dismissed EB-1A Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 17, 2024 In Re: 31109673 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a computer scientist currently working with artificial intelligence and machine learning 
(AI/ML) technology, seeks classification as an individual 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification, he did not demonstrate, as required, 
that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is among that small percentage at the very 
top of his field. 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 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 I&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 immigrant visas available to individuals with 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, provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they 
must provide sufficient qualifying documentation they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, 
and authorship of 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 
The 
Petitioner completed his graduate studies in electrical engineering and computer science in Brazil. 
He worked as a faculty member and department head at two Brazilian institutions between 2001 and 
2021. At the time of filing this petition, he was employed as the executive director for data science 
for a U.S.-based financial technology company, in 0-1 nonimmigrant status. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received 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 Petitioner claimed to meet six criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in professional associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material in major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi) and 
(viii). The record supports the Director's determination. The Petitioner provided evidence of his 
involvement in peer review for scientific journals and conferences which demonstrates that he 
participated as a judge of the work of others in his field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). In addition, 
the Petitioner has authored and published scholarly articles and therefore satisfies the criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Finally, the record includes a letter from the Petitioner's current employer which provides a detailed 
account of the nature of his leadership role as executive director for data science, as well as an 
explanation of how his contributions in this role have been critical to his employer's technological 
development and financial growth. This letter was accompanied by evidence of the employer's 
distinguished reputation in its field, including evidence that the business has received significant 
2 
funding from investors, positive coverage in industry media, and industry awards. Therefore, we agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which requires 
evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. As the Director determined that the Petitioner 
met three of the evidentiary criteria and thereby satisfied the initial evidence requirements, they 
proceeded to a final merits determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (iii). 1 
Because the Petitioner has shown that he satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate his claims regarding 
these two additional criteria in the context of the final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international claim, that 
he is one of the small percentage at the very top of his endeavor, and that his 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 those 
achievements are sufficient to demonstrate their extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
As a preliminary matter, we note that a significant portion of the appellate brief references the 
Petitioner's filing of an immigrant petition requesting a national interest waiver (NIW) under section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Specifically, the brief mentions his eligibility under the three-prong 
analytical framework for adjudication of NTW petitions set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. 
884, 889 (AAO 2016) and requests that the AAO "grant him the National Interest Waiver pursuant to 
INA§ 203(b)(2)(B)." If it was the Petitioner's intent to request a change in the requested immigrant 
visa classification on appeal, we note that such a change cannot be granted after a petition has been 
adjudicated; we will only consider his eligibility for the visa classification annotated on the petition. 
With respect to the immigrant classification requested on the petition, the Petitioner generally contests 
the Director's unfavorable decision, emphasizes that he met at least three evidentiary criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and asserts that he is eligible for classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. 
According to his resume, the Petitioner completed his bachelor's degree in computer science in 1997 
and received both his master's degree in electrical engineering and doctorate in computer science from 
in Brazil, in 2001 and 2011, 
respectively. From 2001 until 2018, the Petitioner was employed by ___________ 
a Brazilian college, as the head of the computer information systems department. In 2021, 
he joined the faculty of ______________________ as a computer 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's determination that he did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), which requires evidence of an individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic. or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. Rather, the Petitioner asserts in his brief that the Director 
determined that he met this criterion. We note, however, that the Director's analysis of the claims and supporting 
documentation submitted in support of this criterion concluded with a determination that "the submitted evidence does not 
meet this criterion." 
3 
I 
science professor and head ofl Iinformation technology department, responsible for supervising 
the campus computer network infrastructure. Since 2021, the Petitioner has served as the executive 
director for data science for a U.S.-based financial technology company, where 
he is responsible for leading a team of artificial intelligence professionals to develop machine learning 
models for financial applications. 
As mentioned above, the Petitioner has participated as a judge of the work of others in his field as a 
peer reviewer, authored scholarly articles, and holds a leading or critical role for his current employer. 
We have also considered evidence related to his membership in an association in his field, his original 
research contributions, and published materials about him. This evidence reflects that he is an 
experienced and accomplished researcher, educator, and manager in the computer science field. The 
record, however, does not contain evidence sufficient to show that he has risen to the very top of his 
field and has sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner provided evidence of his service as a peer reviewer for several professional journals 
and conferences in his field. Specifically, he documented that he reviewed manuscripts submitted for 
publication to the following journals and conferences: IEEE Pervasive Computing ( one review in 
2008); 2008 IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETF A) (two 
reviews); Journal of Medical Systems (one manuscript in 2014); and Journal of Network and 
Computer Applications (five reviews between June 2022 and April 2023). The Petitioner's resume 
indicates that he has also served as a reviewer for Journal of Ente,prise Information Management, 
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, IEEE Communications Letters, and the 44th and 45th 
Southeastern Symposia on System Theory. In addition, some of the submitted reference letters 
indicate the Petitioner has reviewed "dozens" of manuscripts. However, he has not sufficiently 
documented any additional peer review activities beyond the nine instances mentioned above. 
An evaluation of the significance of the Petitioner's experience is appropriate to determine if such 
evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. See 
Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22 (finding that a review of the significance of the evidence submitted is 
appropriate in a final merits determination); see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. The Director observed that "reviewing manuscripts for 
journals is a common expectation in the research and academic fields for professionals who themselves 
author and submit articles for review." The Director acknowledged that peer review work "indicates 
a level of knowledge or expertise in the field" but concluded "the record does not demonstrate that the 
[Petitioner's] judging/review work has set him apart from others." 
We agree with the Director's determination that participation in the peer review process does not 
automatically support a conclusion that a researcher has achieved the recognition required for this 
classification, a determination that the Petitioner has not addressed on appeal. The Petitioner provided 
an expert opinion letter from a professor at who states that "being asked to 
serve as a judge ... for someone's work in scholarly events or academia recognizes [the Petitioner's] 
expertise," but he did not further expand on how the Petitioner's activities as a peer reviewer 
distinguish him from others in the field. 
A recommendation letter from one of the Petitioner's former professors at I I states that "well­
known scientific journals only invite leading scientists to review/judge the scientific work submitted." 
4 
However, this statement is not adequately supported in the record, which does not include 
corroborating evidence documenting the criteria used by journals (such as IEEE Pervasive Computing 
or Journal ofNetwork and Computer Applications) to select peer reviewers. Absent such evidence, 
the record does not support a determination that the journals that invited the Petitioner to conduct peer 
reviews reserve this distinction for those scientists and researchers at the top of a given field. In fact, 
the evidence submitted to document the Petitioner's peer review service for the 2008 IEEE ETFA 
Conference indicated that manuscript submissions were reviewed by approximately 300 reviewers and 
that all prospective conference participants who submitted their work were asked to review 
manuscripts submitted by their peers; there was no indication that the conference reserved such 
requests for "leading scientists." 
Finally, as noted, while some of the submitted reference letters indicate the Petitioner completed 
"dozens" of reviews, he did not fully document his claimed peer review activities. Rather, he 
submitted evidence documenting his review of nine manuscripts over a period of 15 years. Without 
evidence that sets the Petitioner apart from other researchers who are called on to perform peer review 
services in his field, he has not provided sufficient context to demonstrate that the nature and scope of 
his peer review work is indicative of his sustained national or international acclaim or indicative of a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Likewise, publication of research does not automatically place a researcher or professor at the top of 
their field. Here, the Petitioner submitted his Google Scholar profile showing that 12 of his 
publications have been cited at least one time, including several journal articles and conference 
presentations, a book chapter, his master's degree thesis, and his doctoral dissertation. The dates of 
publication range from 2003 to 2021, with only two works published in the ten years preceding the 
filing of the petition in 2023 ( one in 2015 and one in 2021 ). The Petitioner did not provide evidence 
differentiating his publication rate from those of others in his field, or otherwise establish that it is 
reflective of one who is among the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
As authoring scholarly articles is often inherent to the work of scientists, researchers and academics, 
the citation history or other evidence of the influence of his articles can be an indicator to determine 
the recognition that his work has had on the field and whether such recognition or influence has been 
sustained. For example, numerous independent citations of the Petitioner's work may provide solid 
evidence that his work has been recognized and that other researchers have been influenced by his 
work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
Here, the record indicates that, as of February 2023, the Petitioner's body of published work had 
received 74 total citations, with 13 citations since 2018. The Petitioner's two most-cited articles, a 
2008 conference presentation titled 
1 I and a 2010 article titled __________________
I I published in Business Process Management Journal, had received 32 and 13 citations 
respectively, with the latter last cited in 2018. The Petitioner's citations, both individually and 
collectively, show that his work has received some recognition in his field. However, he did not 
provide evidence demonstrating that the total rate of citations to his body of published work is high 
5 
relative to others in the field or that the citations to his research represent attention at a level consistent 
with being among small percentage at the very top of his field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(B)(2) (stating that depending on the field and the comparative data a petitioner provides, 
such evidence may indicate a person's high overall standing in a given field). 
The Petitioner emphasized that several of his peer-reviewed articles have been accessed or 
downloaded directly from the publishers' websites and that overall, his work had been downloaded 
"more than 3200 times," with one article receiving over 1600 downloads. However, the record does 
not contain comparative information, such as access or download data for papers published by others 
in his field. Without supporting evidence to provide such context, he has not supported his claim that 
the total number of times his published research was downloaded or accessed is indicative of his 
standing at the top of his field. Nor does the record demonstrate that evidence of downloads should 
carry the same weight as a high number of citations in terms of establishing the Petitioner's recognition 
in the field. Unlike a citation history, an access or download count does not convey whether or how 
the Petitioner's research findings have been used in subsequent research activities. If downloads of 
his work have resulted in few citations, then we cannot conclude that the number of downloads can be 
correlated with a pattern of sustained acclaim and recognition in the field. Here, although the 
Petitioner provided evidence that his 2010 article published in Business Process Management Journal 
was downloaded or accessed 1,600 times, the article was cited a total of 13 times in 13 years and had 
not been cited by others in the five years immediately preceding the date of filing. While we do not 
discount the possibility that a high number of downloads could indicate a level of recognition 
comparable to a high level of citations, the record here does not provide the context or evidence to 
support such a finding. 
The Petitioner also stated that his most recent article, the final version of which was published in 2023, 
appeared in the Journal ofIntelligent Manufacturing. The Petitioner emphasized that this journal has 
an impact factor of 7.136, which places it among the "most influential" journals in the field. 
Publication of an article in a journal with a relatively high impact factor, however, does not indicate 
the Petitioner has necessarily garnered recognition or acclaim as a result of such publication. A 
reference letter from the Petitioner's former colleague and fellow researcher atl Ihighlights the 
impact factor of this journal as evidence of this article's "academic relevance" but the record otherwise 
lacks information regarding the level of recognition or acclaim associated with publishing in the 
Journal ofIntelligent Manufacturing. 
The Petitioner also highlights the inclusion of his article titled ____________ 
in in the Astrophysics Data System (ADS), a digital library portal 
operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory under a cooperative agreement with NASA. 
Evidence in the record indicates that ADS maintains over 13 million physics, astrophysics, and general 
science publications. The Petitioner submitted articles that highlighted the inclusion of his work in 
the ADS database from three Brazilian publications, including two newspapers and a technology news 
website. However, as discussed in the Director's decision, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
these published articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media or 
that they otherwise contributed to the Petitioner's national or international acclaim in the field. 
Further, the record contains insufficient evidence to establish that having an article included in this 
database of 13 million publications is indicative of an individual researcher's standing in their field. 
The record lacks supporting evidence regarding ADS and the criteria it uses to select articles for 
6 
inclusion in the database. Notably, the article the Petitioner had selected for inclusion in ADS, which 
was published in International Journal ofElectronics in 2015, has been cited only one time, according 
to his Google Scholar profile. 
Therefore, while the Petitioner's publication in a high impact journal and the inclusion of his article 
in ADS may be noteworthy, he did not demonstrate that his overall publication record demonstrates 
the required sustained national or international acclaim for this classification or reflects that he has 
reached the very top of his field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. 
In addressing the Petitioner's leading and critical roles, the Director recognized the valuable work and 
contributions he has made to his employers' organizations. However, the Director concluded that the 
record lacked evidence to demonstrate how his work for those organizations sets him apart from others 
or how his roles reflected or resulted in his sustained national or international acclaim in the field. The 
Petitioner does not address or contest this conclusion on appeal. 
The record reflects the Petitioner has been employed as a department head by two institutions of higher 
education in Brazil and in a senior management role with 
Evidence of a person's employment or research experience with leading institutions in their field ( such 
as U.S. or foreign universities with high or very high research activity, or a university that is highly 
regarded accordingly to widely recognized metrics) can be a positive factor toward demonstrating that 
the person is among the small percentage at the very top of their field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). While the Petitioner provided evidence to demonstrate that his current 
employer has a distinguished reputation in its industry, he did not submit sufficient independent 
evidence demonstrating that the organizations that employed him previously are leading or highly 
regarded/highly ranked research institutions in Brazil, or that they, or the specific academic 
departments that he led, otherwise enjoy a distinguished reputation. 
Further, although the record supports the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has performed in 
critical roles for his employers, he has not demonstrated how or to what his extent his employment in 
these roles resulted in or is indicative of his sustained acclaim or recognition in his field. For example, 
with respect to his role at I I a letter from the school's director-general, indicates that all its 
professor vacancies "must be hired upon approval in a Civil Service Examination for government 
jobs." SheShe states that the Petitioner "achieved the second-highest score in the public examination for 
professors," and as a result secured one of the available positions outlined in a public notice. 
While the Petitioner was successful in this competitive hiring process, the record does not establish 
how his high score on a civil service examination is consistent with national acclaim or indicative of 
his standing at the top of his field. The director-general's letter describes some of the projects the 
Petitioner undertook during his tenure atl Iand notes that he was invited to be a commencement 
speaker for graduating students of "the Technical Course in Computing Integrated to High School at 
I However, the letter from I I does not discuss how his role garnered him individual 
recognition outside of this organization at a level consistent with sustained national or international 
acclaim. 
The letters documenting the Petitioner's tenure at I I similarly lack an explanation as to how 
his role with this college contributed to his national or international acclaim in his field. While a 
former student from the Petitioner's department provided a letter highlighting his own professional 
7 
I 
successes and those of other alumni, this evidence does not establish that the achievements of the 
college's graduates resulted in the Petitioner's receipt of widespread recognition or acclaim within the 
broader field. The Petitioner also provided evidence that he was one of several persons in his field 
quoted in an article titled which was published by 
the Brazilian newspaper Diario de Canoas in __2018. The article identified the Petitioner as a 
professor and "coordinator of the Information Technology course" atl I However, as noted 
by the Director, the article was not about him or his work in the field and was not published in major 
media. 
Regarding his role as the executive director of data science at I I a letter from the 
company's CEO indicates that the Petitioner was hired for his position based on the recommendation 
of al Iemployee who had worked with him during his graduate studies atl IWhile 
the CEO's letter details his important contributions to I I it does not indicate that the 
Petitioner's activities with this company have garnered him individual recognition from the field or 
contributed to his sustained national or international acclaim, nor does it indicate that he was recruited 
or sought for the role based on his acclaim or standing in his field. 
The Petitioner has consistently emphasized his senior membership in the Institute of Electrical and 
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) as evidence of his extraordinary ability, noting that only lOpercent of 
IEEE's over 400,000 members hold this membership rank. The record reflects that the Petitioner's 
senior membership in IEEE is notable in that it requires "extensive experience" and certain 
professional accomplishments in the field, such as publication of papers or development or furtherance 
of scientific or engineering courses. However, the record does not demonstrate that the "senior 
member" rank is reserved only for those IEEE members who have achieved acclaim at the national or 
international level or is otherwise indicative of their standing at the very top of the field. 
With respect to the Petitioner's research activities, the Director observed that he had made original 
contributions to the field through his authorship of papers, conference presentations, and book 
chapters, and acknowledged the value this work. The Director also acknowledged evidence of interest 
in his work through citations and downloads, evidence that his work had been used by others 
(including the Hewlett Packard RFID Center of Excellence in Brazil), and the Petitioner's submission 
of letters from his colleagues, employers and experts that speak to both the nature and impact of his 
contributions and his standing in the field. However, the Director determined that he had not 
demonstrated that his contributions are of major significance to the field or that such contributions 
resulted in the Petitioner "having achieved sustained acclaim as one of the very top of the field of 
endeavor." The Petitioner does not directly address this determination on appeal. 
The Petitioner has shown that his work, particularly the research he conducted in the field of RFID 
technology, was valuable and that he was a contributor to joint research efforts conducted by Brazil's 
universities and the private sector when this technology was in an early stage of development and 
adoption in the early 2000s. However, the evidence, considered individually and collectively, does 
not establish that his contributions have been recognized at a level that elevates him to the top of his 
field or that they have resulted in his sustained national or international acclaim. 
For example, a letter from R-S-F-, a principal scientist at the _________ who states 
that he is personally familiar with the Petitioner's work, provides an overview of the Petitioner's 
8 
education and career, and details the nature of his contributions to this field by summarizing his 
publications and the number of citations or downloads they received. He opines that the Petitioner 
"can be considered a reference" in the RFID field but does not further elaborate on how his 
achievements have been recognized at a level that places him at the very top of the field. A letter from 
E-L-B-, a Microsoft software engineer who attended I lwith the Petitioner, is similar in content. 
The letter provides an overview of the Petitioner's contributions to the RFID field, referring to him as 
a "key figure" in the development of this technology. A letter from S-P-D-, a manager at The 
states that the Petitioner has '-----------------------------' "widely recognized achievements" and "remarkable accomplishments" in the field of RFID 
technology and "revolutionized its utilization." While the Petitioner has earned significant praise from 
his former colleagues, the solicited letters do not provide sufficient information and explanation, nor 
does the record include sufficient corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner's contributions 
in the RFID field, primarily conducted while he was completing his graduate studies, have resulted in 
his sustained national or international acclaim and that he is more broadly recognized as being among 
that small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. 
The record, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for 
the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals 
at the top of their respective fields. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major 
league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of 
"extraordinary ability." Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the 
Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification 
sought, the record does not indicate a degree of recognition consistent with the sustained acclaim that 
the statute demands. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
The record reflects that USCIS previously approved a petition classifying the Petitioner as an 0-1 
nonimmigrant with extraordinary ability. Each petition is separate and independent and must be 
adjudicated on its own merits, under the corresponding statutory and regulatory provisions. Therefore, 
the Petitioner's 0-1 status has been considered but is not determinative in the adjudication of this 
immigrant petition, which is governed by a different section of the statute and regulations and case 
law. We are not bound by service center or district director's decisions. See, e.g., La. Philharmonic 
Orchestra v. INS, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 200 I) (per curiam). For the reasons addressed above, the 
record does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for classification under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the 
Act. We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter ofChurch 
Scientology Int'!, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988). 
ITT. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9