dismissed EB-1A Case: Human And Environmental Rights Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6506742 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a human and environmental rights educator, seeks classification as an alien 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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) 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 that 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) (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. 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). 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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates employment as a professor at in Brazil .__ _____________ _. 
since 2004. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has 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 Director found that the Petitioner met only two of the evidentiary 
criteria relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), discussed farther below. On appeal, the Petitioner demonstrates that she authored 
scholarly articles in professional publications, thereby fulfilling 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Because the Petitioner has shown that she satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the 
evidence in the context of the final merits determination below. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim, 2 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b )( I )(A) of the Act). 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 14 (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and 
2 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
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 her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability in the field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20.3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner graduated in pedagogy from~ ___________ ______. 
I ~n 2000 and received a master's degree in education of health and environment 
sciences froml luniversitario in 2005 and a doctorate in education from Universid~dl I 
in 2015. Moreover, as indicated above, the Petitioner has been employed as a professor at I I 
since 2004. In addition, she performed in various municipality positions within thel I I I such as secretary of social services, undersecretary of social services, and coordinator 
of projects and programs from 2005 - 2010. Further, she served as the coordinator ofl I I I from 2004 - 2005. As mentioned above, the Petitioner judged others, 
authored scholarly articles, and performed in leading or critical roles. The record, however, does not 
demonstrate that her personal and professional achievements reflect a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Relating to the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of her experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22.4 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner participated as part of an examination board at I I judging 
approximately eight final term papers of students from 2015 - 2016. Moreover, she assisted the 
examination board in evaluating teachers for an engineering course in 2015. Here, the Petitioner's 
judging experience mainly involves evaluating the work of students and aspiring professionals. Cf, 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Commr. 1994) (USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard). 
Further, she did not establish that these instances place her among the small percentage at the very top 
of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing 
section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set 
for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present 
more extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 
30704 (July 5, 1991). She did not show, for example, how her experience in judging students and 
selecting a teacher for a course compare to others at the very top of the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her two instances of judging within a two-year 
period contribute to a finding that she has a career of acclaimed work in the field or indicative of the 
providing Black's Law Dictiona,y 's definition of"sustain" as to supp01t or maintain, especially over a long period of time, 
and to persist in making an eff01t over a long period of time). 
3 Id. at 4 (instructing that USCTS 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 ofexpe1tise 
of the immigrant classification). 
4 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
3 
required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b )(1 )(A) 
of the Act. The Petitioner did not establish, for instance, that she garnered wide attention from the 
field based on her work judging students' term papers and selecting a teacher beyond I I 
Moreover, serving on an examination board does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has 
extraordinary ability and sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of her field. 
Without evidence that sets her apart from others in her field, such as evidence that she has a consistent 
history of reviewing or judging recognized, acclaimed experts in her field, the Petitioner has not shown 
that her judging experience places her among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Likewise, authorship and publication do not automatically place one at the top of the field. 5 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner authored 15 articles that were published in Revista Dominus from 2015 -
2016. In addition, she authored two books in 2016, as well as one in 2004. However, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that her publication record of 15 papers and two books in the two years preceding 
the filing of her petition is consistent with having a career of acclaimed work and sustaining national 
or international acclaim. She did not submit evidence showing the significance of her authorships or 
how her overall publications compare to others who are viewed to be at the very top of the field. See 
H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that 
her authorships reflect being among the small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of her written work can be an indicator 
to determine the impact and recognition that her publications have had on the field and whether such 
influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by 
the Petitioner may provide solid evidence that her work has been recognized and that other human and 
environmental rights educators have been influenced by her work. Such an analysis at the final merits 
determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the Petitioner 
provided two articles that cited to her written work. While the citation of her work shows that at least 
a few others in her field have noticed it, the Petitioner has not established that such citations are 
sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in the field commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. In addition, the Petitioner has not shown 
that the limited citations to her work represent attention at a level consistent with being among that 
small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
As it relates to her roles, as mentioned above, the Petitioner is employed as a professor at I I ~nd 
previously held munici alit ositions with the~ and served as the coordinator ofc=] as well as 
an instructor a eda o coordinator for a course at I I and post -
graduate coordinator at the.__ ______________ __,. Although she documented her 
professional career, she did not demonstrate that she garnered national or international acclaim in the 
field beyond her employers. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. For 
example, I I adjunct municipal seyetary If higher education for~ 
stated that the Petitioner "carried out her monumental work for , significantly developing our 
5 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (providing that publications should be evaluated to 
determine whether they were indicative of being one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
local economy, expanding academic resources, and providing countless employment opportunities to 
I !citizens." HereJ !commented on the Petitioner's limited, local impact tol I 
but did not discuss how she has been recognized on a national or international scale. 
Likewise __________ _, academic head at .__ __ --t-in_d_i_c_a_te_,d that the Petitioner "created 
numerous new courses and programs that continue to distinguish ..,__ __ -!I among other universities," 
"led her students to produce the most comprehensive, scientifically sound, and progressive research 
in our post-graduate program," and "established teaching guidelines and standardization methods that 
boosted student enrollment and class attendance rates." While I Ide scribed the Petitioner's 
various accomplishments tol l he did not explain whether these achievements garnered a level 
of attention consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her professional career spanning over 15 years, including 
her work at~ D I I orl I represents a career of acclaimed work and sustained 
national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Although the Petitioner's reference letters indicated her professional accomplishments, they did not 
show how her roles resulted in widespread acclaim from her field, that she drew significant attention 
from the greater field, or that overall field considers her to be at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner satisfied, we consider additional documentation in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility. Here, for 
the reasons discussed below, we find that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner has 
sustained national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage of the top of her field. 
The Petitioner presented evidence reflecting that she received a "Motion of Applause" fromj I for 
"dedicat[ing] herself attentively to her work as a servant, as well as working hard to solve problems 
and seek saloons [sic]." However, the Petitioner did not show that the award reflects the field's 
national or international recognition for excellence. While I I acknowledged the Petitioner's 
accomplishments at the local level, she did not demonstrate that she garnered national or international 
acclaim based on her receipt of the municipal award. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Further, 
the Petitioner did not establish that such receipt of a regional award represents an individual who is 
among the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Moreover, as indicated above, the Petitioner is a member of the examination board of .... I __ __. 
Although the Petitioner participated in choosing a professor for a course, she did not demonstrate that 
her participation with this board was somehow remarkable or garnered sustained national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. For instance, she did not submit evidence 
of widespread media coverage of her membership resulting in significant attention. See 56 Fed. Reg. 
at 30704. In addition, she did not establish that her membership with this single association reflects 
that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Regarding media coverage, the Petitioner offered four articles from clickl~-~~om and 
odebateon.com; however, none of the articles reflect published material about her. Instead, the articles 
5 
cite the Petitioner as a representative of D in which she provides a quote in response to a 
municipality issue. Similarly, the Petitioner submitted approximately 40 articles from I l.rj.gov, 
akr to pless releases, where the articles quote the Petitioner regarding an announcement or program 
by Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she received press coverage consistent with 
the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See 
section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Further, the Petitioner did not show that website articles that mention 
her name, but are not about her, represent a level of success consistent with being among that small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). In 
addition, the Petitioner did not establish that the regional media coverage from three websites reflects 
a career of acclaimed work in the field or a very high standard of presenting more extensive 
documentation than that required for lesser classifications. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and 56 Fed. Reg. 
at 30704. 
Further, the Petitioner provided recommendation letters that summarized her written work and 
contributions For instance, I I claimed that "[i]n .__ __ ___,,, _____ __, 
I I [ the Petitioner] reports findings of her 
original research, which had a major significant impact on her field." 6 Moreover, the letter asserts 
that the Petitioner 
.__ _____________________________ ____, .. [t]his 
conclusion in itself was extraordinary, as countless lives as well as investments could be saved by 
avoiding breakage of this commonly-used piece of equipment." Here, the letter recounts the 
Petitioner's research and findings and indicate their publications in a journal without demonstrating 
that her contributions have been of major significance in the field. Instead, the letter speculates on the 
potential influence and on the possibility of being majorly significant at some point in the future. 
In addition, the letters do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record 
include corroborating evidence, to show that the Petitioner is viewed by the overall field, rather than 
by a solicited few, as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Further, the Petitioner did not establish that she has made impactfol or 
influential contributions in the greater field reflecting a career of acclaimed work in the field, garnering 
the required sustained national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Here, the letters describe her work without showing how they rise to a level 
of major significance in the field and represent an individual who has garnered sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Moreover, the Petitioner submitted evidence reflecting that she presented article at the 1st Academic 
Congress on Environment and Development of I ] in 2004 and eight articles at the I 
Academic Forum ofl lin 2016. The Petitioner, however, did not establish that her presentations 
at two conferences, occurring approximately 12 years apart, is consistent with having a career of 
acclaimed work and sustaining national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her presentations reflect 
being among the small percentage at the very top of her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. 
6 Although we discuss one letter, the record reflects that the Petitioner submitted two other letters, and we have reviewed 
and considered each one. 
6 
Reg. at 30704. Further, the Petitioner, for instance, did not show the significance of her presentations, 
how her overall presentations compare to others who are viewed to be at the very top of the field, or 
whether she received notoriety or wide attention based on her presentations. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, 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. Even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. While the 
Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification 
sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate that she has sustained national or international 
acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of her field. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
7