dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 21, 2024 In Re: 30044835 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an associate professor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(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 
establish he satisfied 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b)(1)(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 receipt of 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). 
The Director determined the Petitioner fulfilled only one (judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains his qualification for an additional four, 
discussed below. 
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). 
USCIS first determines whether the published material was related to the person and the person's 
specific work in the field for which classification is sought. 1 The published material should be about 
the person, relating to the person's work in the field, not just about the person's employer and the 
employer's work or another organization and that organization's work. 2 USCIS then determines 
whether the publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade publication, or other major 
media publication. 3 
In res onse to the Director's re uest for evidence (RFE , the Petitioner submitted an article entitled, 
osted on 
technologyreview.com. While the article indicates authorship by 
Ithe Petitioner did not identify the individual(s) in this organization or group who authored the 
material. Moreover, the article is not about the Petitioner. Rather, the article reports on a computer 
model in which the Petitioner is credited as one of the creators. Although the article quotes the 
1 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 Id. 
3 Id. 
2 
I 
Petitioner in response to a discussion of the computer model, the article does not concern the Petitioner. 
See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding 
a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). 
Finally, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that technologyreview.com qualifies as a professional or 
major trade publication or other major medium. The Petitioner's RFE response letter, and repeated in 
the brief on appeal, listed "Intended audience - researchers and amateurs interested in emerging 
technology" and "Online circulation." However, the Petitioner did not provide evidence to support 
the assertions about the intended audience, nor did the Petitioner include circulation figures. Counsel's 
unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 
(BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not 
entitled to any evidentiary weight"). In evaluating whether a publication is a professional publication, 
major trade publication, or major medium, relevant factors include the intended audience (for 
professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for 
major trade publications and other major media). 4 As such, the Petitioner did not establish the website 
enjoys status as a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), USCIS determines whether the person 
has made original contributions in the field. 5 USCIS then determines whether the original 
contributions are of major significance to the field. 6 Examples of relevant evidence include, but are 
not limited to: published materials about the significance of the person's original work; testimonials, 
letters, and affidavits about the persons original work; documentation that the person's original work 
was cited at a level indicative of major significance in the field; and patents or licenses deriving from 
the person's work or evidence of commercial use of the person's work. 7 
The Petitioner argues that he "has been invited to write journal articles based on his research and 
workshops," and "[t]hese invitations show that [he] is sought by others within his field of study 
because of his knowledge, skill, and continued contribution to others within the field." Publications 
and presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of 
"major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 
F.3d 1115. Evidence that the person's work was fonded, patented, or published, while potentially 
demonstrating the work's originality, will not necessarily establish, on its own, that the work is of 
major significance in the field. 8 Here, as discussed further below, the Petitioner has not shown that 
the field views any of his publications or workshops as original contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
4 See generally 6 USCTS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l ). 
5 See generally 6 USCTS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l ). 
6 Id. 
7 Id. 
8 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
3 
The Petitioner contends that he "has published over a dozen scientific articles and garnered over 345 
citations of his work." This criterion requires a petitioner to establish original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Thus, the burden is on the petitioner to identify the original contributions and 
explain how or why they are considered to be of major significance in the field. Here, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate how his cumulative number of citations represents contributions of major 
significance in the field. Moreover, aggregate citation figures tend to reflect a petitioner's overall 
publication record rather than identifying which research or article the field considers to be majorly 
significant. 
In addition, the Petitioner points to his article, (Computational 
Complexity) and asserts that "the 264 citations it has garnered are very significant relative to other 
papers in the field" and "the top cited article of [J-W-], an expert in quantum information and coauthor 
of this paper, has just under 1200 citations." Again, the comparison of the Petitioner's 345 total 
citations to J-W-'s 1200 total citations does not establish how this co-authored paper constitutes an 
original contribution of major significance in the field. In fact, the comparison of aggregate numbers 
to others in the field is more appropriate in determining whether the record shows sustained national 
or international acclaim and demonstrates an individual who is among that small percentage at the 
very top of the field of endeavor in a final merits determination. See Kazarian 996 F.3d at 1115. 
However, citatory comparisons of an individual's article to a particular article that the field views as 
being majorly significant may be probative to establish a citation baseline for majorly significant 
articles in the field. 
Further, the Petitioner provided evidence of J-W-'s top five most cited papers reflecting 1,153, 1,109, 
721, 524, and 451 citations, respectively. First, the Petitioner did not provide any evidence showing 
that any of J-W-'s papers or articles are considered to be original contributions of major significance 
in the field. Likewise, the Petitioner did not show the significance or relevance of these citation 
figures, so as to show they are unusually high citations indicating major significance. Even if the 
statistics are relatively high in the field, the 264 citations for the Computational Complexity article are 
substantially less when compared to J-W-'s top five cited papers. 9 
Finally, the Petitioner's brief makes several assertions, such as the comparison of the citations of other 
articles published in the same edition of Computational Complexity, the impact factor of the journal, 
commentaries from other journals, and the popularity of his Y ouTube channel. However, the 
Petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence to support or corroborate any of these assertions. 
Counsel's unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., S-M-, 22 I&N Dec. at 51. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
9 The Petitioner claims that his "paper is [J-W-'s] tenth highest cited article out of 65 written." Again, the Petitioner only 
submitted evidence of J-W-'s top five cited articles. 
4 
Evidence of the alien's authorship ofscholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Although the Director concluded the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion, we withdraw that 
determination. As indicated above, the record reflects the Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in 
professional journals. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner demonstrated he meets 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 must establish performance in a leading or critical role for an organization, 
establishment, or division or department of an organization or establishment, and the petitioner must 
demonstrate whether the organization or establishment, or the department or division for which the 
person holds or held a leading or critical role, has a distinguished reputation. 10 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner claimed: 
I am a leader in my department, especially to other teaching faculty. I am an innovative 
and courageous teacher that is motivated by creating the best learning experiences for 
my students. I am among the highest evaluated by our students every year. I have been 
recognized for this excellence and leadership through awards and promotion. I have 
just been promoted to Teaching Professor, the highest rank in my track. I was also 
awarded this year with the Outstanding Teaching Award from the School of 
Engineering and Technology. I have been nominated for the _______ 
I I Distinguished Teaching Award. 
Although he submitted his teaching promotion summaries from the dean and documentation about the 
teaching awards, the Petitioner did not claim, nor did he provide any evidence, regarding the 
distinguished reputation of his department. 
On appeal, the Petitioner's brief re eats the claims in the RFE response and states that he "has 
performed a 'leading role' at the and has a distinguished reputation." In addition, 
the brief makes several assertions about claiming the source of information was derived from 
Wikipedia. However, the Petitioner did not submit evidence from Wikipedia or any other 
documentary evidence to support or corroborate these assertions about I I Counsel's 
unsubstantiated assertions do not constitute evidence. See, e.g., S-M-, 22 I&N Dec. at 51. 
Because the Petitioner has not shown that either his department or enjoys a distinguished 
reputation, we need not reach, and therefore reserve, whether the Petitioner performed in a leading or 
critical role. 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 
10 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
5 
Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&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). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish he satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Therefore, we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, we reserve this issue. 11 
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 II), 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 I), No. 
l 9-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 
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 the Petitioner 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. 
11 See Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25; see also L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. 
6