinguished reputations. Here, the Petitioner's contentions 
indicate that is sanctioned to operate and function in They do not, however, demonstrate 
that enjoys a distinguished reputation. Although the record indicates participation in 
an event outside of and a visit by a foreign dignitary, the Petitioner did not express how these 
two events reflect reputation at a distinguished level consistent \Vith this regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner has not shown, for example, that is viewed as an eminent or respected archival 
institution by others in the field. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of 
demonstrating his eligibility under this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record satisfies only two of the regulatory criteria. As a result, the 
Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
4 
Matter ofG-A-
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained 
_/ national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we 
need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the 
record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise 
and sustained acclaim required for the classification sought. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fG-A-, ID# 86914 (AAO Nov. 25, 2016)