dismissed EB-1A Case: Education And Music

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-E-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 25, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-I40, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an individual with degrees in education and linguistics and a music credential, seeks 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § I 153(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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded the Petitioner 
did not satisfy the initial evidentiary requirements to show extraordinary ability and, based on 
minimal evidence regarding her future employment plans, did not establish that she would continue 
to work in an area of expertise or substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. ln her appeal, the Petitioner resubmits items already in the 
record and provides a statement. She does not address the regulatory criteria designed to show 
extraordinary ability; rather, she affirms that she holds a graduate degree, "which has the potential to 
benefit [the] United States in the long run." 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(I) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 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, 
(b)(6)
Matter ojT-E-
(i) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(ii) 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 
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 the 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "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"). 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer of employment required Neither an offer for employment in the United 
States nor a labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition 
must be accompanied by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States 
to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from 
prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or 
a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue 
his or her work in the United States. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner did not complete part 6 of the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
which requests basic information 
about the proposed employment. The Petitioner offered her 
Bachelor of Education and her Master's Degree in Linguistics, information about the institutions 
where she obtained her degrees, a reference letter from the Department of Linguistics, 
and her marriage certificate. The Director's request for evidence (RFE) set forth the ten 
regulatory criteria, of which a petitioner must satisfy at least three, and invited the Petitioner to 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of T-E-
document her proposed employment. In response, the Petitioner reiterated that she has an advanced 
degree and is interested in pursuing a higher level of education. She revealed that her recent 
employment has been for restaurants. In addition, she discussed her experience with the musical 
instrument the electone, having completed "the highest level of student course, Grade 6, from [the] 
She expressed her "confidence that my strong background in [the] 
educational sector with the accumulated experience in multi-culture, linguistics, and communication 
will possibly benefit the United States in the local, regional, and national level." She supplemented 
the record with IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statements; a 1992 Certificate of Advancement from 
the and employment letters from m referencing 
her experience in 2000. 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability, an employment-based 
classification. The statute requires that she demonstrate both extraordinary ability and her intent to 
continue working in the area in which she has documented her expertise. For the reasons discussed 
below, the record supports the Director's findings that the Petitioner did not provide evidence that 
satisfies any of the regulatory criteria or confirms her intent to continue working in any specific area. 
A. Extraordinary Ability 
The Petitioner did not indicate, and the record does not establish, that she has received a major, 
internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). She must therefore establish 
her eligibility under at least three criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the 
petition, the Director analyzed the record under three of the regulatory criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner does not specifically identify which criteria she meets. We will therefore address the three 
criteria examined by the Director as well as one additional criterion based on a review of the 
Petitioner's submissions. Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met 
any of the regulatory criteria for the classification she seeks. 
1. Regulatory 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) 
While not addressed by the Director, the record contains the Petitioner's Certificate of Advancement 
from the While the Petitioner affirms that level 6 is the highest student 
level; she has not corroborated that statement. SeeMatter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). The rec.ord contains no evidence that this certificate is a nationally or internationally 
recognized prize or award for excellence rather than a credential for having demonstrated a level of 
competency. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. . 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not shown that her degrees, conferred after completing the requisite 
coursework, constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-E-
Significantly, academic degrees are one category of evidence relevant to foreign nationals of 
exceptional ability, a lesser classification than the one the Petitioner seeks. Section 203(b )(2) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). For these reasons, the Petitioner has not presented evidence that 
satisfies this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which class~fication 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 did acknowledge the Petitioner's certificate, considering it 
under the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that it constitutes membership in an association that requires 
outstanding achievements of its members. The Petitioner does not contest this conclusion on appeal. 
We find that the record does not contain any evidence regarding the requirements for achieving this 
certificate or suggesting that it reflects admission to an association as a member. Thus, the Petitioner 
has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has per:formed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
A leading role ·should be apparent by its position in the organizational hierarchy and the role's 
matching duties. A critical role is evident from its overall impact on the organization or 
establishment. The Director considered the two letters from and concluded they did 
not demonstrate that the Petitioner's duties for that company were either leading or critical. The 
Petitioner does not specifically address these findings on appeal. In a letter dated July 25, 2000, 
human resources manager for confirms that the Petitioner was 
employed there since February 8, 2000, as a team assistant. vice president and 
head of the EV SP Department, Power Transmission and Distribution Division at 
explains that as a team assistant, the Petitioner was willing to Jearn, displaying excellent 
interpersonal and communication skills. Neither letter describes how the team assistant position fit 
within the overall hierarchy of or how the Petitioner impacted the company in that role. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign~ficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The record contains IRS Forms W-2 from 2007 through 2014 reflecting annual income between 
$2,365 and $65,708. In addition, confirms that the Petitioner earned 20,000 Thai Baht 
at in 2000. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that these 
salaries were high in relation to others in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner does not respond to the 
Director's concerns. Rather, she states that she has been and will be "supported [in] a comfortable 
living" by her spouse. As the Petitioner has not supplied evidence of salaries in her field for 
comparison purposes, she has not satisfied this criterion. 
4 
Matter ofT-E-
2. Summary 
As explained above, the exhibits provided do not satisfy any of the regulatory criteria. As a result, 
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 listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
B. Continued Employment 
Regarding her future plans, the Petitioner did not complete part 6 of the Form I-140 or otherwise 
identify her proposed employment in the initial submission. In response to the Director's RFE, she 
noted her graduate degree, confirmed that she intends to seek additional education, and maintained 
her education will allow her to "contribute my skills and knowledge in the local, regional, and/or 
national sectors in the future." The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not provided a "clear 
indication of what her field" is or "detailed evidence that she is coming to the United States to work 
in the field of extraordinary ability." On appeal, the Petitioner affirms that she is supported by her 
husband, is not seeking part-time positions, and holds a graduate degree which has the potential to 
benefit the United States in the future. The Petitioner has not offered letters from prospective 
employers, or prearranged commitments such as contracts. In addition, her broad statements do not 
detail her plans on how she intends to continue her work in the United States. Accordingly, she has 
satisfied the requirements pertaining to her proposed employment at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
C. Substantial Prospective Benefit 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act specifically requires that the foreign national's entry into the 
United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. The implementing 
regulation does not set forth specific evidentiary requirements for this provision. Nevertheless, it is 
a part of the statute and USC IS is not precluded from analyzing the issue. In this case, the Petitioner 
has not identified her area of expertise, nor has she offered extensive documentation of her 
extraordinary ability or evidence of her intent to continue working in an area of expertise. 
Accordingly, the record supports the Director's determination that the Petitioner has not established 
that she will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated: (I) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 (discussing a two­
part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination). Although we need not provide the type of 
5 
Matter ofT-E-
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought. In addition, she has not corroborated her intent to work in an area of expertise or shown that 
she will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
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, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-E-, ID# 17228 (AAO May 25, 2016) 
6