dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-Y-M-
, Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 13,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an innovative medical business strategist, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in business. 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief stating that she meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss 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 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 
.
Matter ofS-Y-M-
(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 of evidence 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. 20 10) (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); R[jal v. USCIS; 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011); .. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be detem1ined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
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 recently graduated from the 
and interned as a quality improvement project leader and researcher at 
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 ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found 
that the Petitioner did not meet any of the regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets the awards criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the published material 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the original contributions criterion under§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
and the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(viiir We have reviewed all of 
the evidence in the record, and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets 
the plain language requirements ofat least three criteria. · 
2 
.
Matter ofS-Y-M-
A. Evidentiary Criteria' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the .field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner presented a foreign language document claiming that it reflected the 
Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly 
certified English language translation of the document, we cannot meaningfully determine whether 
the material is accurate and thus supports her claims. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence of her receipt of three awards from the following 
organizations: 1) the "for having exhibited the greatest 
interest, knowledge, and proficiency in the field of general dentistry during the senior year"; 2) the 
for" 
and 3) the "to recognize the leadership displayed 
during the 2013-2014 school year." Although she provided screenshots regarding general and 
background information about and the issue for this regulatory criterion is the 
recognition of the prizes or awards rather than the history or reputation of the awarding entities. 
Here, the documentation does not establish or indicate that the Petitioner's awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence. Further, in her brief, the Petitioner quotes the selection 
process for the award; however, she does not provide the referenced source or documentation to 
support her assertions. Even so, the award criteria do not shO\v that it is nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence beyond Moreover, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how her 
awards, which are dental student awards, are indicative of excellence in innovation medical business 
strategy, a field in which she claims extraordinary ability. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for lvhich classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disc1jJlines orfields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition for 
membership. The Petitioner submitted screenshots from regarding background, governance, 
and organizational structure. The evidence, however, does not list the membership requirements or 
state whether membership is judged by recognized national or international experts. Although she 
documented her membership with the Petitioner did not establish that requires 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. In addition, she 
1 
We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
2 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03.2(b)(3 ). The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the 
translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. !d. 
3 
.
Matter ofS-Y-M-
has not explained how membership in a general dentistry association whose mission is to provide 
"quality dental care and oral health education to the public" is in the field of innovation medical 
business strategy. For these reasons, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
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 
shall include the title, date. and author of the material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner indicates eligibility for this criterion based on her authorship of four articles for 
a publication. In order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be "about" 
the Petitioner. A review of the articles reflects that they are regarding and related 
events at Evidence of the Petitioner's authorship in reporting news at is not sufficient 
to satisfy the plain language of this regulation, which requires that the published material be "abouf' 
her. As such, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 3 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly. artistic. athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign~ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that her role as an innovative medical quality improvement research 
associate and business strategist at meets this criterion. In addition, she refers to a letter from 
a professor at who stated that the Petitioner "is a skillful master of medical 
science and innovative business strategies, which is a unique combination of skills rarely possessed 
by a professional." 
The plain language of this criterion requires the Petitioner to submit evidence of her original 
contributions of major significance in the field. The Petitioner's role at is more appropriate 
under the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and will be discussed 
further below. Moreover, neither the Petitioner nor identified an original contribution of 
major significance that she has made to her field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her 
impact in the field as a whole). Although describes the Petitioner's "unique combination 
of skills," having a diverse skill set is not an original contribution of major significance unless the 
Petitioner can demonstrate that she has used those skills to influence the field in a significant 
manner. Without supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not met her burden of showing that she 
meets this criterion. 
3 On appeal, the Petitioner does not argue that her articles meet the authorship criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Regardless, the record does not demonstrate that her writings constitute scholarly m1icles in the field. As such, she does 
not meet this criterion. 
4 
.
Matter ofS-Y-M-
, Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role .fhr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
As indicated above, the Petitioner maintains that she performed in a critical role at 
In general, a critical role is one in which a petitioner 
was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. She submitted a 
letter from a professor at who stated that the Petitioner's research and 
quality control techniques were pivotal to the department's adherence to the 
The record also contains the Petitioner's resume reflecting 
that she served in this position under an internship. Although generally credits the 
Petitioner's work with bolstering reputation and securingadditional 
funds, the record, which 
lacks specific information explaining how her role strengthened standing or what funding it 
received, is insufficient to establish that she performed in a critical role. Further, the Petitioner did 
not show, for example, that was not meeting its accreditation status or securing grants, and 
that only after her internship it became successful in doing so. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) also requires the organizations or 
establishments to have a distinguished reputation. Although indicated that "is 
recognized as one of the preeminent research universities in the world," he did not explain or 
provide information to corroborate his claims. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown, for example, 
that or its surgery department is viewed as an eminent or respected medical institution by 
others in the field. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the record does not satisfy any 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). 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the·next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of evidence 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.F.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 
required for the classification sought. 
5 
Matter ofS-Y-M-
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fS-Y-M-, ID# 307250 (AAO Apr. 13, 2017)