dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9579407 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 15, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a law firm, seeks to classify the Beneficiary 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the evidence 
submitted at the time the petition was filed did not establish the Beneficiary 's eligibility as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b )(8)(ii) . 
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)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business , or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien 's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F .R. § 204 .5(h)(2) . The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a 
beneficiary's 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, a law firm, employs the Beneficiary as its instructional coordinator, developing several 
continuing legal education courses. The Beneficiary indicates previous employment between 2014 
and 2017 as an assistant professor of.__ __________ ___.Department a~ !University 
inl I Saudi Arabia. In 2011 he was awarded a humanities doctorate in literature from the 
University.__ ________ _.· Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the 
Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, it must establish that he satisfies 
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 concluded that the evidence submitted at the time the petition was 
filed did not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(8)(ii). On appeal, the Petitioner does not specifically address the regulatory criteria. In 
two accompanying letters, however, the Petitioner references the Beneficiary's achievements for his 
firm and evidence relating to six criteria. 1 After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary satisfies the requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate the Beneficiary's receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 The 
Petitioner submitted several certificates that acknowledged and thanked the Beneficiary for his 
participation, contribution, and dedication to service. For instance, the Petitioner submitted several 
appreciation certificates from the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction that recognized 
the Beneficiary for his contributions as an online volunteer in "English to Arabic translation of disaster 
recovery training material" in 2012 and 2016, and a certificate from the Plan EU Office that recognized 
his "translation of the Plan EU Youth Poll on Girls' Rights (15 questions in total) form English to 
Arabic" in 2012. The Petitioner also provided a letter of appreciation from the Humanities Education 
1 The Petitioner stated on the Form T-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that it would submit a brief and/or evidence to 
our office within 30 days. The record reflects that we did not receive a brief or additional evidence. 
2 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 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 
and Research Association HERA thankin the Beneficia 
at the '----------------------------------------' 2016 HERA conference in New Orleans. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a "Certificate of Commendation" from The Education Charter 
Magazine, recognizing the Beneficiary'~tstanding contribution to Journalism and writing" for his 
having "submitted [an] article for the L_J edition of The Education Charter through the United 
Nations Volunteering Program" in 2012, and a "Certificate of Appreciation" from the Chamber of 
Computer Logistics People Worldwide (CCLPW) for his having written "articles for international 
educational magazine" in 2016. The Petitioner farther provided a letter of appreciation from the 
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) for the Beneficiary's volunteer work in participating 
in "the Banned Books Week chat" and his participation in the 2014 and 2015 NCTE annual 
convention. 
However, as this criterion requires the Petitioner to submit documentation of the Beneficiary's 
"nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence [ emphasis added]," we are 
not persuaded that documentation that merely acknowledges or recognizes the Beneficiary's 
participation, as well as certificates that thank the Beneficiary for contributing articles to magazines 
in the field of education, equates to a prize or award consistent with the requirements of this criterion. 
Further, the Petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence reflecting that they are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
Finally, we acknowledge that the Petitioner provided a certificate indicating that in 2013 the academic 
board of the International Council of CCLPW "selected" the Beneficiary based upon "his contribution 
in the field of Education and Research, A warding to him the rights, privileges, and honour to use the 
suffix 'Fellow Chartered Educator."' The record does not contain any additional information 
regarding the basis for granting this distinction, and therefore did not establish that it is considered to 
be a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in his field. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about the 
Beneficiary relating to his work in professional or major trade publications or other major media, as 
well as the title, date, and author of the material. 3 Articles that are not about an alien do not fulfill this 
regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 
8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). The Petitioner 
submits several articles that cite to the Beneficiary's work. A review of the citing articles reveals that 
the Beneficiary is not a primary topic within the text. Instead, the references to his cited work in the 
articles' bibliographies are among dozens of cited texts for the articles. Such a reference in a 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7. 
3 
bibliography does not establish the articles are about the Beneficiary relating to his work in the field. 
Instead, articles which cite the Beneficiary's work are primarily about the authors' own work in the 
field. They are not about the Beneficiary or even about his work. A reference to a beneficiary's work 
without evaluation does not meet the plain language requirements set forth in this criterion. The 
submitted documentation does not discuss the merits of the Beneficiary's work, his standing in the 
field, any significant impact that his work has had on the field, or any other information so as to be 
considered published material about the Beneficiary as required by this criterion. The research articles 
citing to the Beneficiary's work are more relevant to the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and will be addressed there. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary fulfills 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). 
This regulatory criterion requires the Petitioner to show that the Beneficiary 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 the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits evidence relating to the Beneficiary's review of papers for the journal 
Interdisciplinary Literary Studies and for the .__ ______________ ___.in 2015 and 
20161 ,I, organized by the International Academic Forum (IAFOR). The 
Petitioner provided two emails dated April 2015 froml bf Interdisciplinary 
Literary Studies, inviting the Beneficiary to review the manuscript, I I I I" thanking the Beneficiary for agreeing to review the manuscript, and 
informing him "I would appreciate receiving your review by June 8, 2015." The Petitioner also 
provided two emails dated, respectively, December 2014 and December 
1
015 from IAFOR Peer 
Review regarding 'I I Conference Inquiries" and ,j Conference Inquiries," 
requesting that the Beneficiary "review a minimum of three abstracts," and advising him that "[t]here 
are currently [abstracts] ready for you to review." 
In addition, the Petitioner provides two emails dated A~ril 2018 from IAFOR Peer Review regarding 
the 2018 I I, requestin: that the Beneficiary 
"review a minimum of three abstracts" for the July 2018 conference in I I England. The 
Petitioner farther submits a certificate from the Chairman and CEO of IAFOR indicating that in July 
2018 the Beneficiary participated i~ I "by performing the duties of a Senior 
Reviewer .... " 5 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
5 The Petitioner also provides a ce1iificate from IAFOR indicating that in July 2019 the Beneficiary paiiicipated in 
I I "by perfonning the duties of a member of the Review Committee .... " However, the Petitioner filed this 
petition in May 2019. 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. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b )(I). Therefore, the Petitioner 
4 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that the beneficiary has not only been invited to 
judge the work of others, but also that he actually participated in the judging of the work of others in 
the same or allied field of specialization. 6 Here, the emails do not demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
actually completed the journal and conference paper reviews for Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, 
, , I 7 Instead, as indicated above, the emails reflect a request to 
participate in the peer review process, and to conduct the abstract review for Interdisciplinary Literary 
Studies by the stated deadline. Moreover, the Petitioner did not present any supporting evidence 
establishing that the Beneficiary, in fact, performed the paper reviews. For example, the Petitioner 
did not provide sufficient evidence from Interdisciplinary Literary Studies confirming that the 
Beneficiary accomplished the manuscript review request, or corroborating documentation from the 
.__ ______ _.I conferences showing how many and which papers the Beneficiary reviewed. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary participated as a 
judge of the work of others consistent with this regulatory 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 this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only has a beneficiary made original 
contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 8 For example, a petitioner 
may show that the beneficiary's 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. The Petitioner submitted articles that have cited to the Beneficiary's 
published work in the field, evidence that the Beneficiary has presented his work at professional 
symposia, and several recommendation letters from colleagues. 
The record contains evidence of the Beneficiary's participation and presentation in symposia in the 
field of education, such asl I, in I I Japan. However, the Petitioner did not establish, 
for instance, the significance of the Beneficiary's presentations, if the field views them as authoritative, 
or whether they have been extensively referenced or cited by others. Publications and presentations 
are not sufficient to establish eligibility under this criterion absent evidence that they were of "major 
significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 
1115. Here, the Petitioner has not established that a presentation at a conference alone demonstrates 
a contribution of major significance in the field. 
In addition, as discussed previously, the Petitioner submitted articles that cited to the Beneficiary's 
work. A review of those articles, though, does not show the significance of the Beneficiary's research 
cannot establish the Beneficiary's eligibility under this criterion based on his participation in judging in July 2019, even if 
we were to determine that it otherwise satisfies all elements of this evidentiary criterion. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
7 Id. (providing an example of peer reviewing for a scholarly journal, as evidenced by a request from the journal to the 
alien to do the review, accompanied by proof that the alien actually completed the review). 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (stating that although funded and published work may be 
"original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
5 
to the overall field beyond the authors who cited to his work. 9 For instance, the Petitioner provided 
an article titled International Journal on 
Quranic Research), in which the author cited to the Beneficiary's article'.__ _________ _. 
.__ ______________ ~(The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue). 10 However, the 
article does not distinguish or highlight the Beneficiary's written work from the 36 other cited texts 
used for the article. In the case here, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's published 
articles through citations rise to a level of "major significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Moreover, regarding his testimonials, the authors praise the Beneficiary for his research abilities and 
work ethic; however, they do not show how his research constituted an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. For instance, o~eal the Petitioner provides recommendation letters from 
several of the Beneficiary's colleagues at[___J. I lstates that the Beneficiary 
is a researcher who "is willing to go above and beyond limitations and expectations." I I I I, a member of the Beneficiary's dissertation committee, describes him as "extremely 
hard working" with "good judgment, research and analytical abilities" and possessing "unique insights 
in the area of the American Literary tradition." I I who supervised the 
Beneficiary's dissertation, calls him "a very good scholar" and "a hard worker." I I I I one of the editors of his dissertation, asserts that during the Beneficiary's years of teaching he 
"helped develop curricula in the fields of both linguistics, American literature, and education." In 
addition! I the Beneficiary's neighbor, praises the Beneficiary's "very inquiring and open 
mind." The aforementioned authors did not provide specific, detailed information explaining the 
significance of the Beneficiary's research, publications, and presentations or how they resulted in 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner also provides additional reference letters from the Beneficiary's colleagues at the 
Department I I ate=} University. I I confirms that 
the Beneficiary headed the department between 2015 and 201 7 and praises his competence in his 
specialization of I I literature.'------------~ asserts that the Beneficiary "has 
published several research papers on the general areas of Culture Studies and Critical Theories and 
through which his contribution to the academic department is unmatchable." I I 
I I describes the Beneficiary as "an able administrator" of the I I Department, who 
developed a graduate research course and a new academic plan for the Bachelor I I degree 
program. I I praises the Beneficiary's "articulate passion for teaching, 
scholarly pursuit of independent research and exemplary administrative acumen," and provides that 
the Beneficiary was involved in "curriculum revision and evaluation reforms."I l I I states that the Beneficiary is "a passionate and committed scholar, administrator, and 
academic." Upon review, the letters from the Beneficiary's colleagues in thd O I Department at 
I I University praise his contributions to the department in the areas of curriculum development, 
academic rigor, and teaching excellence, but they did not show how the Beneficiary's knowledge and 
expertise have significantly influenced the overall field in a major way. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126. 134-135 
(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). 
10 Although we discuss a sample aiticle, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
While the letters applaud the Beneficiary's abilities, they do not identify original contributions that 
have been of major significance. Letters that specifically articulate how a beneficiary's contributions 
are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. 11 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. 12 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 the Beneficiary has made original scholarly contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The record shows that the Beneficiary has published scholarly articles in The Journal of Inter­
Religious Dialogue, The Indian Review of World Literature, and International Journal of Applied 
Linguistics & English Literature, among others. Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner has 
demonstrated that the Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that although the Petitioner has established that the Beneficiary satisfies the scholarly articles 
criterion, he does not meet any additional criteria on appeal regarding lesser awards, published 
material, judging, and original contributions of major significance. While the Petitioner references 
evidence regarding one additional criterion on appeal, relating to leading or critical role for 
distinguished organizations at C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we need not reach this additional ground. As 
the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue. 13 Accordingly, 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 Beneficiary's acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for the Beneficiary, 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 the Beneficiary's 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 )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
11 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
12 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, 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). 
13 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
7 
that the Beneficiary has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of 
the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Although the Beneficiary has conducted research and authored 
scholarly articles, the record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the 
upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's 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. 
8