dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25675707 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 6, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a professor, seeks classification 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing her 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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 the coordinator of the English language pathways at I I Community 
Collegel I awarded the Petitioner with its excellence in teaching award in 2022, and she 
was nominated for thel !Community College System's excellence in teaching award. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she 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 Petitioner claims to have satisfied three of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others in the same of allied field 
• (vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments 
The Director concluded the Petitioner met the criterion of judging the work of others in the same or 
allied field. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her evidence satisfies the applicable legal 
requirements to satisfy the other claimed criteria. 
We will not disturb the Director's determinations regarding the criterion met by the Petitioner. And 
on appeal, we conclude that record also demonstrates the Petitioner's authorship of numerous 
scholarly articles in the education field. The Petitioner has therefore satisfied two criteria and must 
satisfy one more to prevail. As discussed below, we conclude she has not. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
To meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have 
performed in either a leading or critical role, and that the role has been for an organization or 
establishment ( or a division or department of an organization or establishment) having a distinguished 
reputation. A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy 
and through the role's matching duties. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish 
if a role is or was, in fact, leading. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2)(Appendices), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. If a critical role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner 
has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or 
establishment's activities. It is not the title of the petitioner's role, but rather the petitioner's 
2 
performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. In addition, this criterion 
requires that the organization or establishment be recognized as having a distinguished reputation. 
USCIS policy reflects that organizations or establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation are 
"marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.2. 
( citing to the definition of distinguished, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam­
webster.com/dictionary/distinguished). The Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these 
elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Letters from employers, attesting to an employee's role in the organization, must contain detailed and 
probative information that specifically addresses how the person's role for the organization or 
establishment was leading or critical. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. The 
Petitioner's do not. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from I Director of English for Academic Purposes and 
Continuing Education of Non-Native English Speakers atl lwho stated the Petitioner led a leading 
and critical role. I !confirmed the Petitioner commenced employment atl lin 2018 and 
within two years her "leadership abilities stood out" and she was promoted to the position of Coordinator 
of English Language Pathways. In this position, the Petitioner is "in charge of all of the English 
continuing education classes as it relates to curriculum development, judging teacher's learning 
management sites, their completion of tasks, and their classroom management." I I explained 
that the Petitioner is at a "top position within the department." She also stated the Petitioner is the only 
person in the college that has a doctorate in teaching English to speakers of other languages and her 
"expertise in this field is of eminent value." I _further indicated that due to the Petitioner's 
"innovations within the curriculum, choice of courses, and individual outreach to students," enrollment 
into her program increased by 30 percent from the prior year. I I explained that higher 
enrollment in the program is directly connected to program funding. Further, she noted the Petitioner's 
judgement and training led to a higher caliber of teachers for that department. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends she plays a leading and critical role at las noted in the letter from 
and by her achievement of earning the award of excellence in teaching from I Although 
confirms the importance of the Petitioner's contributions as the coordinator of English 
language papathways at she does not establish that she performed a leading or critical role for 
as a whole, such as by showing she influenced its overall reputation or status, or was 
responsible for the success of the organization. Though I I stated that due to the Petitioner's 
efforts, enrollment in her program increased by 30 percent from the prior year, it is not clear from the 
record that the Petitioner's actions and contributions in fact led to the increase. Increase in enrollment 
could be caused by several different factors, and without more information it is impossible to correlate 
the increase to the Petitioner's actions and not some other factor such as changes in the pandemic and 
students returning to campuses, or any other possible factors. While the Petitioner worked on projects 
to enhance I I program, and thereby supported its mission, she did not provide sufficient 
documentary evidence to show that her duties and responsibilities as a coordinator of the English 
language pathways were critical to the greater organization. The Petitioner did not sufficiently explain 
or demonstrate that her role as a coordinator for one program out of several departments in a college 
constitutes a critical or leading role for the overall organization. 
3 
___ does not describe with sufficient detail how the Petitioner played a critical role or leading 
role in the successes enjoyed of1 I Although I I stated that the Petitioner's innovations 
within the curriculum and choice of courses contributed to higher enrollment and fonding for the 
program, she did not provide specific examples. Further, while she stated the Petitioner used her 
expertise to obtain a higher caliber of teachers, these accolades do not demonstrate that her position 
amounts to a leading or critical role. Every employee fulfills some kind of role that benefits their 
employer in some way. Here, the Petitioner has not established that her work for the college was 
critical to the organization itself, rather than to the outcome of specific, limited tasks or projects. 
On appeal, the Petitioner further contends thatl I is a distinguished institution of prominence and 
eminency in the State of North Carolina. As the Petitioner has not established that she performed in a 
critical or leading role for I !however, further analysis of the college's reputation serves no 
meaningful purpose. 
In summary, the evidence provided does not sufficiently demonstrate the petitioner performed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The 
letter considered above primarily contain bare assertions of acclaim and vague claims of contributions 
without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how those 
contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. Merely repeating the 
language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof See F edin Bros. 
Co., Ltd. V. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. At 17. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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). 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements the Petitioner must satisfy through the 
submission of evidence. The first is that the Petitioner is an author of scholarly articles in her field in 
which she intends to engage once admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. We 
consider these articles within two distinct areas. The first area is within the academic arena in which 
a scholarly article reports on original research, experimentation, or philosophical discourse. It is 
written by a researcher or expert in the field who is often affiliated with a college, university, or 
research institution. In general, it should have footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography, and may include 
graphs, charts, videos, or pictures as illustrations of the concepts expressed in the article. The second 
area lies outside of the academic arena in which a scholarly article should be written for learned 
persons in that field. "Learned" is defined as "having or demonstrating profound knowledge or 
scholarship." Learned persons include all persons having profound knowledge of a field. See 
generally See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) appendix. 
The second element this criterion requires is that the scholarly articles appear in one of the following: 
(1) a professional publication, (2) a major trade publication, or (3) in a form of major media. 
Regarding the medium in which the articles appear, the Petitioner should establish that the 
publication's circulation statistics are high relative to similar publications and should also establish 
4 
the publication's intended audience. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 
(Appendices). The Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying each of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The Petitioner contends she qualifies for this criterion based on two scholarly articles she wrote that 
were published in books. The books were published by 
press, imprint of the higher colleges of technology. The Director found that she had not established 
that her articles were published in a professional or major trade publication or other major media. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states her previously-submitted evidence demonstrates her eligibility for this 
criterion. The record includes a copy of the Beneficiary's articles, which indicate that they are 
scholarly in nature. We therefore find that the Beneficiary published her articles in a professional 
publication and withdraw the Director's finding to the contrary. However, because the Petitioner only 
met two of the required three evidentiary criteria, she does not overcome the denial decision. 
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 lesser criteria. We also need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20, or render a determination on the 
issue of whether the Petitioner's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 1 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate and concluded that it does not support a 
conclusion 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 those progressing toward the top. Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
at 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) ( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the extraordinary ability 
designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal//), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that EB-1 visas are 
"reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of 
Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. l 9-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing 
Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing 
in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly 
accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914,918 (N.D. 
Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not 
qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 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 she is 
1 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); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
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). The record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that she is among the upper echelon in her field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her 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. 
6