dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-U-E-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 27, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a jurist , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in education. 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 Form I-140 , Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker , 
concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria, in which he 
must meet at least three, he did not show his sustained national or international acclaim and 
demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. In addition , 
the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish that he will continue to work in his area of 
extraordinary ability and that his entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, arguing that he has sustained the required acclaim and bas 
risen to the very top of his field, that he will continue to work in his area of expertise, and that he will 
substantially benefit the United States . 
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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
Matter of R-U-E-
(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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claimed his most employment as a professor at the Universidadl I inl l 
Venezuela. 1 Because he 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met three of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, awards under 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(i),judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), and scholarly 
articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner authored legal 
reference books. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the scholarly 
articles criterion. However, for the reasons discussed below, we do not concur with the Director's 
findings that the Petitioner satisfied the awards and judging criteria. 
1 See the Petitioner's Form 1-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, filed concurrently with 
his Form 1-140. 
2 
Matter of R-U-E-
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). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion based on the "Medalla Dia Nacional del 
Abogado." In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received the prizes 
or awards, and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. 2 Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was 
excellence in the field include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, 
the national or international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of 
awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 3 Because the record does not 
reflect that the Petitioner established eligibility under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), we 
will withdraw the findings of the Director for this criterion. 
In his initial cover letter, the Petitioner claimed to have received the following awards: "Medal of 
Soldier Communication," "Grand Order of the Federal District- First Class," "Medal of Honor-First 
Class," "Medal of Honor - Second Class," "Merit of the Watcher," "Military Medal- Oder of the Air 
Force," and "Military Medal -~-------~" Although he submitted several foreign 
language certificates as evidence of his awards, the Petitioner did not provide any English language 
translations. Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language 
translation. 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the English language translation 
is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language 
into English. Id. In addition, the Petitioner did not offer evidence establishing that the military awards 
are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the education field. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner made new claims of awards. 
Specifically, the Petitioner asserted that he received the "Medalla Dia Nacional del Abogado" 
(National Lawyer's Day Medal) and the "Orden de la Defensa Nacional" (Order ofNational Defense). 
However, the Petitioner did not provide evidence showing that he received these awards. Here, the 
Petitioner did not establish the claimed facts with unsupported testimonial evidence alone. 
Moreover, the Petitioner offered a screenshot from two websites reflecting that the "Medalla Dia 
Nacional del Abogado" is presented by the I I during the "National 
Day of the Lawyer" in Venezuela. Further, the Petitioner submiy~~ scree:shots from four websites 
regarding the issuance of the "Orden de la Defensa N acional" to I 
and Army General~------~ However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the awards 
are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in his field of endeavor, education. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he received nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. Accordingly, we 
withdraw the findings of the Director for this criterion. 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-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. 
3 Id. 
3 
Matter of R-U-E-
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner's membership with Ddid not qualify for this criterion. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(ii), the Petitioner must show that membership 
in the association is based on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having 
outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 4 
Initially, the Petitioner provided a copJ of his identity card confirming his membership with D. In 
addition, he offered screenshots from_ lcom reflecting the history 
anl backJround ofLJ However, the evidence did not demonstrate the membership requirements 
for As such, the Director requested the constitution or bylaws discussing the membership 
requirements. In response, the Petitioner did not address this issue or submit additional documentation 
for this criterion. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that membership withOrequires 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts, consistent with 
the regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an allied field of spectfication for which classtfication is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director found that the Petitioner fulfilled this criterion based on judging a thesis and dissertation. 
This regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to show that he has acted as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an allied field of specialization. 5 For the reasons outlined below, the record does not 
reflect that the Petitioner submitted sufficient documentary evidence demonstrating that he meets this 
criterion, and the Director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The Petitioner claimed that he judged theses and dissertations at the "Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela Public Ministry! t and submitted 
foreign language documents without any English language translations. See 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(3). 
In addition, the Petitioner asserted that he judged two doctoral theses at the 'I I and 
I !University" and offered a summary/excerpt translation for one foreign language document 
and no translation for the other. Because the Petitioner did not submit complete and accurate English 
language translations of the documents, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated 
material is accurate and supports his claims. 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
4 
Matter of R-U-E-
In addition, the Petitioner claimed that he has been a judge at the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
I I Division of Research and Post-Graduate 
Studies" and submitted a partial translation of a foreign language document informing him that he 
"will be part of the Examining Jury" in his role as a "methodological Work Advisor." Likewise, the 
Petitioner asserted that he "was pre-selected as a Candidate to be a judge of thel I 
I I by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela National Assembly of Judicial Nominations 
Committee" and offered a partial and summary translation of the foreign language documentation. 
Again, the Petitioner did not provide complete and accurate English language translations. 
Furthermore, a petitioner must show that he 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 Petitioner did not demonstrate that he, in fact, participated on the examining 
jury or served as a judge on the judicial disciplinary court rather than being selected to judge. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he participated as a judge of the 
work of others. Accordingly, we withdraw the decision of the Director for this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner claimed to meet this criterion based on a critical role as an advisor for thel .... ___ ___. 
.__ _________ ....,.... in Venezuela. 7 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate 
that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organizations or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 8 
The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted his credentials fromc=J reflecting his position as an 
advisor. In addition, he presented a memorandum informing him that he has "been desi nated to form 
part of the assembled team responsible for the Organizational Structure ofthe.__ _____ -----1 
I IProject." Further, the Petitioner provided an organizational chart showing that the 
falls below the "Supreme Court of Justice." 
Although the evidence indicates his role as an advisor, the Petitioner did not establish that his 
performance was critical to theD overall. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not show if he ever 
completed the organizational structure project, and how it ultimately contributed to the success or 
standing ofc=] Moreover, while the organizational chart reflects the overall hierarchy, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate how he significantly impacted the □ as his role as an advisor. Here, the 
Petitioner's evidence does not signify an essential role to 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
7 Ibe Petitioner iuitiaJJv claimed eligibility for this criterion based on leading and critical roles for the0 the ._I __ _. 
I I university," and the "Government ofl I" As evidence of his roles, he 
submitted foreign language documents without any English language translations. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03~3). Moreover, 
in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner argued his eligibility for only a critical role with thel__J 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
5 
Matter of R-U-E-
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that D enjoys a distinguished reputation. 9 The 
Petitioner provided a screenshot indicating that "[ i ]n August 1999, the National Constitutional 
Assembly (ANC) declared a judicial emergency to reform the highly discredited judiciary" and "[b ]y 
the end of the year, 200 judges had been fired, mostly for corruption." Moreover, the Petitioner 
submitted screenshots from websites regarding the mission, vision, and regulations o~ Further, 
while the Petitioner presented screenshots reporting on meetings and events bye=] the record does 
not reflect thatD garnered a distinguished reputation consistent with this regulatory criterion. Here, 
the evidence relates to the intended function and operation of Dwithout establishing its standing or 
prommence. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies this criterion. 
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 his 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 section203(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 he 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 10 The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, the 
petitioner bears the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
9 Id. at 10-11 (defining Merriam-Webster's Dictionmy definition of"distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, 
or excellence). 
10 As the Petitioner had not demonstrated his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act we need not 
consider whether he seeks to enter the United States to continue to work in his area of extraordinary ability under section 
203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act, and whether his entrance will substantially benefit prospectively the United States under 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
6 
Matter of R-U-E-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-U-E-, ID# 3936097 (AAO Aug. 27, 2019) 
7