dismissed EB-1A Case: English Literature

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 1, 2023 In Re: 25693008 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a professor of English, 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 his 
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 Director further concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that he 
satisfied the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) which requires, in pertinent part, "clear 
evidence that the [individual] is coming to the United States to continue to work in the area of 
expertise." 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 Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Under section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act, an individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability 
classification if: (i) they have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and their 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation; (ii) they seek to 
enter the United States to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability; and (iii) their 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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient documentation to establish his 
eligibility under any of the ten regulatory criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 1 Moreover, citing 
to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5), the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established "by clear 
evidence that [he] is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise.... " because 
the Petitioner's area of expertise was psychoanalysis, which conflicted with his stated intention to 
teach and perform research in the field of English language and literature. 
On appeal, the Petitioner provides a statement, explaining that his doctorate degree is in English and 
that he intends to teach English language and literature, and that his research will benefit the United 
States by using psychological theories found in literature to improve the mental health of Americans. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that contrary to the Director's conclusion that his field of expertise 
is psychology, his intention is to teach English language and literature. The Petitioner also explains 
that he is submitting new recommendations letters that make clear he will teach in the field of English 
language and Literature and that the authors of the letters previously submitted stating that he was 
going to teach "trauma studies" were not aware of his future plans in the United States, and only "his 
inclination [] towards psychology." Nonetheless, the Petitioner has provided contradictory 
information that has not been sufficiently resolved. For example, the cover letter accompanying his 
petition, and signed by him on May 13, 2022, states he will continue his research in the area of"trauma 
studies and psychoanalysis." Furthermore, other documents also claim that he has a doctorate in 
trauma studies, including the printout of a portion of the Petitioner's own book in the publication, 
Scholars' Press, which states 1 !qualified his doctorate on Trauma Studies in 2018 from
IUniversity, India .... His interests include psychoanalysis proposed by [Freud], 
[Lacan], [Jung], and [Adler]." A petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead us to reevaluate the reliability and 
sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested immigration benefit. Id. 
1 We acknowledge the Director's typographical error regarding the criterion for authorship of scholarly mticles in the field, 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media and note that the Petitioner addresses this criterion on 
appeal. 
2 
I 
Therefore, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not provided sufficiently clear evidence 
that he is coming to the United States to continue to work in his area of expertise as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
On appeal, the Petitioner again asserts that he meets the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 04.5(h)(3)(iii),(iv), and 
(vi). 2 
Evidence ofthe person's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work ofothers in the same or an allied.field ofspecification for which classification 
is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director determined that the evidence did not meet the plain language of the criterion because the 
reviews he conducted were in the field of psychology, and not in English Language or Literature. On 
appeal, the Petitioner disputes the Director's conclusion and submits documentation that he asserts 
establishes his role as an adviser and evaluator of doctoral students in his field. 
A petitioner may be able to meet this criterion by "serving as a member of a Ph.D. dissertation 
committee that makes the final judgment as to whether a candidate's body of work satisfies the 
requirements for a doctoral degree, as evidenced by departmental records." See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.2(B)(l)(criterion 4), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Moreover, a petitioner 
must show that the individuals he is judging are in the same or allied field. Id. The Petitioner's 
evidence does not establish this criterion for several reasons. First, the individuals he was judging 
appear to be students, and not yet professionals in the "same or allied field." Second, while we 
acknowledge that the Petitioner was invited to be a panelist at the "Department Doctoral Board" and 
on the "Research Advisory Committee" for Ph.D. pre-submission evaluation, his role was as an 
advisor to students seeking a Ph.D. rather than as a judge making a "final judgement" about the 
individual's satisfaction of the requirements for a doctoral degree. 
The provided evaluations show that his role was advisory in nature and not as a judge making a final 
determination regarding the candidate's eligibility for a Ph.D. For example, his evaluation comments 
for one student shows that he was advising her to "unearth uniqueness in the area of proposed topic." 
Another evaluation shows him advising the student to "narrow down the theoretical framework to four 
theories which he would apply on the criminal characters depicted in the anthology to comprehend the 
depth of crime." We acknowledge that he appears to be a faculty member and that in this role, he has 
been asked to advise students seeking a Ph.D., however the evidence is insufficient to show that he 
has participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field for the above stated reasons. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
As such, he has not met this criterion. 
Because the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility under at least one criterion and would 
therefore be unable to reach the requisite minimum of at least three criteria under step one of 
Kazarian 's analytical framework, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner's appellate 
2 As the Petitioner does not address the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (v) regarding membership and original 
contributions, we consider them waived. See, e.g., Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter 
ofR-A-M-, 25 l&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)) (an issue not raised on appeal is considered waived). 
3 
arguments regarding the two remaining claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 3 and (vi). 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of 
L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
While we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F .3d at 
1119-20, we note that the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification. We have long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 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 that 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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We do note, however that the article by.__ ______ _,incorrectly states that the Petitioner obtained a Ph.D. in 
Trauma Studies ('Oeamed his doctorate in Trauma Studies in 2018") and that he has contributed to the field of Trauma 
Studies through his publications. As above, this information conflicts with the Petitioner's own evidence that he obtained 
a Ph.D. in English in 2018, as well as the education evaluation he provided to show he has a Ph.D. in English. We also 
note that the article by I lwas inexplicably published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research. The 
Petitioner should address these inconsistencies in any future filings. 
4