dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6337235 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 3, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a chief operating officer, 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 Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1) 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 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). 
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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director "erred in his decision as he applied "a far higher 
evidentiary standard than the preponderance of the probabilities" whereas the Director "needs only to 
find that it is more likely than not that she is an individual of extraordinary ability." She argues that 
the evidence submitted with the instant petition "made a strong prima facie case of eligibility" not 
only because the Director determined that she met two of the initial evidentiary criteria, but also due 
to "the Service's prior finding that three virtually identical criteria are satisfied (by approving [her] 
existing 0-1 A petition.)" 1 
We note that the record indicates that the Petitioner has previously been granted 0-1 status, a 
classification reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. However, this does not preclude 
users from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard -
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after users 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant 
visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if 
a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not 
1 The Petitioner also argues that the Director ened because he '\vrongly states" that the Petitioner "holds an O-lB visa and 
that mere nominations for awards are sufficient for her 0-1 status," and "apparently conflates the O-lB criteria applicable 
to the arts with the O- IA criteria applicable to the sciences." This argument is inapposite here. While the Director 
inconectly lists the Petitioner as providing evidence that she holds an O-IB visa, the matter before him was whether the 
Petitioner submitted evidence sufficient to establish her eligibility for classification as an immigrant of extraordinary 
ability, not as a nonimmigrant of extraordinary ability. The Director's decision correctly evaluated the evidence in the 
record to determine if it met the requirements for the classification sought. 
2 
bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petlt10n. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
She further asserts on appeal that the record establishes that she has satisfied the requisite three initial 
evidentiary criteria, and she has therefore demonstrated her eligibility to be classified as an alien of 
extraordinaiy ability. Specifically, the Petitioner references Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. 
Mich. 1994) in noting, "[t]he Buletini court's precise language regarding what must happen next once 
at least three criteria are satisfied is illuminating." She then quotes the following from Buletini: "the 
alien must be deemed to have extraordinary ability unless the INS sets forth specific and substantiated 
reasons for its finding that the alien, despite having satisfied the criteria, does not meet the 
extraordinary ability standard." 2 
We note, however, that in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States 
circuit court (such as with Kazarian), we are not bound to follow the published decisions of a United 
states disti·ict court in cases arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 
(BIA 1993). The reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration 
when it is properly before us; however the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. 
Id. At 719. 
Regardless, the above quote from Buletini indicates that the court considered the possibility that a 
petitioner can submit evidence satisfying three criteria and still not meet the extraordinary ability 
standard if USC IS provides specific and substantiated reasoning for its conclusion. See Buletini, 860 
F. Supp. at 1234. The court in Buletini did not reject at any time the concept of examining the quality 
of the evidence presented. Specifically, the court in Buletini acknowledged, "the examiner must 
evaluate the quality, including the credibility, of the evidence presented to determine if it, in fact, 
satisfies the criteria." Id. As discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has established that 
she satisfies three of the initial evidentiary criteria. However, for the foregoing reasons, we do not 
find that this alone establishes her eligibility for the classification sought. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
As the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has 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 Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to judging and to scholarly articles. We agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner satisfies these two criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to awards, 
published material, original contributions, and leading or critical role. 3 After reviewing all of the 
2 In addition to Buletini, the Petitioner cites Muni v INS 891 F Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995), Racine v. INS 995 U.S. Dist. 
LEXIS 4336, 1995 WL 153319 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), and Gulen v. Chernoff 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54607 (E.D. Pa. 
Jul 16, 2008), as having "held that having met the required evidentiary burden of proof, plaintiffs were eligible as aliens 
of extraordinary ability, absent any evidence to the contrary." We note that each of these district court cases predates 
Kazarian. Further, as discussed, we are not bound to follow the published decisions of a district court. 
3 The Director determined that the Petitioner's evidence did not meet the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)() 
3 
evidence in the record, we find that the record supports a conclusion that she meets a third criterion, 
as discussed below. 
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 Petitioner asserts that she served in a leading role as the chief operating officer ofl I ~--~1-4 The Director determined that she did not meet this criterion as the evidence submitted by 
Petitioner did not "contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how [her] 
role fo~ I or former employer was leading or critical." He further determined that "the 
evidence does not indicate that the organizations or establishments for which [she had] claimed to 
perform in leading or critical roles have a distinguished reputation." We disagree and will withdraw 
the Director's finding in this matter for the following reasons. 
As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is ( or was) a leader. A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 5 The 
Petitioner submits evidence, such as her executed employment agreement listing appropriate matching 
duties and a letter from I ~'s chief executive officer confirming that she was a co-founder of that 
entity, establishing that she has performed in a leading role. 6 
Regarding I ts distinguished reputation, 7 the record reflects that it is a com an that has been 
marked by excellence as indicated b its selection as a 2017 and as a 
company-in residence at th L------r------,_ ___ ----1 .,_ __ ___.device incubator. In a 
letter of recommendation in the record the vice president of venture investments at 
I l describes th ~--.=======-.award as "the I I industry's I I I Competition for transformativel I." She states, "[s]uch an award refl-ec_t_s_o_n_t.,.-h_e_. 
importance of the business opportunity, but even more so on the quality of the founders." The record 
further reflects that I I was one of 19 companies selected globally in the 20171 I 
competition. 
The record also demonstrates tha s selection as a company-in-residence aD was based upon 
its reputation for excellence. Both 's chief executive officer, andl I ~-------~ 
because, while evidence in the record established her membership in several associations, it did not demonstrate that these 
associations require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national of international experts 
in her field. The Petitioner does not contest that determination on appeal, and so we consider her to have abandoned her 
claim that she meets this c1iterion. Accordingly, we will not address whether she does so here. However, we will address 
evidence submitted regarding this criterion in the final merits dete_~rm_in....;.a;.;_ti...;;.o_n.'------~ 
4 
We note that the Petitioner also references her employment withl.~-----, I As she has established that she 
meets this criterion, we will address evidence related to her role with! . ._ ______ _.tTri'"the final merits determination. 
5 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 10 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https: / /v-.·ww. uscis. gov /poli cymanual/HTML/P olicyManual.html. 
6 
We note that the record also contains a July 2018 ,,._do_c=u=m=e=n~t=ti=tl=ed=I~-------------~--~ 
I I appointing the Petitioner as the entity'~ f "to serve 
in such a capacity until her successor is duly elected and qualified or until her earlier resignation or removal.'' However, 
this document is not executed, and it is unclear from the record whether she assumed this position. 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 11 (noting that Webster's online dictionary defines 
distinguished as marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence.) 
4 
.__ __ __,,-- .......... i=;ts founder, confirm this in letters of recommendation in the record. I l 
states that ........ _ ..... was offered this position after being evaluated for and scoring highly on "the I r 
benefit offered by [its] I I the business potential of the company, and the excellence of the 
founding team."I lstates thatD"only admit[s] companies that we believe will be worth 
our time and capital" and thatl I "definitely belongs in that category," having "already benefited 
frmp .. a .... q.umber of highly desired grants." Further, letters of recommendation in the record demonstrate 
thaL..Jenjoys a well-respected reputation; by extension! l's selection as a compan -in-residence 
in a top-tier incubator reflects the enti 's distinguished re utation. Fo.=r~ex=a=m==le~---~~ 
describesOas a "to -tier com an m " while ........ ______ ~ the 
director of the ........ ____________ ~ describes it as "a highly respected incubator." 
Accordingly, the record shows, by the preponderance of the evidence, that I I holds a 
distinguished reputation. The Petitioner has established that she has performed in a leading role for 
an establishment having a distinguished reputation. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's 
finding that she does not meet this criterion. 
As we note above, the Petitioner asserts on appeal that she meets three additional criteria. However, 
as she has established that she already satisfies three criteria, we need not address whether she meets 
the others, but we will consider the evidence submitted as part of the final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119--20. 8 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
The Petitioner holds a doctorate from thel I College I I and was a postdoctoral fellow at 
the.c=:J University! I She was previously the chief operating officer 
forL_j and has indicated that she intends to remain in the United States to continue to work as 
the company's chief executive officer. 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner judged others within her field, authored scholarly articles, and 
performed in a leading role. The record, however, does not demonstrate that her achievements reflect 
a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101--723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990). 
x See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 4 (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the 
evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a 
preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise of the immigrant classification). 
5 
Relating to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of her experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22.9 The record 
reflects that she has reviewed scholarly articles appearing in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 
The Journal of the Royal Society Inteiface, and in Medical Engineering & Physics. Participating as 
an editor does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has extraordinaiy ability and sustained 
national or international acclaim at the ve1y top of her field. The Petitioner does not provide evidence 
demonstrating that she garnered wide attention from the field for her reviews. 
Likewise, chairing conference sessions and reviewing presentations and applications in the field of 
endeavor does not automatically place one at the top of one's field. Here, the Petitioner provides 
cmrespondence thanking her for her work as a first-round reviewer for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 
I IF ellowships and evaluator of the I ~ presentations for an 
undergraduate course in bioengineering at I I University. She includes letters of 
recommendation and conference materials confirmin that she served as co-chair of a session on 
biomedical engineering education at the 2017L.._ ____ r----------,...J nnual Meeting, as 
well as correspondence showing that she was a reviewer fo~------- candidates at theO 
and a recruitment interviewer for · correspondence 
confirming her roles as a lecturer a University' s.L..---r-----,,------_Jand as a graduate 
teaching assistant and student supervisor at~~-~ ollege~-~ 
While this evidence confirms her participation in each of these roles, it does not show how her work 
in these positions compares to others in her field or otherwise sets her apart from them. For example, 
in his letter of recommendation! I notes that "her work has been recognized by the I I 
where [the Petitioner] ha1 been asked to fu)fijj a co-chairing ro)e at their 2017 
Annual Meeting." In his recommendatµm..J.ette{, Is director of 
professional development for northern l__Jstates "[n]ot only did [the Petitioner] help with our 
recruitin" events, she also acted as an interviewer for first- and second-round interviews in our 
I office." The letters do not provide specific examples showing how the Petitioner's service 
in these roles sets her apart from others in the field or demonstrating how she has been recognized in 
the field for these achievements. Therefore, this evidence is insufficient to establish that her sustained 
national or international acclaim. The Petitioner does not provide additional documentation 
demonstrating that she has been recognized in the field for her experience reviewing candidates or 
chairing conference sessions. Without this evidence, she has not demonstrated that her service as a 
judge indicates that she is among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
With respect to the Petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles, the record reflects that she published 
over 15 papers in conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journals and has delivered oral 
presentations at conferences. The citation history or other evidence of the influence of these articles 
can be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that her work has had on the field and 
whether such influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article 
9 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have 1isen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
6 
authored by the Petitioner may provide solid evidence that her work has been recognized and that 
other researchers have been influenced by it. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage 
is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. 
The Petitioner argues that her citation rate establishes her career of acclaimed work as it is comparable 
to or exceeds that that of experts · innovation. She references a letter of 
recommendation in the record fro · fessor at the 
I I at the University of,__ __ _. in support ~o-f-. -t-h-is_a_s-se_rt_1-.o-n-.--In--h-is~ 
correspondence,! I lists two of the Petitioner's 2013 articles, and notes "[g]iven these 
contributions are relatively recent [ the Petitioner] may not have garnered as many citations yet as other 
top scientists in the field, but this does not reflect the significance of the work described in these 
articles." This confams the importance of the Petitioner's research. However,~ _______ _. 
provides no specific examples of nor explains how her research is important in the field. 10 His letter 
is therefore insufficient to demonstrate that her work has widely impacted the field in a manner that 
indicates she has sustained national or international acclaim in the field of I u, I 
innovation. 
The record also includes Google Scholar documentation for three scientists, including!.__ __ ____. 
I I whom she identifies in her response to the Director's request for evidence as the "top 
scientists in the field." She asserts that her "most cited article in the past 5 years has been cited more 
than the most cited recent work of other top scientist in the field." 11 For example, she indicates that 
'--------~'s most-frequently cited article published in 2013 garnered 93 citations in contrast 
with the 126 citations received by her most-frequently cited 2013 article. This demonstrates that her 
work was recognized in the field at a level comparable to that of I I in 2013. 
However, the Petitioner should establish that her work has maintained that level of recognition in order 
to demonstrate that she has enjoyed "sustained" national or international acclaim. 12 Here the Google 
Scholar documentation referenced above indicates that in the years follow in 2013 the Petitioner's 
published articles were not cited at the same rate as those published b For 
example, in contrasting their most cited articles published in 2014, '-------~'s research 
garnered 86 citations, while the Petitioner's research received six citations. The Petitioner does not 
provide evidence showing how this declining number of citations demonstrates that she has maintained 
the level of recognition for her work in a manner consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
As it relates to the Petitioner's service in a lrding rle, the record contains numerous letters of 
recommendation discussing her work for both and ~--------_, 13 These letters 
' 0 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 8-9 (noting that letters that specifically articulate how the 
alien's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value, while letters that 
lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic language do not, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form 
the basis for meeting this criterion.) 
11 The Petitioner provides this information in the brief accompanying her response to the Director's request for evidence. 
12 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 14 (stating that the adjudicator should bear in mind that 
acclaim must be maintained when determining whether the beneficiaiy has enjoyed "sustained" national or international 
acclaim, and noting that according to Black's Law Dictiona1y, 1585 (9th Ed, 2009), the definition of sustain is "(l) to 
support or maintain, especially over a long period of time; 6. To persist in making (an effort) over a long period of time.") 
13 Although we discuss only a sampling of this conespondence, we have reviewed all of the letters in the record. 
7 
demonstrate the Petitioner's expertise m consulting and '--------~ innovation. The 
correspondence discussing her role atl I identifies the prospective benefits of her service as its 
chief operating officer, rather than acclaim she has already received. I I, chief executive 
officer atl lwrites that his company's success is "unequivocally linked to [its] ability to hire [the 
Petitioner] as an executive within this new and growing company as she possesses the ideal 
combination of technological, clinical, and business knowledge." I I does not point to any 
specific metric of success in his letter, nor does the Petitioner identify such successes and provide 
corroborative documentation. I Is letter references the Petitioner andl land 
notes, "we also believe that the team is truly exceptional in their creativity and inventiveness and has 
the right technical and business capabilities to be successful." Absent detailed examples of the 
Petitioner's achievements and the acclaim she has received for them, this evidence is insufficient to 
establish that the Petitioner is among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field 
of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
With regard to her employment at.__ _______ ___, correspondence in the record shows that 
she deve)oned the bJriness acumen as described in the documentation discussed above. 14 For 
example,I notes that "[l]eadership evaluating [the Petitioner's] performance commented 
on her remarkable problem-solving skills," and that she "started leading projects as a I I 
I I Manager, once again testifying to her rapid growth as a business professional." In the 
letter discussed above,I lstates that the Petitioner "has gained invaluable expertise in 
industry as a management consultant withl I where she has helped define the 
marketing and sales strategies of the leading! I and I l companies of the world." 
I [ notes "[h ]er time as a management consultant andl I trained her 
well in market analysis and it shows in her knowledge of the dynamics that my company will face 
when entering the market with of! ~' While these letters establish the Petitioner's expertise as 
a management consultant for .__ ________ __.~ they lack detailed descriptions of her 
contributions to the entity or specific examples of how the field oj !technology has recognized 
her for them. The record lacks other evidence, such as news articles or other appropriate materials, 
demonstrating that the field ofl I technology has widely recognized her contributions to 
I I in a manner reflective of sustained acclaim. Without additional evidence 
demonstrating that her work forl I or,__ _______ _. has been widely recognized by or 
has widely impacted her field of endeavor, the Petitioner has not shown that her achievements at these 
companies have received a level of acclaim reflective of one who is among "that small percentage 
who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner has satisfied, we consider additional documentation in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility. Here, for 
the reasons discussed below, these materials contribute to but do not establish an overall finding that 
she has sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of her 
field. 
14 The Petitioner also provides information about~------~ and an organization chati which we have 
reviewed but do not discuss here as they are more relevant in a discussion of whether the Petitioner meets the requirements 
of the criterion itself We note, however, that these documents do not demonstrate that the Petitioner has been recognized 
by others in the field. 
8 
With respect to her receipt of nationall or internationall recognized awards, the record reflects that 
the Petitioner received the 2016 Award that her master's thesis was 
awarded first prize by the L _____ .-_________ ___JL...1"_-..u· .J.......:...!.L.L.l.L-.<l.UJLL..LJL.1.<l.1--"'-l.u........;=:.., 
awarded the best oral presentation at the L-------------1------------,1 
Symposium in 2012. Specifically, the record contains the Petitioner's 2016.__ ________ __. 
Award certificate and an article published on lunar.com, the award sponsor's website, identifying 
I I and one other company as the award recipients. However, the Petitioner does not provide 
evidence showing that lunar.com is widely read or influential in her field such that its publication of 
an article about the award demonstrates that the field has recognized this achievement. 
As it relates to the D award, the Petitioner submits an article discussing this award published at 
Forte.com, a site that "provides management advisory services in the field of industrial marketing." 
Similarly, she does not submit documentation establishing that an article about an award appearing on 
a website providing management adviso] services is indicative of sustained national or international 
acclaim in the field ofl~------~ technology. 
Finally, regarding her 2012 best oral presentation award, the Petitioner provides an article about this 
award appearing in the journal Het Ingenieursblad. However, she submits no evidence of this 
publication's audience or influence within the field. Without evidence showing that this award has 
been widely recognized in her field, the Petitioner has not established that she has received the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. As an additional matter, the Petitioner notes that she also was a 
runner-up for several other prizes but does not demonstrate how being a runner-up is reflective of 
sustained national or international acclaim in her field. 
The record further reflects that the Petitioner has received travel grants, research grants, and 
fellowships in her field. For example, it contains e-mail confirmations that she received travel grants 
various academic conferences and trips. The Petitioner also provides the application requirements for 
and funding confirmations of research grants, such as the I I 
grant and thel I pilot 
grant program, as well as press releases and articles about these grants. Finally, the record includes 
correspondence confirming the Petitioner status as a 2015-2017 honorary fellow of the I I I I Foundation, and a 2016-20171,___ _______________ __._ 
Fellow. This documentation establishes the Petitioner's receipt of these grants and fellowships. 
However, the Petitioner does not provide material demonstrating that she has been widely recognized 
in the field for these achievements. For example, the press releases about her grants are from the 
university's news service, but the Petitioner does not provide evidence establishing the influence of 
the university's news service in her field such that publication there reflects its recognition of her 
achievements. Without evidence demonstrating that she has been recognized in the field for her 
accomplishments, the record is insufficient to establish her sustained national or international acclaim. 
The record also reflects that the Petitioner was 
(Fellowslip) at Te . The Petitioner Trovidel material 
about the such as a printout of the.__ _ _.website; media articles about the and other 
15 The acronym refers to~----------------~ name for this society. 
9 
~ _ __.I graduates, and generally about the importance ofl I centers. With respect to the 
Fellowship itself, the record contains a research article discussing predicted outcomes from 
participation in the Fellowship program and the aforementioned letters of recommendation. The 
research article focuses on predicted outcomes from the Fellowship program and does not differentiate 
the Petitioner from others or show that she has been recognized in the field for her participation. 
The recommendation letters in the record establish the prestige of the Fellowship, but do not provide 
B
showing how the Petitioner has garnered acclaim for her recei t of it. For exam le, D 
escribes the Fellowship as "the world-leading program in .----------, "while 
describes it as "an extremely selective program that w,...._.,LU_ ____ --,,___...Jsupport and 
closely watch as it delivers the top I I in today's,__ _____ _. industry." The 
correspondence does not offer detailed examples showing how the Petitioner herself has been widely 
recognized in her field for receiving the Fellowship. The Petitioner does not provide additional 
evidence demonstrating that the field has recognized her accomplishment. Without this evidence, the 
record is insufficient to demonstrate that she has received the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
As it relates to her memberships, the Petitioner provides documentation of her memberships in the 
,__-~~ I ~' thel !Alumni Association, as well as her application to be a 
member of the City & Guilds College Association. However, she does not provide evidence that she 
has received recognition for her memberships. Without this evidence, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that being a member of these associations reflects a level of sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of 
the Act. 
Regarding published material, the Petitioner submits articles about her related to her work a pearing 
online at~--~-----' aboutforte.com, and mirror.co.uk, and online at News, a 
I I university news publication, as well as a ranking of colleges includin~ __ __. University. 
As it relates tol ~he Petitioner argues I Is "publications and newsletters, like its 
reputation, have not merely national but global reach." She points to the college ranking list, noting 
tha~ I is ranked fifth, in support of this assertion. However, the I IN ews website on 
indicates that the web site's intended audience is "the campus community, especially trustees, 
administrators, faculty and staff," rather than a national or international audience. 16 The Petitioner 
does not provide evidence showing how the publication of an article about her in a medium intended 
for a college community is indicative that she has sustained national or international acclaim in the 
field of medical technology innovation. 
Regarding the articles appearing at.__ _______ _. aboutforte.com, and mirror.co.uk, the 
Petitioner does not submit evidence establishing the influence of these websites within her field of 
endeavor. Without this evidence, the Petitioner has not shown that published material about her 
appearing on them establishes that her achievements have been recognized in her field of endeavor. 
We further note that the Petitioner does not submit evidence showing that the publication of four media 
16 See More About.__ ___ ~-~----------~___,(last visited accessed July 20, 2020) and 
incorporated by reference into the record. 
10 
articles about her reflects a level of recognition consistent with being among "that small percentage 
who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The remainder of the articles are either about an organization with which she was associated or about 
research that she coauthored rather than about her. For example, the news articles 
'and I 
" focus on the The Petitioner maintains that 
another article, ~------.,,,..--=-------------.,,,..-------=--~ appearing in De Standard 
references a research paper that she coauthored, and thus is about her work. However, she is not 
mentioned in the article, which focuses on the research and quotes the research paper's first author 
extensively. The Petitioner does not show how published material that is not about her demonstrates 
that she has received recognition from the field necessaiy for this highly restrictive classification. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
As it relates to her ori inal contributions the Petitioner submits evidence that she developed a new 
treatment of th ~--------------------~ as well as grants, letters of 
recommendation, and a provisional patent application pertaining to this treatment. The patent 
indicates the original nature of this treatment, while the letters of reference and the grants 
documentation demonstrate its continuin development and prospective benefit in the field. 17 
Referencing this ori inal treatment states " The Petitioner's] innovation for the 
treatment of th~--------------------' is truly novel and will represent 
~rtant improvement for the almost 5% of the po;ulation who sutler from this condition." D 
L___J notes that D believes that she an~ _ ~ "have a truly novel technology that we 
believe can help those who suffer from I " This, along with the patent, confirms the 
original nature of the Petitioner's treatment. 
However, these letters are insufficient to establish that this contribution has already been widely 
implemented by and recognized in the field. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing and continuing 
through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). In his letter,I lnotes that "the company [the Petitioner] recently co­
founded to further develop this therapy was accepted in to th~ .. and will undoubtedly go on to 
help millions of Americans suffering from this condition," continuing "[the Petitioner's] skillset will 
be instrumental in the company's success." Referencing this same company,! I in his 
letter, notes "the intention of this business is to productize this system for regulatory approval and 
market launch in the next two years." As we note above, the Petitioner must show that she has 
sustained national or international acclaim and that her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise. 18 Evidence demonstrating the prospective benefits of this innovation and awards for its 
continued development is not sufficient to establish that the Petitioner's contribution has already been 
implemented. The Petitioner does not provide other evidence demonstrating that her original 
contributions have already garnered national or international acclaim. Without this evidence, she has 
17 We have reviewed all of the letters of recommendation in the record, as well as the grants documentation. but discuss 
only a sampling here. 
18 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 14. 
11 
not demonstrated that her original contributions in the field of1 !innovation reflect a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field." See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The record also contains letters of recommendation and research articles reflecting that the Petitioner 
developed new mathematical models and metrics while completing her graduate studies. For example, 
in her letter of recommendation,! I professor of I I 
engineering at the University I I references the Petitioner's master's thesis and notes " i]n my 
g
b h Petitioner] developed a mathematical model of during 
healing ... work that has applications in engi · and the 
design of novel treatment strategies." As noted above, the record reflects thatLJawarded 
the Petitioner first place for this thesis. While this letter and award show that the Petitioner was 
recognized by these institutions for her work, the record lacks evidence showing that she received 
recognition in the field as a whole for her accomplishments. Therefore the evidence is insufiicient to 
establish her sustained national or international acclaim. 
As it relates to her doctoral research,! I, professor ofl !mechanics at 
I lcollegel bates that the Petitioner "developed a new metric to capture and analyse the 
multidimensional character of disturbed flow." The record contains scholarly articles authored by the 
Petitioner related to this new metric, along with the previously discussed number of citations for each 
article. 19 These citations establish that others have referenced the Petitioner's research in their own 
work. However, as noted above, the Petitioner does not provide evidence to demonstrate that these 
rates of citation are indicative of a high level of recognition in the field. 
Finally, the record includes one article citing to the Petitioner's earlier research. However, it does not 
identify her or differentiate her work from that of others in a manner indicating that she has received 
sustained national or international acclaim for this research. The record therefore is insufficient to 
suppmi a finding that the Petitioner's graduate research has been implemented or recognized in the 
field in a manner consistent with being among "that small percentage who [has] risen to the ve1y top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established her extraordinary ability under 
section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. As such, we need not determine whether she is coming to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(l)(a)(ii). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated her 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. 
19 We have reviewed all of the articles in the record but discuss only a sampling here. 
12