dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8514498 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 21 , 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a computer scientist , 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) 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 a data scientist at .__ ___________ _. inD 
~--~' California. Because the Petitioner has not claimed 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). Although we agree with Director that the Petitioner demonstrated that she authored 
scholarly articles in professional publications, for the reasons discussed later, we do not concur with 
the Director's decision relating to the judging criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets three additional criteria, discussed below. After 
reviewing all of 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. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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 eligibility for this criterion based on memberships with the scholarships 
committee for the Association for Computing Machinery- Council on Women in Computing (ACM­
CWC) and with the program committee for the Association for Computing Machinery - Conference 
on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics (ACM-CBCBHI). 1 In order to 
satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on being 
1 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 ADJ 1-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (indicating that associations may have multiple levels of 
memberships, and the level of membership must show that the alien was judged by recognized national or international 
experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought). 
2 
judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field 
for which classification is sought. 2 
Regarding ACM-CWC's scholarships committee, the Petitioner submitted bylaws reflecting that 
successful candidates "must have achieved lasting impact on the field of computing, in terms of both 
technical and leadership contributions." Moreover, "there must be clear and compelling evidence that 
the individual has significantly influenced the directions of groups and organizations beyond those 
where he/she was employed." In addition, the Petitioner provided a letter froml I 
for ACM-CWC, who referenced the bylaws, indicated that nomination required by a senior 
professional member and endorsement from five members, and stated that "[ n ]ominations and 
endorsements should address specific accomplishments that demonstrate innovation, originality and 
creativity; technical leadership resulting in new concepts, products or systems that advance the state 
of computing; leadership roles providing evidence of outstanding service to ACM and/or the broader 
computing community." However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the scholarships 
committee's membership requirements are tantamount to "outstanding achievements" consistent with 
this regulatory criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner did not show that theoretical or practical 
accomplishments through innovation, originality, and creativity; technical leadership resulting in new 
concepts, products, or systems advancing computing; or leadership roles to ACM or computing 
community necessarily constitutes outstanding achievements of its members. Although the 
scholarships committee requires candidates to attain a certain degree of accomplishments, the 
Petitioner did not establish that those criteria rise to a level of outstanding achievements. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that national or international experts judge the 
outstanding achievements for membership. 3 In I I' letter, she claimed that "[ m ]emberhipl 
decisions are made by a grouR of 13 prominent names in the CS field" and listed four individuals 
I 11 ~ I l and I I with their positions. The 
bylaws, however, do not indicate that "[m]embership decisions are made by a group of 13 prominent 
names." Instead, the bylaws reference the general "Scholarships Committee," such as the 
"Scholarships Committee evaluates each nomination in [sic] independently of other nominations," the 
"Scholarships Committee relies on each candidate's nominator and endorsers to provide the 
information necessary to make an informed evaluation," and "[e]ach nominator will be notified of the 
committee's decision." Regardless, the Petitioner also submitted profiles for three of the individuals 
mentioned by from ACM-CWC's website and a screenshot profile from ieee-vics.org for 
~----~ While the profiles contain the individuals' education and employment history, honors 
and awards, and roles with ACM-CWC, the Petitioner did not establish how the evidence reflects the 
national or international recognition of the individuals as experts in the field. The Petitioner, for 
example, did not show the field's acknowledgment of their standings or statuses as experts. 
As it relates to ACM-CBCBHl's program committee, the Petitioner references a letter from!~ __ __. 
I I who described the 2018 ACM-CBCBHI Conference as "a premier dissemination forum 
for interdisciplinary research linking computer science, mathematics, statistics, biology, 
bioinformatics, biomedical informatics, and health informatics." Moreover, I I stated that 
2 Id. at 6. (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 member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon 
recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original research). 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8 
3 
"[c]ommittee members are responsible to: a) assist Conference Chairs in soliciting abstracts, b) 
participate in the manuscript review processes, c) serve as a session chair as requested by conference 
chairs, and d) guide and shape program content." Moreover,! I indicated that that the Petitioner 
"was extended an invitation for Membership to the ACM-BCB Program Committee because she is an 
outstanding scientist in this area and has made significant contributions to the area." Although she 
described the responsibilities of committee members and justified why she chose the Petitioner, D 
Ddid not explain whether program committee membership requires outstanding achievements of its 
members. MoreoverJ ldid not show that recognized national or international experts judge the 
outstanding achievements for membership. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide any bylaws or 
other supporting evidence demonstrating the requirements for program committee membership. Here, 
the Petitioner did not establish that outstanding achievements are an essential condition for 
membership, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the field consistent with this 
regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner also asserts eligibility for the first time on appeal based on senior membership with the 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and submits an email, dated October 2019, 
congratulating her on "elevation to the grade ofIEEE Senior member." The record, however, reflects 
that the Petitioner filed her petition in October 2018, a year prior to her senior IEEE membership. The 
Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, we need not address 
this eligibility claim on appeal. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied.field of specification for which classification 
is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
As discussed earlier, the Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. This regulatory 
criterion requires an alien to show that she has acted as a judge of the work of others in the same or an 
allied field of specialization. 4 For the reasons outlined below, the record does not reflect that the 
Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that she meets this criterion, and 
the Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner claimed that "she has been invited to review manuscripts for various scientific 
conferences within her field to determine if the submissions should be accepted for 
inclusion/publication." Moreover, she asserted that "[a]s a Committee Member for various 
conferences, she was also responsible for reviewing submissions and successfully completed those 
reviews." Although she submitted evidence listing her on committees or inviting her to review papers, 
the Petitioner did not establish that she participated in the manuscript or paper review process. In 
order to meet this criterion, an alien must show that she has not only been invited to judge the work of 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6-7. 
4 
others, but also that she actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same or allied 
field of specialization. 5 
Specifically, the Petitioner provided documentation listing her as part of the i I Program 
Committee" of th~ I International Conference on Mobile Ubiquitous Computing, Systems, 
Services, and Technologies, the committee of the I ~ 
Celebration, and the 'I !Joint Summits on Translational Science Reviewers" at th~ .... --~ 
Annual Joint Summits on Translational Science. The evidence, however, does not indicate whether 
she actually reviewed manuscripts or otherwise participated as a judge of the work of others. 
Similarly, the Petitioner provided emails inviting her to join committees or to revieT :apr- For 
example, "[ w ]e would like to invite you to join the program committee of ACM-BCB ' "[y Jou 
were invited to be a part of the review process because of your expertise and backgroun m achine 
Leaming and AI, and it has been crucial in creating a meaningful, valuable program to be presented 
a~ I' "[ t ]hank you for volunteering to be a reviewer for thq 12018 Informatics Summit 
.... Please complete your reviews by Thursday, November 9th," "[w]e would like to invite you to 
be a reviewer for the 20171 IJoint Summits on Translational Science," "[ c ]ould you please write 
a review for me on the following paper submitted to ACM-BCB 0' and "[ t ]hank you [for] signing 
up to be an ACM Poster Judge volunteer! ... We have selected you to judge the first round of the 
competition." Although the emails requested her to judge or review, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that she actually completed the judging or review requests. 
Likewise, as mentioned under the membership criterion, the Petitioner submitted a letter from!._ __ ~ 
who indicated that one of the responsibilities of a committee member is to "participate in the 
manuscript review processes." Howeve~ did not demonstrate that the Petitioner actually 
reviewed manuscripts. Moreover, whilc===fdescribed why the Petitioner was chosen for the 
committee, including the claim that she "has ~d 20+ papers and abstracts and 200 + 
internationally received scholarship applications,'l____J did not explain how she was aware of the 
Petitioner's judging experience and did not include detailed, corroborating information such as paper 
titles, dates, and conferences. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that she participated as a judge of the 
work of others consistent with this regulatory criterion. Accordingly, we withdraw the decision of the 
Director for this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major 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), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 6 For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
5 
The Petitioner argues that membership on the scholarships committee of the ACM-CWC requires a 
"lasting impact on the field of computing, in terms of both technical and leadership contributions," 
and "there must be clear and compelling evidence that the individual has significantly influenced the 
directions of groups and organizations beyond those where he/she was employed." According toO 
D the scholarships committee chose her for membershi because the Petitioner "designed an 
innovative modelin and simulation tool to stud hat "can 
help visualize the.__ _________________ __. and "can reduce the time and 
resources used in the wet lab as well as helping predicting the composition of the optimal surface that 
will yield minimal number I I on surface with maximal percentage o~ I' 
( emphasis added). Here, I I speculates on the potential of the modeling and simulation tool 
rather than showinl how the field already recognizes it as a contribution of major significance. 
Moreover, although I claimed that "[t]he tool has been used by 5 research labs and has helped 
reduce the time and resources," she did not demonstrate that the use of the tool in five research labs 
rises to a level of major significance consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Further, the Petitioner contends that "her work presented at many academic conferences is further 
evidence of the significance of her work and it's [sic] impact on the field of computer science," and 
"[t]he originality of her work is confirmed by the fact that numerous the numerous [sic] prestigious 
journals and conference proceedings that have published her articles will only accept original research 
for publication." While publication or presentation may show originality of work, it does not 
automatically establish the major significance of it. 7 Furthermore, the Petitioner does not further 
explain how publication of her articles or presentation of her work at conferences demonstrates that 
the field views her research to be an original contribution of major significance. 8 Moreover, 
publications that bear a high ranking or impact factor reflects the publication's overall citation rate; it 
does not show an author's influence or the impact ofresearch in the field or that every article published 
in a highly ranked journal automatically indicates a contribution of major significance. 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), ajf'd in part, 
596 F.3d 1115. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that publication or presentation alone 
demonstrates a contribution of major significance in the field. 
7 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8 (finding that although funded and published work may be 
"original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
8 Although not argued on appeal, the record reflects that the Petitioner submitted screenshots from Google Scholar showing 
the citation of her written and presented work by others with her highest cited article receiving 14 and her highest cited 
conference proceeding receiving 9. Generally, citations can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a 
petitioner's research or work. However, the Petitioner did not show that the number of citations for any of her published 
articles or conference proceedings are commensurate with contributions of major significance. Here, the Petitioner did 
not articulate the significance or relevance of the citations to her work. For example, she did not demonstrate that these 
citations are unusually high in her field or how they compare to other articles that the field views as having been majorly 
significant. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed 
articles in scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the 
field, or entries (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite the individual's work as authoritative in the 
field, may be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
6 
In addition, the Petitioner claims that "industry experts and academics have offered their professional 
opinions regarding [her] contributions and all conclude that she has made numerous significant 
contributions to the field that are original." The record contains reference letters that generally recount 
the Petitioner's research and findings and indicate their publications in journals or presentations at 
conferences. Although they reflect the novelty of her work, they do not sufficiently articulate how her 
research and findings have been considered of such importance and how their impact on the field rises 
to the level of major significance required by this criterion. For instance, 
I !discussed the Petitioner's "novel computational modeling appro._a_c_h_t_o_i_d-en-t-if_y_a_n_d-to_c_o_u_n_t_e__,r 
the effects of.__ _________ __. supply chain." 9 While,__ _____ ----.-_____.stated that 
"it resulted in a peer-reviewed publication in [an] international conference," he did not explain the 
influence in the overall field or even if ~.__ _____ ..... ~as ever utilized the computer model. 10 
Again, publication or presentation alone is not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). See 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d at 1036, ajf'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. 
Moreover, the letters speculate on the possibility of having an impact at some point in the future, such 
as: "[ w ]e believe that models like this have the potential to contribute to cancer research," [i]n fitture, 
this study can also play an important role in building a genome-scale computational model of a cell in 
the.future," "[the Petitioner's] computational model can be used to predict the behavior ... creating a 
platform to assist in the development of drugs," and "such relationships will be valuable for 
determining the right personalized based on patient's! lprofile"I l 
"computational models ... have the~otential to contribute to biomedical research," and "[h ]er models 
can also be used to predict behavior . I: "[h ]er model can help in predicting the 
composition of an optimal surface with I properties," and "[t]his shows that in 
silico experiments [it] can significantly reduce the time and cost for wet lab ex erimentation, and they 
can accelerate research on biomaterials associated infections" ; and "[t]he model 
can help visualize the ' and " t he com utational model 
built can reduce the time and resources used in the wet lab"~ _________ __,· ( emphasis 
added). While the Petitioner's models and work may show promise, the letters do not establish how 
her work already qualifies as a contribution of major significance in the field, rather than prospective, 
potential impacts. Here, the significant nature of her work has yet to be determined. 
Similarly J I indicated that he selected the Petitioner's "paper as the most notable 
paper in 'Year in Review' session at the 20181 ] 
annual symposium," and he "concluded that many oncologists, clinical scientists and testing labs will 
be interested in these results and use them to improve their own reports and standardized 
documentation." ( emphasis added). Although he stated that thel I annual symposium is online 
suggesting media coverage! !speculated on others being interested rather than explaining 
how the field already views the paper as a contribution of major significance, as well as any widespread 
attention it received from being online. 
9 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
10 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 
(D.D.C. 2013) (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). 
7 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual 
influence or high impact her research or work has had on the overall field. 11 Letters that specifically 
articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 12 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic 
language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis 
for meeting this criterion. 13 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, 
Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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 contends to meet this criterion based on her roles with thel !University 
Medical Centerl land ACM-CWC's scholarships committee. 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. 14 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. 15 
Regarding! I the Petitioner references a letter froml l:who stated that the medical 
center chose her for its competitive research program at the I I I I "because Of her motivation and expertise to solve health related problems tbrrghl I 
multidisci linary research and her doctoral work in computational cancer research." In addition, 
indicated that the Petitioner worked on a "NIH [National Institutes of Health] funded 
.__ _________ ___. initiative which seeks to create improved tolls and training programs to 
harvest the wealth of information contained in biomedical! I in order to advance our 
understanding of human health and disease," and "helped design and conduct I btudies with 
clinicians to identify top ranked items in molecular diagnostic reports that aid in clinician decision 
making and treatment planning." 
Likewise, the Petitioner references another letter froml I ofl I 
University, who indicated that the "played a Co-Investigator role in obtaining thel I grant," 
and "[t]he success and popularity of this system increased more collaborations among researchers and 
clinicians across i
0
stit:11tes aud I I leading to additional $15 Million funding for cancer 
research." Further,! ..... ____ _._ stated that the Petitioner "pioneered the design and conducted □ 
11 Although we discussed a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
12 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
13 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
14 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
is Id. 
8 
~--_.I studies with clinicians to identify top ranked items in molecular diagnostic reports that aid in 
clinician decision making and treatment planning." 
Although the letters point out that the Petitioner published her work in a journal and presented her 
work at conferences, they did not explain how her role as a co-investigator for a project were leading 
or critical t~ The letters, for instance, did not distinguish the Petitioner's position to the other 
positions atL__JsiJnTliua that sb] performed in a leadership position. In fact, when compared to 
I of~--~University, andl I director ofc=] atl l the 
Petitioner served in a far lesser role as a computational cancer researcher or co-investigator. Moreover, 
the letters did not demonstrate how presenting work at conferences and publishing in a journal reflects 
that the Petitioner performed in a critical or essential role for I I Whilel I indicated 
that the Petitioner's work on thd linitiative eventually led to additional fonding, he did not 
farther elaborate and explain how her contributions rose to a level of significant importance to the 
outcome of1 ts overall activities. 16 
letter from who claimed that the Petitioner "plays a critical role in our association." 
RegardingbiM- 's scholarships committee, the Petitioner references the previously discussed 
However, did not provide any farther explanation to justify her assertion. Instead,! I 
listed the general responsibilities of committee members without showing how the Petitioner 
specifically contributed in an essential or critical way to the committee. Further, I I did not 
articulate how the Petitioner was important to the outcome of the scholarships committee's activities. 
Moreover, the Petitioner does not claim, nor doesl I letter reflects, that she performed in a 
leading role for the committee. 
Furthermore, although we acknowledge the distinguished reputation oti I the Petitioner did not 
establish that ACM-CWC's scholarships committee enjoys such a similar reputation. 17 The Petitioner 
submits screenshots from ACM's website relating to goals and background information relating to 
ACM. Similarly, the screenshots contain mission information about ACM-CWC, including evidence 
that it offers scholarships. Likewise, the Petitioner provides a brochure promoting ACM-CWC and 
advertising the opportunity for scholarships. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the 
evidence shows the reputation of the scholarships committee. In fact, the evidence makes no mention 
of the scholarships committee. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that the ACM-CWC enjoys an 
eminent or excellent reputation. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that she meets this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant 
16 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
17 Id. at 10-11 (defining Merriam-Webster's Dictiona1y definition of·'distinguished" as marked by eminence. distinction, 
or excellence). 
9 
visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 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 bound to follow that finding 
in the adjudication of another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. 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 I&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 
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 conducted research 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. 
10