dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9968165 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 12, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an assistant professor of chemistry, 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)(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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates employment as an assistant professor of chemistry at the University I I ~-----~1 1 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 alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner reviewed papers for journals. In addition, she 
authored scholarly articles in professional publications. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets two additional criteria, discussed below. After 
reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien'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). 
The Petitioner claims she meets this criterion based upon her membership in the American Chemical 
Society (ACS). 2 In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the 
association is based on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having 
outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 3 
1 The record reflects that the Petitioner accepted a job offer for the position of assistant professor of chemistry and 
biochemistry atl I University! lin April 2019, shortly after the petition was filed. See the Petitioner's 
curriculum vitae submitted at initial filing and job offer letter submitted within her response to the Director's request for 
evidence. 
2 The Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for this criterion based on her membership with other associations; however, 
she does not argue on appeal, nor does the record reflect, her eligibility based on those associations. 
3 See 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 ADll-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
2 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in the ACS and the ACS Governing Documents 
dated January 1, 2019. First, the documentation submitted does not establish that recognized national 
or international experts judge the outstanding achievements for membership with ACS.4 In addition, 
the Petitioner did not establish that the ACS membership requirements rise to the level of "outstanding 
achievements" consistent with this regulatory criterion. Instead, based on the presented 
documentation, ACS membership is open to those with only an earned associate or higher degree in a 
chemical science or related field of technology or relevant experience, which the Petitioner did not 
show is tantamount to an outstanding achievement. 5 Although the Petitioner asserts that membership 
in the ACS is "restricted to those who have 'conducted and published a meritorious original 
investigation in pharmacology,"' the language cited by the Petitioner does not appear in the submitted 
ACS Governing Documents, and she does not explain how having conducted and published 
"meritorious" original research is tantamount to an outstanding achievement. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show that she satisfies this criterion. 
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 maintains that she has performed in a leading or critical role as I 1at the national 
2018 ACS Biennial Conference on Chemical Education (ACS BCCE). The Director concluded that 
the Petitioner did demonstrate her eligibility under this criterion, finding that the evidence did not 
show that she has served in a leading or critical role for an organization, "as opposed to mere 
departments, conferences, or various projects" within the organization. 
A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading.6 
Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that 
is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not 
the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role 
is or was critical.7 In addition, this criterion requires that the organizations or establishments must be 
recognized as having a distinguished reputation, which is marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence. 8 For the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted documentary 
evidence that sufficiently shows that she meets the regulatory requirements of this criterion. 
First, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner has not shown that the ACS BCCE constitutes an 
organization or establishment. According to the documentation submitted, the ACS BCCE is a 
conference organized by ACS's Biennial Conference Committee within the organization's Division 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in 
original research). 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (stating that the level of membership afforded to the alien 
must show that in order to obtain that level of membership, the alien was judged by recognized national or international 
experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought). 
5 Id. (instructing that relevant factors that may lead to a conclusion that the alien's memberships in the associations were 
not based on outstanding achievements in the field include, but are not limited to, instances where the alien's membership 
was based solely on a level of education or years of experience in a particular field). 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
7 Id. 
8 Id at 10-11. 
3 
of Chemical Education. While ACS may constitute an organization under this criterion, the Petitioner 
has not shown that a conference by a committee in a division within an organization, which has an 
unspecified number of divisions, committees, and other components, also constitutes an organization 
under this criterion. 
Next, the Petitioner asserts that her role as_.....,..._----,,----,-----=--~ was "the main component of the 
organization's performances" because "[e]ducational conferences are the only business of the 
organization." The Petitioner's claim, however, is not supported by the aforementioned ACS 
Governing Documents submitted by her, which indicate that in addition to educational conferences 
the organization's activities include producing a number of peer-reviewed scientific journals and the 
Chemical Abstracts Service, a provider of chemical databases worldwide. Even if she had shown that 
educational conferences are the only business of ACS, the Petitioner has not demonstrated thatD 
I I at the ACS BCCE she played a leading or critical role for the organization as a whole. 
The Petitioner presented a letter of support from~---------- an organizer of the 2018 
ACS BCCE. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the letter "is clear in defining the way the 
Petitioner's role was considered leading, and specific duties and importance to the organization as a 
whole.",___ _____ ____, letter asserted that ACS BCCE conferenccl I are "the principal 
actors in an organized event targeted towards Chemistry Education professionals. Their role is vital 
as they are the ones that are sharing their innovations and experiences with others to help grow the 
field. Their participation is essential to the success of the entire endeavor." The letter did not contain, 
however, detailed and probative information that specifically addressed how the Petitioner's role was 
leading or critical for ACS. For instance, the letter did not explain how the Petitioner's conference 
I I role was leading among the organization's staff such as its employees, officers, council, and 
board of directors, nor did the statement indicate that the Petitioner's conference position was of 
significant importance for ACS's success or standing in the industry so as to demonstrate a critical 
role. 
In light of the above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she meets this criterion. 
111. CONCLUSION 
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 need not 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 that 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 the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that 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 that the Petitioner has garnered 
4 
national or international acclaim in the field, and she 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). 
Although the Petitioner has reviewed manuscripts and authored scholarly articles the record does not 
contain sufficient evidence establishing that she is among the upper echelon in her field. 
For the reasons discussed above, 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. 
5