dismissed EB-1A Case: Economics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19550253 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 05, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an economics instructor, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for this classification through 
evidence that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
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 )( 1) 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 
international 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 criteria 
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 
The Petitioner is a former professor of economics who has more recently been self-employed. She 
was issued a candidate of science degree in economic science in 2008 by the Supreme Certifying 
Commission of Ukraine, and previously earned a master of economics degree from the I I I I She states that she intends to continue to teach and publish research 
in the field of economics, but also submitted an employment offer from a business in New Jersey for 
a vaguely defined position. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated 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). The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to her authorship of scholarly articles and participation as a 
judge of the work of others in her field. We agree with the Director's determinations regarding these 
criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to original 
contributions of major significance to the field and a leading or critical role. After reviewing all of 
the evidence in the record, we find that the evidence does not establish that she meets either of these 
criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance 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 
have they made original contributions, but that those contributions have been of major significance in 
the field. 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. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35. 
Here, the Petitioner focuses on several academic and career achievements which she asserts meet the 
requirements of this criterion. One of these is her thesis for her candidate of sciences degree, 
2 
' which introduced economic ~--------------------------~ proposals she asserts were implemented by local and re:ional governments in Ukraine. In support, 
she submitted a letter from a member of the I ~ ICity Council which acknowledges the 
Petitioner's work with this body. The letter provides three examples of the privatization of specific 
businesses for which the Petitioner participated as an expert consultant in public meetings, and also 
notes that she played the same role regarding a city-wide policy on the rent of semi-basements. In 
addition, the letter states that her proposals also led the city council to form a system to monitor the 
use of communal property, and that "in general" she was actively involved in the reform of property 
relations at the city level. Although this evidence shows that she had some influence on aspects of 
economic practice and policy for a major regional city in Ukraine, it does not show that her proposals 
were widely implemented, or that other economic scholars or advisors were influenced by this work. 
Additional evidence of the Petitioner's work with governmental bodies includes one of several reviews 
of her thesis that were written b "o onents" as part of the awarding of her degree. In particular, a 
review authored b Head of the Regional Branch of the State Property Fund of 
Ukraine in~-----~ notes that the "practical importance of individual results of the study is 
confirmed by... implementation in practical activities at the regional level, in particular: Regional 
Branch of the State Property Fund i ~-----------------~ Another review 
provides slightly more detail, indicating that her "practical recommendations on improving the 
mechanism of state regulation of the processes of property relations reform" were used by this body 
in implementing state policy. However, neither these reviews nor other evidence in the record 
provides detail on which proposals included in the Petitioner's thesis were implemented, or the nature 
of their overall impact on privatization reform policies in the region. The fact that some of her 
proposals were implemented at the regional level is not sufficient to demonstrate that this contribution 
was of major significance to the broader field of economics. 
The Petitioner also refers to all eight of the reviews of her thesis which were conducted by "opponents" 
as part of the process in the award of her candidate of science degree as evidence of "acclaim from 
many experts in the field." We note that while all of these individuals are experts in economics, the 
reviews were done solely for the purpose of evaluating whether the Petitioner's thesis showed that she 
was deserving of the degree. Although the record does not include information about the standards 
for awarding the candidate of science degree, many of the reviews mention the novelty of her work 
and her maturity as an economist. For example,! loti I University 
describes the dissertation as "a successful combination in the study of theoretical and methodological 
issues and applied ones," and concludes that "is an independent research on a topical topic, has a 
proper theoretical level, is noted for scientific novelty and practical value" and that the Petitioner 
therefore deserves her degree. 1 While this evidence clearly shows that this thesis was considered an 
original contribution and of sufficient practical value to justify the awarding of a degree, it does not 
demonstrate the dissertation's significance beyond the scope of the degree awarding process. 
Additional evidence regarding the significance of the Petitioner's thesis, as well as her other published 
work in the field of economics, consists of references to her and her work in the publications of other 
economists. Some of these references simply list the Petitioner's name among others credited with 
1 All of the reviews of the Petitioner's thesis, and other reference letters in the record that were written on her behalf: were 
carefully reviewed, including those not explicitly mentioned in this decision. 
3 
publishing on a particular topic, such as a 2015 paper from Scientific Bulletin of Polissia which lists 
her among 10 "national scientists" who have written on property issues. Others refer to a specific 
paper published by her which was used to support their work. We note that several of these indicate 
that they were written by students, and it is not apparent that some were published in scholarly journals 
or presented at conferences. While a high rate of citations to a scholar's published work, or widespread 
commentary from others in the field, may be probative of the significance of their contribution to the 
field, 2 here the Petitioner has not shown that either the quality or quantity of these references is 
indicative of contributions of major significance. 
Another group of achievements highlighted by the Petitioner are those she made to thel I ~---------~I where she served as dean of the economics faculty from 2009 to 2012. 
The evidence shows that in this role and as an assistant professor, and in addition to administrative 
duties, she created program courses and study aids, established an internship program with local 
businesses, and served as an advisor for several graduate students. While the Director concluded, and 
we agree, that this evidence was sufficient to demonstrate her leading role forD (as will be further 
discussed below), it does not show that the impact of these achievements reached beyond0and its 
students and contributed to the broader field of economics. 
The Petitioner also submitted evidence of her activities with the non-governmental organization 
(NGO).__ __________ _. A letter froml I describes the Petitioner's creation 
of business plans for several businesses, and her participation in advocacy efforts on behalf of the 
group with the local and national governments. A second letter from I I submitted in 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), adds that she consulted with local entrepreneurs 
and businesses on tax and other issues, and worked with other NGOs to promote entrepreneurship 
amongst women and young people in the area. The Petitioner's aid to local businesses and efforts to 
promote rtrereneurship in the region is commendable, but these two letters do not show that her 
work with made an impact other than to the businesses she directly helped. Notably, the record 
does not include evidence to demonstrate the wider impact of her advocacy on the actions or policies 
of regional or national governmental bodies. 
In her appeal brief, the Petitioner refers to several of our non-precedent decisions, focusing on the 
evidence presented in those cases by petitioners seeking classification as noncitizens of extraordinary 
ability. These decisions were not published as precedents and therefore do not bind USCIS officers 
in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and 
policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in 
the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. Here, the Petitioner 
points out that in Matter of J-L-, ID# 800261 (AAO Jan. 25, 2018) we considered reference letters as 
probative evidence of"the importance of the EB-1 Petitioner's work," and therefore that the opponent 
reviews of her thesis should be given greater consideration. But the portions of the letters quoted in 
Matter of J-L- describe contributions in detail that went beyond that petitioner's employer and were 
implemented throughout the industry. As described above, the letters submitted on the Petitioner's 
behalf describe her consultations to specific businesses, and only briefly mention the implementation 
of her proposals at the local and regional governmental level without providing detail or context. It is 
therefore insufficient to demonstrate that those contributions were of major significance in her field. 
2 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual 
4 
After review of the evidence noted above, and other evidence in the record submitted in support of 
this criterion, we conclude that while the Petitioner has demonstrated original contributions to the field 
of economics, she has not established that any of her contributions were of major significance to the 
field. We therefore conclude that she does not meet this criterion. 
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) 
In order to meet the requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they played either a 
leading or critical role for an organization or establishment, and that that organization or establishment 
has or had a distinguished reputation. If a leading role, the evidence must establish that the noncitizen 
is ( or was) a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is ( or was), 
in fact, leading. For a role to be considered critical, the evidence must establish that the noncitizen 
has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. 
The Petitioner bases her claim to this criterion on her roles withe=] andD Regarding her role as 
the dean of the economics faculty atD from 2009 to 2012, the Director concluded that while it was 
a leading role, the evidence was not sufficient to show that D has a distinguished reputation. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence concerning certain graduates of0 should have been 
considered despite its source, and that information from a website should have been considered despite 
the evidence's lack of information about its source. 
While we agree with the Director's concerns rgaring evidence submitted from Wikipedia, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not shown that has a distinguished reputation even when this 
evidence is considered. This evidence includes information about two graduates ofp one who has 
been the mayor ofllfor 10 years and another who is an associate professor at I I luniver~ evidence shows that two of the institution's graduates have had successful 
careers after beginning their post-secondary studies ate=] but does not show that it has a 
distinguished reputation among colleges and universities in Ukraine. Other evidence includes an 
article describingDs history, facilities and educational, but as the Director noted in his decision, 
no information was provided about the source of this material, such as a website address, which would 
allow for verification of its content. On appeal, the Petitioner identifies its source as the website for 
I t a name which is included in some of the images accompanying the article, but provides 
no further information about this entity. More importan~neither this article nor other information 
in the record provided from other websites suggests thatLJ has a distinguished reputation. None of 
the evidence indicates thatD is widely recognized as a prestigious institution or is highly ranked 
among Ukrainian and European universities. The I I article concludes only that it "is an 
institution that provides a thorough and solid knowledge to its students," a phrase which could be used 
to describe any institution of higher learning. The Wikipedia information indicates thatO received 
a nomination for "Temple of Science" designation in 2005, but very little information is provided 
about this nomination or its meaning. Upon review of the totality of this evidence, we conclude that 
it does not establish that D has a distinguished reputation. 
Turning to the Petitioner's role fore=] the Director concluded that it was neither leading nor critical, 
and that the evidence did not show that it has a distinguished reputation. As noted above, the evidence 
5 
of her role for this NGO includes two letters froml I whom a news article names as the 
head of the organization. In her first letter, she names several businesses for which the Petitioner 
provided business plans, and also states that the Petitioner was "a participant in all mass events to 
defend the interests of entrepreneurs before various bodies of state power and local self-government." 
In the second letter,I I again notes the Petitioner's participation in "mass events" to advocate 
for entrepreneurs, and her consultations with entrepreneurs on tax and other business issues. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that these letters show that she was an active member ofD and that 
the organization "has implemented Petitioner's innovative ideas for helping its members to develop 
businesses." We agree that the evidence shows that she was an active member of the organization, 
andl Is first letter describes her as a co-author of an appeal to the Ukrainian prime minister 
regarding labor legislation and an idea to create something called the ~--------~ 
However, the record does not include sufficient information about the outcome of these projects and 
how they impacted the mission, operations or standing ofc=Jto show that the Petitioner's role was 
critical to the organization's activities. The letters indicate thaD has undertaken many such "mass 
events," and does not show that the Petitioner's participation in the two specific projects described or 
in other projects affected the organization's activities to the extent that her role was critical. 
We farther note that while the Director also concluded that the Petitioner had not shown thatc=Jhas 
a distinguished reputation, this requirement is not addressed on appeal. The RFE response included a 
single article posted on the website I I otj f 2018 which interviews I I 
about the organization's appeal to a committee of the Ukrainian legislature regarding issues of 
entrepreneurship, but the article simply describes c=J, s advocacy with other entrepreneurial 
organizations and does not distinguish it from these other NGOs. As such, we agree with the 
Director's conclusion that the evidence does not establish thatc=J has a distinguished reputation. 
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 that 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). 
6 
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. 
7