dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-G-C-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 18,2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a Spanish language specialist and teacher, 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 the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a statement indicating that the Director did not consider her 
evidence regarding one ofthe criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 111 the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of C-G-C-
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). 
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. USCJS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(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.O. 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." Maller of'Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a Spanish language specialist and teacher, is employed at a school in the 
Because she has not indicated or established 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 did not meet any of the regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director did not properly consider her evidence under 
original contributions at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(v). She does not, however, contest the Director's 
findings, offer further arguments, or present additional evidence for any other criteria. Upon review 
of the record, we find the evidence insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets at least three 
criteria. 
Documentation qf'the alien's receipt qlfesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfi.Jr excellence in the field of'endeavor. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(i). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not indicate or provide any evidence of prizes or 
awards even though she claimed eligibility for this criterion. We concur with the Director's 
conclusion. The record does not contain any nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
2 
.
Matter of C-G-C-
awards for excellence in her field to satisfy this criterion. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that she meets 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 ofthe material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record contains an article from 
an article from the 
three articles from the 
and an article from an unidentified website. The 
articles are about Delaware visiting 
and its Spanish immersion program. Although the Petitioner is cited in some of the 
articles as being one of the teachers whose classroom the governor visited, the articles do not pertain 
to the Petitioner. Further, most of the articles never mention the Petitioner. The plain language of 
the regulation requires published material about a petitioner and not solely about projects with which 
they associate. See, e.g, Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-R.I.I at *L *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8. 
2008) (upholding a finding that articles relating to a show are not about the actor). In addition, the 
Petitioner did not include the date for article and did not offer the authors for the 
articles, as required by this regulatory criterion. Moreover. the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that any of the publications are professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient~fic. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions olmajor sign(ficance in the field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Although the Petitioner contends that the Director ''inappropriately ignored the evidence that would 
prove [her] contributions were majorly significant and had a significant impact,'' she did not identify 
which evidence the Director considered and how her contributions are original and of major 
significance. Regardless, in response to the Director's request for evidence. the Petitioner provided 
a statement claiming that her work as a Spanish immersion teacher ·'has been used as part of a state 
funded public relations effort, to bring increased exposure to the success endeavor on a national 
level.'' In addition, the Petitioner asserts that "there is now a large demand for the enrollment of 
additional students to this program, as it has expanded to other areas within rural areas of the state, 
creating new opportunities for employment in the public education system." While the previously 
discussed articles discuss the Spanish immersion program, they do not support the Petitioner's 
claims that she was responsible for student demand, expansion of the program to other parts of the 
state, and increased employment. Moreover, the Petitioner has not established how her work at 
has impacted the field in a significant manner. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(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). 
The Petitioner also indicates that she is "a highly qualified specialist teacher" and provided evidence 
of her training. She did not, however, explain how her qualifications and training are considered 
3 
.
Matter qf C-G-C-
original contributions of major significance in the field. Having a diverse or unique skill set is not 
in-and-of-itself a contribution of major significance, unless a petitioner shows that she has used 
those skills to impact or influence the field: in this case, the Petitioner has not made such a showing. 
Without supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not met her burden of showing that she has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the di.\play (~f the alien's vvork in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Director found that a photograph of the Petitioner teaching children in a classroom did not meet 
this criterion. In order to demonstrate eligibility for this criterion, the Petitioner must show that her 
work was on display, and the venues were artistic exhibitions or showcases. 1 Here, the Petitioner 
has not established that her classroom constituted an artistic venue that displayed her work. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner does not satisfy 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). 
In the Director's decision, he determined that the Petitioner did not establish that she performed in a 
leading or critical role for In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itselL and a 
critical role is one in which a petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the 
organization or establishment. Although her previously discussed articles confirm her employment 
at the school, they do not demonstrate that her role was either leading or critical. The Petitioner did 
not show how her role as a Spanish immersion specialist or teacher in a kindergarten classroom was 
leading to the other teachers and administrators at or that she was responsible for the 
success or notoriety at 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the organizations or establishments 
to have a distinguished reputation. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate standing in the 
field or show that it enjoys a distinguished reputation. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services. in relation to others in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner provided her income tax documentation for 2012-2015. In order to meet this 
criterion, the Petitioner has to establish that she has commanded a high salary or other significantly 
high remuneration for services in relation to others in her field. Here, the Petitioner has not 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation ol Evidence Suhmitted with Certain Form 1-1-10 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2. AFlvf Update AD/1-1-1 9 (December 22, 
201 0), http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
4 
Matter (~f C-G-C-
compared her salary to other teachers or foreign language immersion specialists to show that she 
earned a high salary. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she meets 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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualities for classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o.fC-G-C-, 10# 453388 (AAO Aug. 18, 20 17)