dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

MATTER OF L-1-T-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non•Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 20, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR. ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an educational entrepreneur and innovator, 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. § I I 53(b)(l )(A). This first preterence 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 l-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial 
evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief arguing that she satisfies at 
least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo 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 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of L-1-T-
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. USC!S, 596 F.3d I 115 (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); RUal 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 (AAQ 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner describes herself as an "innovator in the field of school education." Because she has 
not indicated or establishe~ that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, the 
Petitioner 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 found that the Petitioner met only one of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, published material 1, but the evidence does not support that determination, as 
. discussed below. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she also meets the awards, membership, 
judging, and original contributions criteria.2 For the reasons discussed below, the record does not 
support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
: See S C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
-These four criteria correspond to the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). (ii), (iv), and (v), respectively. 
2 
.
Malter ofl-1-T-
Documentation <~f the alien ·s receipt <~l lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field ,?{ endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted a diploma from 
honoring her as "Personality of the Year 2011." In addition, she 
provided a catalog from listing numerous laureates of its "Personality of the Year" contest 
for 2011, 2012, and 2013. 3 On page 28, she is identified as a "Personality of the Year 
- 2011" laureate for her expertise "in evaluation of financial and human proposals for society." 4 The 
record includes another diploma from naming her "Professional of the Year - 2013 in 
creation [sic] socially-oriented enterprises and educational institutions ." The Director determined 
that the aforementioned awards were "regional in nature" and therefore did not meet this criterion . 
With the appeal, the Petitioner submits a document identifying as "founder of the contest," 
as event partner, and as media partner. This 
document also lists multiple "links on the internet" to the aforementioned organizations. In addition, 
she presents documents from relating to its "Personality of of the Year" 
contest. These documents are entitled "Regulations on Status of 'Personality of the year of 
contest," "Regulation on contest committee of ;Personality of the year of 
"' "Regulation on contest 'Personality of the year of '" and "Meeting of 
the Organizing Committee of Public Rating Contest ; Personality of the Year . "' The 
Petitioner contends that while is a regional organization, the aforementioned documents 
show that "the contest is All-Ukrainian. " For example, the document entitled "Regulations on Status 
of 'Personality of the year of ____ contest" refers to this event as an "all-Ukrainian 
contest." 
Regardless of the geographic scope of the area from which laureates are selected, in order to meet 
this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that her prizes or awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field. 5 Here, the aforementioned documents from and its 
partners do not show that its awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the 
field, nor does the record include other evidence demonstrating such recognition. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not established that she satisfies this criterion . 
Documentation <?f the alien ·s membership in associations in the field f<>r which 
class(fication is sought. which require outstanding achievements <d' their members. as 
'This catalogue includes biographies and promotional information for each of the 67 laureates. 
4 We note that the record contains a Certificate of Gratitude from indicating that the Petitioner was involved in 
selecting other laureates for this contest. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Ei:aluation <!f Evidence Suhmilled with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions ; Revisions to the Aqjudicator·s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2. AFM Update ADI /-/4 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
3 
.
Maller <?f l-1-T-
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields . 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner presented documentation indicating that she 1s a 
member of the 
and _ . While the Petitioner provided background information about 
these organizations , the record does not demonstrate that they. require outstanding achievements of 
their members. For example, with respect to admission requirements, she submitted a 
document, entitled "About the Order of Creation and Termination of Membership," 6 which states: 
Members of the Union can be: persons with positive personal and business 
(professional) reputation, who work in the field of education and psycho-pedagogical 
science, as well as scientists with a Ph.D. or doctorate degree; public associations, 
educational organizations, educational institutions (higher, general, pre-school, out­
of-school and vocational) irrespective of the forms of ownership and types of 
management. A new member to the Union is admitted by his/her written application 
by electing (accepting) him/her on the Congress of the Union upon filing one of the 
valid members of the Union who knows the professional and personal qualities of this 
candidate well. 
The aforementioned admission requirements do not rise to the level of outstanding 
achievements. Nor has the Petitioner demonstrated that any of the remaining organizations listed 
above require outstanding achievements. Furthermore, the record does not show that their members' 
achievements are judged by recognized national or international experts. The Petitioner therefore 
has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in pn?fessional or mqjor trade publications or other 
major media. relating to the alien ·s work in the field.for ,,,vhich cf asstfication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author <?lthe material, and any necessc11y 
lranslation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director found that that the Petitioner had demonstrated her eligibility under this criterion. For 
the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence showing that she meets the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, the Director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
6 The Petitioner's evidence also includes minutes from a meeting in which she was recommended for membership. 
but this document does not list the organization's membership requirements. 
4 
.
.
Matter of L-1-T-
The Petitioner offered articles about herself in Ridna Dnipropetrovshchyna , Visti Prydnyprovia , and 
Dneper Vecherniy, but their author was not identified as required by this criterion. 7 In addition, with 
regard to the information she presented about these publications , although she included internet 
addresses for their webpages, she did not submit actual copies of the online source material. For 
example, the information she compiled states that Visti Prydnyprovia is "a regional socio-political 
newspaper " with a circulation of 56,700 copies and that Dneper Vecherniy is "a socio-political 
newspaper " distributed in the "Dnipropetrovsk region" with an "average number of views per day" 
of 70,000 . The record, however, does not include copies of these newspapers ' webpages that 
provided this information. Regardless, the Petitioner has not established that the circulation or 
number of online views for the aforementioned newspapers elevate them to major media relative to 
other publications. Based on the foregoing , she has not demonstrated that she meets this regulatory 
criterion . 
Evidence <~f the alien ·s participation. either individually or on a pa~el , as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specffication for which 
class(fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) . 
The record includes a Certificate of Gratitude from thanking the Petitioner "for conducting 
expert evaluation of applicants of nationwide contest _ _ Personality of the Year 2013 ' in 
the categories of financial humanitarian profile. " In addition, the Petitioner provides a copy of her 
letter to the head of the contest's organizing committee listing her selection of winners for the 
categories of "Science and education luminary," "Successful scientific and educational activity ," and 
"Effective English language teaching ."8 The Director determined that this documentation did "not 
establish that the [Petitioner] has judged the work of other entrepreneurs working in the field of 
education ." The language of this criterion, however , provides for judging the work of others in "an 
allied field of specification for which classification is sought." We find that the aforementioned 
evidence is sufficient to corroborate her involvement in judging educational and teaching categories 
that are allied with her field of specification . Accordingly , we conclude that the Petitioner meets this 
criterion and withdraw the Director's finding on this issue. 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scient[fic, scholarly . arttsllc , athletic . or business­
related contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided various recommendation letters, honor 
certificates and diplomas, and information about the school and company she founded. The Director 
considered this documentation, but found that it was not sufficient to demonstrate that the 
7 We note that the record also includes an article about the Petitioner in the "Personality of the Year" contest 
catalog, but the author of this article was not identified. Furthermore , the Petitioner has not demon strated that 
contest catalog is a professional or major trade publication or other form of major media. 
8 We note that the Petitioner ' s selections correspond to the laureates appearing in the " Personality of the Year" 
contest catalog . 
5 
.
Matter of L-l-T-
Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major significance m the field. For the 
reasons discussed below , we agree with that determination. 
ln order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) , a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made original contributions but that they 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 in the field. 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that the introduction of her "educational system into the school 
education of Ukraine has been gradual ," but "it is consistently being introduced into the educational 
institutions of Ukraine, and is researched by scientists of the 
While the Petitioner has developed educational programs at the 
she founded , she does not identify the other 
Ukrainian educational institutions where her education system has been implemented and improved 
student perfonnance at a level commensurate with a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Regard ing the Petitioner ' s assertion that her educational system has been the subject of 
scientific research, the record includes cooperative agreements between and to 
collaborate on training , consult on social-pedagogical problems , conduct education research , develop 
educational approaches , and review curricula. These agreements show that the Petitioner's school 
partnered with to improve learning environment and its students ' academic 
performance , but the record does not demonstrate that her contributions to these effo11s were 
· considered "of major significance in the field" rather than mainly affecting her school. 
The Petitioner also contends that her "contribution to education and upbringing system has been 
recognized by experts in the field, namely by scientists of ." For example, 
director of the at states : "In the process of studying the 
educational process in school, we cooperated with the founder and president of the school 
- [the Petitioner]. . . As it was shown by the Commission research, [the Petitioner] created 
excellent conditions for the education and training of students ." ln addition, 
fonner vice president of indicates that "[a]s a result of the commission 's 
work , was recommended as an experimental platform of on innovation in the field 
of education of students ." further asserts that the Petitioner "managed to create 
wonderful ·conditions for education and upbringing children. " Although these letters from 
leadership praise the Petitioner for her skills as an educational manager at . they do not explain 
what specific original pedagogic contributions the Petitioner has made, or how they are "of major 
significance in the field." 
9 The record includes information from the president of indicating that the educational system was 
introduced long before the Petitioner's founding of 'Taking into consideration universal importance of creative 
activity of the , their participation of cultural achievements of 20 century, diligent search for new ways of 
humanity development, . . . fli]nds it reasonable to support the idea of applying the ideas of by 
which is the core of private school." 
6 
.
Matier of L-1-T-
As further evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner points to her "diplomas and certificates of 
honor issued by recognized experts in the field of education and upbringing." For instance, the 
Petitioner received a certificate of honor from iri her capacity as president of "for the 
effective implementation of the • ideas of living ethi[cs] in school education." The record 
also includes a 2001 diploma from the 
This diploma was presented by the vice 
president of to "for active implementation of new educational methodology into 
educational process ." The appellate submission contains additional certificates of honor from 
'recognizing the Petitioner for establishing and developing an educational program based on 
the cultural ideas of the The aforementioned diplomas and certificates, however, are not 
sufficient to show that the Petitioner's work has atlected the field of education in a substantial way or 
that her work otherwise constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field. For the 
above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that she satisfies this criterion . 
Ill. 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 detennination 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed . 
Cite as Matter ofl-1-T-, ID# 1767277 (AAO Nov . 20, 2018) 
7