dismissed EB-1A Case: Economics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 22, 2024 In Re: 32500217 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an economist, 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 while the Petitioner 
met the initial evidence requirement for this classification by meeting at least three of the evidentiary 
prongs under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the record did not establish that she had the necessary sustained 
national or international acclaim and was one of the small percentage at the top of her field. The 
Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not established that she was coming to the United States 
to work in her area of claimed extraordinary ability. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, a petitioner ( or anyone on the 
petitioner's behalf) must establish that they: 
• Have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; 
• Seek to enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability; and that 
• Their entry into the United States will prospectively substantially benefit the United States. 
Extraordinary ability must be demonstrated by evidence of sustained national or international acclaim 
as well as extensive documentation that their achievements have been recognized in the field. Section 
203(b )(1) of the Act. 
The implementing regulation further states that 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." A 
petitioner can demonstrate that they meet the initial evidence requirements for this immigrant visa 
classification through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If such evidence is unavailable, then they must alternatively provide evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten listed criteria, which call for evidence about lesser awards they may have received, 
published material about them in qualifying media, and their authorship of scholarly articles, among 
other types of evidence. 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2),(3). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination, assessing whether the record shows that the 
individual possesses the acclaim and recognition required for this highly exclusive immigrant visa 
classification. 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). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a Ph.D. in economics from the in Nigeria in 2018, and has 
worked in the areas of health economics and development economics. At the time of filing she was a 
reader (associate professor) at in Nigeria, as well as the acting 
head of the school's department of economics. She states that she intends to "continue working on 
applying my in-depth knowledge of health economics and applied econometrics to the design and 
development of economic models" in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that they received a major, internationally 
recognized award, they must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the requisite three 
criteria, but did not show that the had sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage near the top of the field of economics. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the 
Director erred in his final merits analysis. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we 
disagree with and withdraw the Director's conclusion regarding the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), but nevertheless agree with his conclusion concerning her eligibility for 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1formed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
To meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must first establish that they have served in a 
role that was either leading or critical for an organization or establishment, or a department of division 
thereof: and that the organization, establishment, department, or division has a distinguished 
reputation. Evidence of a leading role may include a title and matching duties, and should indicate 
2 
that the petitioner is or was a leader. Evidence supporting a critical role should show that the petitioner 
has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization's or 
establishment's activities, or those of a division or department. Second, a petitioner must show that 
the organization or establishment, or department or division thereof, for which the leading or critical 
role was performed has a distinguished reputation. Factors may include the size, longevity, media 
coverage, awards, and industry rankings of the organization, establishment, department, or division. 
See generally 6 USC IS Policy Manual F .2(b )( l ). 
The Director concluded, without analysis, that the Petitioner meets this criterion. In support of this 
criterion, the Petitioner submitted evidence of her appointment as acting head of the Department of 
Economics atl Ifor a two-year period, which included a place in the school senate. She also 
submitted evidence of her appointment to various committees within I Icollege of social and 
management science. A letter from one of her colleagues described her as "a pillar of the Department 
of Economics" who has contributed to curriculum development and the accreditation of the 
department's undergraduate and postgraduate programs. This evidence sufficiently establishes that 
her role is leading as it pertains to the economics department, but not for I !overall. 
In support of the organization's distinguished reputation, the Petitioner submitted articles announcing 
I !ranking by The Times Higher Education as the highest in Nigeria in itsl I 
in 2022 and 2023, which the articles indicate is based upon the United Nations' Sustainable 
Development Goals (SGDs). According to the articles, these include measures of universities' 
"research on climate change, their use of energy and their preparations for dealing with the 
consequences of climate change." While this evidence may be sufficient to show thatl Ihas a 
distinguished reputation in these respects, it does not shed light on its overall academic reputation 
when compared to other universities, nor does it speak to the reputation ofl I economics 
department. Because the record does not demonstrate that the department for which the Petitioner 
performs a leading role enjoys a distinguished reputation, we disagree with and withdraw the 
Director's conclusion regarding this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Per the above, the Petitioner has not established that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria, 
and thus does not meet the initial evidence requirements for this classification. 1 However, as the 
Director's decision depended upon his analysis in the final merits determination, we will review the 
record to determine whether the Petitioner possesses the requisite levels of expertise and recognition 
in her field. 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine 
whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her achievements have been recognized in 
the field through extensive documentation. Here, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence 
that she meets that standard. 
1 The Petitioner does not challenge the Director's decision that she does not meet two other criteria that she claimed. 
relating to her membership in associations in her field requiring outstanding achievements and her original contributions 
of major significance to her field. We will consider the evidence submitted in support of these criteria in reviewing the 
final merits determination. 
3 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director did not consider her response to the RFE in his 
decision, pointing to a sentence appearing in both. But this cannot be the case, as the Director granted 
the criterion at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which pertains to an individual's performance in a leading 
or critical role, after considering the additional evidence submitted by the Petitioner. 
In addition, the Petitioner's brief refers to the section of the users Policy Manual pertaining to the 
evidentiary criterion at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), which requires evidence of an individual's activity 
as a judge of the work of others in their field, in support of her assertion that the Director did not 
follow users policy when conducting the final merits determination. But this assertion is misguided, 
as in this second step of the analysis for this immigrant visa classification, we do not consider evidence 
under the individual evidentiary criteria. Rather, we evaluate whether the entirety of the evidence 
shows that the individual has sustained national or international acclaim in their field and that they are 
one of the small percentage at the top of that field. 
The Petitioner also challenges whether the Director reviewed the entirety of the evidence in making 
his determination in the final merits analysis, noting that he discussed evidence submitted in support 
of only three of the evidentiary criteria which she claimed to meet. However, in addition to analyzing 
the evidence regarding the Petitioner's activity as a judge of the work of others, her authorship of 
scholarly articles, and her performance in leading roles, the Director also evaluated the reference letters 
and citations to the Petitioner's scholarly articles. While the Director did not mention the evidence of 
her memberships in professional associations in his decision, the Petitioner does not articulate on 
appeal how this evidence demonstrates her acclaim at the national or international level or places her 
amongst the elite in her field. 
Along with her appeal brief, the Petitioner submits copies of three non-precedent decisions concerning 
petitions for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in which we remanded the matter 
to the Director for reconsideration of the evidence in final merits determinations, and urges us to do 
the same in her case. But these decisions were not published as a precedent and therefore do not bind 
users officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Also, in each of those cases we 
concluded that the Director had not considered the totality of the record and provided a thorough 
analysis of the evidence. As discussed above, in this case, the Director sufficiently addressed the 
record in his decision. 
Turning to that evidence, and specifically regarding the evidence of her participation as a peer 
reviewer, the Petitioner asserts that her review of transcripts submitted to "top scholarly journals" is 
not routine as stated by the Director. The record shows that she is a member of the editorial board for 
two journals, one of which is published by her college atl I She was also invited to review 
manuscripts submitted to four journals, including her college journal, and completed those reviews. 
But there is no evidence in the record that supports her assertion that these journals are "prestigious," 
or that serving as a peer reviewer for these particular journals is an indicator of her standing at or near 
the top of her field. In addition, while we acknowledge that peer review requires a certain level of 
expertise, the Petitioner has not shown that either the quantity or quality of her peer review activity 
for these journals reflects national or international acclaim. 
4 
The Petitioner also presented evidence of her service on several thesis examination panels for masters 
and doctoral degree candidates at I I On appeal she notes that she served as chairperson for 
many of these panels, but all of those assignments were made during her period as Acting Head of the 
economics department, as evidenced by her signature on the documents. The Petitioner also does not 
explain the significance of serving as chairperson on these panels, or how this is indicative of national 
or international acclaim. We agree with the Petitioner that this activity, together with her work as a 
peer reviewer for the journals mentioned above, meets the plain language of the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv). But she has not established that it reflects the level of expertise and 
recognition required for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Regarding the evidence of the Petitioner's scholarly publications, she again bases her critique of the 
Director's decision on the relevant evidentiary criterion. Specifically, she asserts that the Director 
erred by focusing in his decision on the number of citations to those publications by other scholars in 
the Petitioner's field. But the Director correctly considered the evidence of her publications as well 
as the evidence of their recognition by other scholars and in the field of economics overall, as USCIS 
policy requires when conducting a final merits determination. 
To support the citation of her work by others, the Petitioner submitted a list of 40 articles for which 
she was listed as an author that she asserts were published in scholarly journals. However, we note 
that two of those articles are listed twice, and less than half of the listed articles are verified by 
documentary evidence in the record. In addition, the Petitioner submitted a copy of her profile from 
www.scholar.google.com which lists only 20 articles, several of which do not indicate that she was an 
author. As we noted at the outset, it is the Petitioner's burden of proof to establish that she meets the 
requirements for an individual of extraordinary ability, and that burden cannot be met through 
unsupported assertions. Here, the record does not support her assertions as to the quantity of her 
published work. 
In addition, as indicated in the Director's decision, the influence of her published work carries more 
weight than quantity when determining its recognition in the field. The Petitioner refers to the 
evidence of the number of citations to her published work, as indicated in her Google Scholar profile, 
and asserts that the Director must not have reviewed this information. But the Director referenced the 
evidence of the Petitioner's citations in his decision, and concluded that it was insufficient to establish 
her recognition or standing within her field. 
Moreover, the record does not include sufficient evidence to verify the number of citations she claims, 
as noted above, or to provide context for the number of citations to the Petitioner's published work. 
Even if we were to accept the number of citations reported on her Google Scholar profile, despite the 
listing of numerous articles not showing her as an author and/or not verified in the record, the Petitioner 
has not provided documentation which demonstrates that that number is indicative of national or 
international recognition in the field of economics, or places her amongst the few at the top of that 
field. 
Other documentation concerning the influence and recognition of the Petitioner's published work 
takes the form of reference letters from her collaborators and colleagues. For example, one of her 
colleagues atl !writes that he has collaborated with her on research projects, including a study 
of poverty reduction across several countries and a book chapter on disaster risk reduction strategies. 
5 
He also writes that her work on a project targeting poverty alleviation and food insecurity in Nigeria 
has been "recognized internationally for its excellence." While he provides further technical details 
about this project, the professor does not elaborate on how it has been recognized in the field of health 
economics. 
The record also includes evidence of the Petitioner's career in her field beyond her published work, 
including her position as a consultant research fellow in the 
I I of the A letter from 
the director of theI !states that in this role he solicited the Petitioner's input on reports and policy 
documents pertaining to economic recovery from the COVTD-19 pandemic, International Monetary 
Fund debt cancellation, and other economic issues concerning the member countries, including 
flagshipflagship Economic Report on Africa. Another letter, from the economic affairs officer of 
r====}describes the Petitioner's work in developing improved economic models for three African 
countries and improving the performance of the I I through her work. The acknowledgments 
section of three reports were submitted that evidence the Petitioner's contribution in research and data 
analysis, but neither the letters nor the acknowledgments indicate that she was responsible for 
authoring or editing these reports or played more than a supporting role in their drafting. 
Additional evidence pertains to the Petitioner's work as an educator at I I including her 
administrative role as head of the economics department, a position in which she is eligible to serve 
for two two-year terms. In addition to her participation on several masters and doctoral thesis defense 
committees as previously discussed, documents show that she was appointed as a member of the 
accrediting committee for her college atl land participated in the university's senate meetings, 
responsibilities which appear to stern from her role as a department head. A letter from the dean of 
the college confirms that as a department head, the Petitioner serves as a member of the university 
senate, serves in several boards and committees at the college level, and acts as a the department's 
chief examiner. The writer notes that her accomplishments in this role include overseeing the 
graduation of more than 40 undergraduate and graduate students and advancing a proposal to create a 
Centre for Economic Research and Data Analysis at I I While we have previously 
acknowledged that this role is a leading one for the economic department at I I this evidence 
does not show that the Petitioner's recognition as a health economist and educator extends beyond 
I Ito the national or international level. 
As extraordinary ability is an elite level of accomplishment whose recognition necessarily entails a 
judgement call, it cannot be established through meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria alone. 
The final merits determination is the ultimate statutory inquiry of whether the applicant has 
extraordinary ability as demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim. Amin v. 
Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, at 395 (2022). Here, the record shows that the Petitioner is a respected 
associate professor atl land worked in a short-term position as a research fellow at a United 
Nations agency, where she contributed to reports and economic models. But it does not establish that 
her work in either of these roles has let to sustained national or international acclaim. In addition, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that her published work has had an influence on others in the field of 
economics to an extent consistent with sustained acclaim, or that it has led to her recognition as one 
of the small percentage at the top of the field. Accordingly, we conclude that she has not established 
her eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
6 
C. Coming to the United States to Work in Field of Endeavor 
As noted above, a petitioner seeking eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability must seek to 
enter the United States to continue work in their area of extraordinary ability. To meet this 
requirement, a petitioner must submit "clear evidence" that they will do so, which may include letters 
from prospective employers, evidence of prearranged commitments, or a statement detailing their 
plans on how they intend to continue their work in the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
The Director determined, based in part on the Petitioner's residence and employment in Nigeria, that 
the record did not include clear evidence of her intent to continue working in the field of health 
economics in the United States. Specifically, she concluded that the Petitioner's plan was insufficient 
since it merely expressed her "prospective hopes of finding or creating work." On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that her plan to create a consulting firm in the United States, through which she 
would offer economic models in the areas of poverty alleviation and health insurance, was sufficiently 
detailed. We agree, and withdraw the Director's conclusion regarding this issue. 
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. Nevertheless, we have reviewed the entire record 
and conclude that it does not establish that the Petitioner has 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 those 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 ofPrice, 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 that she is one of the small percentage who have 
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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7