dismissed EB-1A Case: Augmented And Virtual Reality

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC . 7, 2023 In Re: 28980948 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a project manager in augmented reality and virtual reality, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )( 1 )(A), 
8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 did not satisfy 
at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established 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 determined the Petitioner did not 
fulfill any of them. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains he meets four evidentiary categories. 
Documentation ofthe alien 's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner claims eli ibilit for this criterion based on his recei t of the Certificate of Merit from 
the,__________________________ _. USCIS determines if the 
person was the recipient of prizes or awards. 1 The description of this type of evidence in the regulation 
indicates that the focus should be on the person's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to the 
employer's receipt of the awards or prizes. 2 
USCIS then determines whether the award is a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award, which the person received for excellence in the field of endeavor. 3 As indicated by the plain 
language of the regulation, this criterion does not require an award or prize to have the same level of 
recognition and prestige associated with the Nobel Prize or another award that would qualify as a one­
time achievement. 4 
The Petitioner initially submitted a certificate indicating his receipt of the award "for his great personal 
contribution to the development of environmental management, environmental protection and active 
participation in the preparations for the Year of Ecology in Russia." In response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a letter from K-M-S-, director of the I 
who stated: 
1 See generally 6 USCTS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual 
2 Id. 
3 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
4 Id. 
2 
I 
This award is given to civil servants of the._________________ __.
I l federal services, and federal agencies under the Ministry's 
jurisdiction, their territorial bodies, employees of subordinate organizations, and other 
individuals for their personal contribution to the implementation of the state policy in 
the field of studying, using, reproducing, and protecting natural resources. 
The criteria for evaluation for receiving (the Honorary Certificate) are the project's 
uniqueness, its potential for subsequent use, its demonstration of responsible nature 
management, and its scalability. All of this is stated in the application, which is 
addressed to the Minister. Heads of subordinate organizations are responsible for the 
information provided in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. In 
case of the detection of false information, the award is revoked, and the applicant is 
held responsible for the inaccurate information provided, up to criminal liability. 
The Petitioner did not establish how the letter reflects the national or international recognition for 
excellence in the field for the Certificate of Merit. The letter does not discuss the field's view of the 
Certificate of Merit or explain why the award is considered to be nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence. In this case, although the letter provides some background information, 
such as the evaluating criteria, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the recognition of the award beyond 
the._________________ ____. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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 Petitioner contends eligibility for this criterion based on his membership with the All-Russian 
Society for the Protection of Nature (ARSPN). USCIS determines if the association for which the 
person claims membership requires that members have outstanding achievements in the field as judged 
by recognized experts in that field. 5 The petitioner must show that membership in the association 
requires outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. 6 
The Petitioner initially submitted a membership confirmation letter from ARSPN and a 
recommendation letter from T-T-U-, member of ARSPN, who described several of the Petitioner's 
professional accomplishments but made no mention of the organization's membership requirements 
or judging body. In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner provided another letter from 
T-T-U- who stated: 
5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
6 Id. 
3 
Persons who make obvious contribution to the development and popularization of the 
protection of nature in the territory of the Russian Federation can become members of 
our Society. Board of the Society and the Chairman make decision on admission to 
members of Society on the basis of application and delivery of documents that confirm 
the professional activities of the applicant and his/her contribution to the development 
and popularization of the protection of nature in the territory of the Russian Federation. 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate how the letter shows that membership with ARSPN requires 
outstanding achievements and recognized national or international experts determine membership. In 
fact, based on the letter, membership requires an "obvious contribution." The letter does not further 
elaborate and explain what constitutes an "obvious contribution" and how that is tantamount to an 
"outstanding achievement." Moreover, while the letter indicates that the board and chairman make 
the decision on admission, the letter does not show whether they are considered to be recognized 
national or international experts. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate he fulfills this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The 
Petitioner did not establish he satisfies the criteria relating to awards and memberships. Although 
the Petitioner also claims eligibility for the published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and 
original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), we need not reach these additional grounds 
because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). We also need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 7 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not support a 
conclusion 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 those progressing toward the top. Matter ofPrice, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal 11), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal 1), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at *1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding 
denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of 
gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win 
this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably 
one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball 
7 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where applicants do not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
4 
coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or 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)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 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)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing him among the upper 
echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
5