dismissed EB-1A Case: Chemistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 21, 2024 In Re: 33167668 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a professor of chemistry, seeks to classify himself as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(1 )(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 record does not 
establish the Petitioner received a one-time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. 
The Director further concluded that the record does not satisfy, in the alternative, at least three of the 
IO initial evidentiary criteria. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 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. 
As noted above, the Director concluded the record does not establish the Petitioner received a one­
time achievement of a major, internationally recognized award. The Director further determined that 
the record does not satisfy, in the alternative, at least three of the IO criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, although the Director concluded the record satisfies the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the Director found that the record does not satisfy the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), noting that the record does not address criteria other than those at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)-(vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that the record satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), in 
addition to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). The Petitioner does not assert on appeal 
that the record satisfies criteria other than those at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)-(vi) , thereby waiving 
these criteria. See, e.g., Matter ofM-A-S-, 24 l&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009) (citing Greenlaw v. 
US., 554 U.S. 237 (2008) (upholding the party presentation rule)). Additionally, the Petitioner does 
not assert on appeal that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply to the occupation. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
We adopt and affirm the Director's analysis of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which 
addresses the Petitioner's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). On appeal, the Petitioner generally repeats his prior 
assertions regarding the criterion. However, the Director provided a detailed analysis of evidence 
submitted for the criterion and discussed how the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the 
Petitioner met the criterion, reaching the correct conclusion. 
For example, the Director explained that the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
contemplates extant evidence of contributions in the field, not speculation of the potential for 
significance in the future. The Director further distinguished moderate significance from the "major 
significance" contemplated by the criterion. As another example, the Director discussed why citation 
data regarding the Petitioner's published articles-both individually and in the aggregate-does not 
indicate major significance in the field, as compared to other researchers. The Director also addressed 
the Petitioner's presentations at conferences, noting that the record does not establish how those 
presentations demonstrate major significance to the field. Likewise, the Director acknowledged letters 
submitted on behalf of the Petitioner; however, the Director noted that the assertions therein were 
speculative, unsubstantiated, or otherwise unpersuasive. The Director also observed that the record 
establishes the Petitioner developed or designed an innovation used in Iran, but the record does not 
establish that the innovation is of major significance to the field in general, beyond merely being used 
in Tran. The Director's five-page discussion adequately distinguished evidence of the Petitioner's 
contributions of moderate significance to the field from evidence of contributions of major 
significance to the field, as contemplated by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established he received a one-time achievement or, in the 
alternative, provided sufficient evidence that meets at least three of the 10 criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As a result, we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced 
in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); see also Matter 
ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015). Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the 
aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion that the Petitioner has established the 
acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his 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 national or international acclaim in the field, and that 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; see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2