dismissed EB-1A Case: Aromatherapy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 17, 2023 In Re: 25937049 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an aromatherapist, seeks classification as an individual 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, either as the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award, or by meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (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-part 
analysis. First, 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 
pet1t10ner 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 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-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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner 1s an aromatherapist who proposes to open an aromatherapy studio in ~I--~ 
Washington. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she 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 Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied the criteria listed below: 
• Documentation of the individual'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) ; 
• Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii); 
• Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); 
• Evidence of the individual'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); and 
• 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). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied one criterion relating to leading or critical role for 
distinguished organizations or establishments; however, we disagree. 1 The plain language of the 
regulation requires the organizations or establishments to have a distinguished reputation, defined as 
"marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence or befitting an eminent person." 2 In response to the 
Director's re uest for evidence, the Petitioner submitted evidence that she is the founder of 
1 We note that the Director did not provide any explanation for this conclusion. 
2 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, cited in 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 appendix, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 
I additionj she provided copies of awards issued to I 
I _ such as the "Parents' Choice Award 2019" from I Iand the title of 
"high quality natural TCM aromatherapy product in 2020" from I I Although we 
acknowledge the awards, the Petitioner has not provided documentation to establish their significance 
such that their receipt demonstrates the distinguished reputation of the company. Without more, the 
evidence is insufficient to establish that either company has a distinguished reputation as required by 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that she 
meets this criterion, and we withdraw the Director's determination to the contrary. 
In addition, we observe that the Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusion regarding 
published material about the individual or provide any additional evidence on appeal. We therefore 
consider the Petitioner to have waived this criterion. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement, two letters of recommendation, one from a member of 
the International Services Advisory Committee (ISAC) at University I I 
I I Health and one from her publisher, and membership information regarding the United 
Kingdom's International Federation of Aromatherapists (IF A). In her statement, the Petitioner 
contends that there are "some details that need to be supplemented to facilitate" our judgement. She 
further discusses her education and experience with aromatherapy. Moreover, she asserts that she has 
been "making contributions to this industry for more than ten years, including creating training 
schools, researching and developing essential oil products and writing professional books." However, 
upon review, we conclude that the evidence does not overcome the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner does not meet at least three of the ten criteria. 
Regarding the letter from the ISAC member, the Petitioner simply describes it as a "supporting letter" 
without any additional explanation of its significance or the criterion it addresses. In visa petition 
proceedings, it is the petitioner's 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). Commensurate with that burden is the responsibility for explaining the significance of 
proffered evidence. Repaka v. Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1219 (S.D. Cal. 2014). 
The author of the letter states that the Petitioner has: 
[P]ioneered the practice of aromatherapy where she is the first to have discovered new 
practices and applications of aromatherapy as a form of natural treatment that not only 
utilizes the natural and rapid properties of essential oils, but also accurately treats 
various systems through [Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)] ideologies for fast, 
effective, and accurate effects. 
The author further states that his family member used her rhinitis cream, and it improved her 
symptoms. Moreover, the author states that he has read her books and that it has broadened his belief 
"in essential oils and the application of its natural properties as a plant-based and organic alternative 
3 See Matter of R-A-M-. 25 T&N Dec. 657. 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision. that issue is waived); see also Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226. 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding 
the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
3 
solutions." Even if we were to assume that the letter is intended to address the original contributions 
criterion, it does not sufficiently describe a specific original contribution that has impacted the broader 
field of aromatherapy, provoked widespread commentary, or had an influence on subsequent work in 
the specific field. The author's assertions do not explain how the Petitioner's work has been widely 
implemented in the field or establish that the Petitioner's work has had a demonstrable impact on the 
field as a whole commensurate with an original contribution of major significance. 
With regard to the publisher's letter, the author also discusses the Petitioner's education and 
experience in aromatherapy. In addition, the author states that the Petitioner "took the lead in 
developing the cause of aromatherapy education and trainin in China." Furthermore the author 
discusses 
______________
the Petitioner's books entitled 
.__ ____, The author states that that "[t]hese books contain a lot of 
[the Petitioner's] painstaking efforts, including rich and exclusive clinic cases" and "[e]ach chapter 
has unique insights, which is extremely expansive and referential for fans and practitioners." 
As discussed by the Director, a scholarly article is an article that is written for learned persons in the 
field. Here, the letter does not establish that the Petitioner's books were written for learned persons. 
Instead, it appears they are a guide for using aromatherapy on children and pregnant women. 
Furthermore, the letter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's books are professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. Moreover, this letter also does not establish that the Petitioner has 
made an original contribution of major significance in the field as it does not demonstrate a specific 
original contribution that has impacted the broader field of aromatherapy, provoked widespread 
commentary, or had an influence on subsequent work in the specific field. 
Regarding the membership information from IFA, the evidence shows that there are five levels of 
membership and, in order to become a member, an individual is required to complete particular courses 
corresponding to the specific membership level and pay an annual fee. The evidence does not 
demonstrate that IF A requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for membership as 
required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Therefore, the evidence does not overcome 
the Director's determination that she has not met this criterion. 
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. As a result, we do not need to provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward that goal. We have long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter o_fPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her work in aromatherapy is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim, 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 section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
4 
national or international acclaim in the field and are one of the small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5