dismissed EB-1A Case: Fire Prevention

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 17, 2023 In Re: 23091359 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a fire prevention specialist, 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 )(1 )(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 although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in the 
small percentage at the very top of the field . 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit 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 their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence 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. 
Once a pet1t10ner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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 
Documents in the file indicate that the Petitioner worked for thel IFire Brigade
I I from 1997 to 2014, in such capacities as senior engineer and deputy director of the I I 
Fire Prevention Department and as chief of thel IFire Battalion. The Petitioner joined the 
I IFire Protection Association I I in 2015, and was elected as one of its vice presidents in 
2018. Since 2015, the Petitioner has spent much ofhis time in the United States, first as the J-2 spouse 
of a J-1 nonimmigrant exchange visitor, then as the F-2 spouse of an F-1 nonimmigrant student. The 
Petitioner seeks to develop a business involving portable aerosol fire extinguishers. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner claimed to have satisfied four of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had satisfied the requirements of three criteria, relating to 
memberships, scholarly articles, and leading or critical roles. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that, although the Petitioner had satisfied three of the initial 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), a final merits determination did not show that the Petitioner had 
earned sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal, the Petitioner contends: "Fulfillment 
of the three categories is generally sufficient to meet the burden of proving Extraordinary Ability." 
Meeting the initial criteria, however, does not establish a presumption of eligibility. The purpose of 
the final merits determination is to evaluate the quality of the evidence submitted to meet the criteria 
and to determine whether the record, as a whole, supports approval of the petition. See generally 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Below, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
his sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments 
and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate that 
they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 
2 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 In this matter, we determine that 
the Petitioner has not established eligibility. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner "is revered as an outstanding talent in 
the field of fire prevention; however, he has not established that [his] success from 2010 and 2014 
contribute[s] to a finding of the required sustained national or international acclaim." The Director stated: 
According to the petition and supporting documents, the beneficiary entered the field of 
Fire Prevention 13 years ago. . . . The beneficiaiy decided to retire from the fire 
department in July 2014; however planning to join the industry organizatio~ Ian 
international technological and educational organization, at an appropriate time, so as to 
deepen exchanges with peers in the U.S. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision is "lacking in analysis" and "has not 
accurately stated the facts." The Petitioner alleges two specific factual errors. First, the Petitioner disputes 
the assertion that the Petitioner "entered the field of Fire Prevention 13 years ago," stating that he "had 
served at a high level for 20 years in the field." The Director's reference to "13 years" appears to have 
been a biographical detail rather than a specific ground for denying the petition. 
Regarding the other disputed claim, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "stated 'The Beneficiaiy 
decided to retire from the fire department in July 2014' thus sounding as if he were fully retired and not 
active in his career. Again, this information is not accurate as Petitioner maintains an active role in the 
Profession at the top tier." But the Director did not state that the Petitioner had completely retired from 
the field of fire safety and prevention. Rather, the Director stated that the Petitioner "retire[ d] from the 
fire department in July 2014," referring to the Petitioner's departure from thel IThe Petitioner's 
own exhibits document this fact. Exhibit 69 of the Petitioner's initial submission, certifying the 
Petitioner's election to the vice presidency of thel lspecifically states that the Beneficiaiy "retired 
from the Service of Fire Prevention in July 2014." The Petitioner resubmits this document on appeal. 
The Director's accurate reference to information in the record does not indicate that the Director erred in 
denying the petition. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner has held high-rankin ositions ml !china, mostly in the 
I I Nevertheless, the record also establishes that th is a municipal entity. Likewise, the 
name of theI I indicates a connection with the city o ~--~rather than an organization with 
national or international reach. The Petitioner's evidence predominantly focuses on his stature i~.______. 
and the surrounding~-------=====-=-:Region. 
For example, the Petitioner belonged to a I I Safety Production Ex~ert Panel." A published article 
about the panel's formation confirmed that a local authority, "the[ ISecurity 
Committee," convened the panel. Nearly every member of that panel was employed by an entity with 
the word I ~ its name, consistent with a local, municipal venture. Similarly, the 
1 See generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F .2(B)(2) (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 
Petitioner sat on review panels for projects that took place in._l_____.I and fellow panelists were from 
entities in I I 
The I !bylaws state that an individual must show "major influence in th~ to qualify for 
election as a vice president of the association. A letter from the president of thel__Jstates: "The 
Executive Council of the Association nom
1
ated [thl Petitioner] ... for the position of Vice President 
based on" such factors as his service on the Safety Production Committee," his involvement in 
"the promulgation ofl jRegulations on Fire Control," and his se1vice on review panels 
which, the record shows, have been convened at the municipal level~ IThe Petitioner's election 
to a leadership position in a municipal association is consistent with local recognition. 
The Petitioner wrote six scholarly articles documented in the record. The Director acknowledged that 
these articles satisfy the wording of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), but the publication of those 
articles does not inherently reflect or result in sustained national or international acclaim. Information 
about the circulation of the journals in which the articles appeared, or the reputations of the publishers, 
does not establish the impact of individual articles or the acclaim of the authors of those articles. Most of 
the Petitioner's articles appeared in journals with j Iin the title, and the Petitioner has not 
established that the articles attracted wider attention or significantly influenced the field at a national or 
international level. A "goodly number" of citations of a published article are one possible gauge of the 
article's impact. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. Here, the Petitioner's 
most-cited article received six citations since its publication in December 2006, more than 13 years before 
the Petitioner filed the petition in April 2020. The Petitioner did not show that this citation rate 
demonstrates a level of recognition and influence consistent with national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner has not shown that he has earned acclaim among fire prevention specialists outside of
I I or that his work in1 Ihas been adopted on a national or international scale. The Petitioner 
submitted examples of "National Standards," but he did not show that he played a role in their 
development. Rather, the Petitioner apparently submitted the "National Standards" to show that some of 
the individuals who developed those standards also served on panels with him. The Petitioner's 
collaboration with such individuals, however, is not evidence of his own wider recognition. The 
Petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim, not that he has worked 
with those who have done so. 
The Petitioner referred to "fire-resistant glasses, which are manufactured according to the standards ... 
formulated by [the Petitioner] and others, have a leading position in the industry." But we can find no 
documentary evidence in the record to establish the Petitioner's role in these standards or the products' 
"leading position in the industry." The ambiguous wording does not specify whether the Petitioner played 
a role in developing the fire-resistant glass itself. 
The Petitioner is named as an inventor on "4 national patents [ in China] for fire protection products." The 
Petitioner submitted a document identifying four patent applications; from the submitted translations, it 
is not clear whether the applications were approved and the patents awarded. The awarding of patents 
does not "demonstrate[] that the [Petitioner] has been at the top of his field." The Petitioner did not 
establish that China awards patents based on the significance of a given invention or innovation, rather 
than its originality. Also, he did not establish that the patented inventions have actually gone into 
commercial production, or that they have had a significant impact on fire prevention in China. 
4 
The Director took evidence of the I I overall reputation into consideration, granting that the 
Petitioner had performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). But absent additional evidence, the overall 
reputation of such an organization does not necessarily establish national or international acclaim for 
individual high-ranking officials within that organization. We note that some of the evidence submitted 
to establish thel !reputation relates to events that occurred after the Petitioner left thd lin 
2014, such as patiicipation in an international drill in 2018. 
The Petitioner asserts that, out of about 170,000 "fire prevention troops" in China, only about 800 hold 
national certification as senior engineers. One of the Petitioner's past collaborators asserted that the 
Beneficia1y ranked in the top 100 nationally in the qualifying test for that title. 2 The Petitioner states that, 
as one of that top 100 out of 170,000, he ranks among the small percentage at the very top of his field. 
The Petitioner has not shown that there is a valid comparison between the cited figures. For instance, the 
Petitioner has not shown that all 170,000 troops took the certification examination, or that "senior 
engineer" is the highest attainable rank for "fire prevention troops." Evidence showing that only a small 
fraction of "fire prevention troops" are "senior engineers" does not suffice to establish that the title of 
"senior engineer" reflects, or results in, sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner has not shown that his local reputation in._________ _,has expanded into acclaim 
at the national or international level as the statute requires. See section 203 (b)(1 )(A )(i) of the Act. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding 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 for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has established significant recognition inl land 
its capital city ofl Ibut he has not shown that the recognition of his work has reached the level 
of sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates 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 )( 1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner 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). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The Petitioner also asserted that he was the top scorer inl.____.l but this is a local distinction rather than a national or 
international one as the statute and regulations require. 
5