dismissed EB-1A Case: Instructional Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-J-L-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 16, 2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a researcher, designer and developer of instructional technology, seeks classification as 
an individual of "extraordinary ability." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
§ 203(b)(l)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and achievements that have 
been recognized in the area of expertise through extensive documentation. The Director determined 
that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which necessitate proof of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of 
ten regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief as well as copies of previously provided 
materials. 
I. LAW 
Subparagraph (A) of section 203(b )(1) of the Act makes an immigrant visa available to a non­
citizen: 
(i) [who] 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) [who] seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) [whose] 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-J-L-
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 she 
must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed 
at 8 C.P.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 P.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (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). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. 
Wash. 2011) (affirming our proper application of Kazarian), aff'd , 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) appropriately applied the two-step review); 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 users 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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The issue at hand is whether the Petitioner has demonstrated extraordinary ability. She does not list 
or document a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award), but 
maintains that she has provided evidence that satisfies three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Below we address the criteria claimed by the Petitioner. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel , as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of specification for which class(fication is sought. 
The Director found the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. The Petitioner provided evidence that she 
has neer-reviewed articles for the 
We therefore agree that the Petitioner has met the plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Director found the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. He acknowledged submission of a 
letter of support from Professor an associate professor at the 
citations to the Petitioner's articles; and her role as a panelist , 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims 
to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-J-L-
keynote speaker, and session chair. However, the Director ultimately concluded that the evidence 
did not demonstrate contributions of major significance in the field. After reviewing the record in its 
totality, we agree that the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
The regulation requires a showing not only that the Petitioner's contributions are original, but also 
that they are of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . As noted by the Petitioner 
on appeal, in making this assessment , we evaluate whether the Petitioner has met the preponderance 
of the evidence standard, which requires she demonstrate that the issue in question is "probably 
true." Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
On appeal, the Petitioner refers to eighteen articles she authored as proof of the significance of her 
contributions to the field. In earlier submissions , the Petitioner claimed 97 total citations to these 
articles, of which 87 are independent. She provided the citation print-out showing 
that her three most-cited articles had 41, 17, and 8 citations respectively. The Petitioner notes on 
appeal that recent changes to the USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual provide the following guidance 
on how to consider scholarly publications when assessing contributions of major significance: 
For example, peer-reviewed presentations at academic symposia or peer­
reviewed articles in scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or 
received notice from others working in the field, or entries (particularly a goodly 
number) in a citation index which cite the alien's work as authoritative in the field, 
may be probative of the significance of the alien's contributions to the field of 
endeavor. 
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 
AD 11-14 8 (Dec. 22, 201 0), http://www. uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-
evidence-pm-6002-005-l.pdf. We agree that a researcher's citation record is probative and evaluate 
the Petitioner's citations below. 
The Petitioner relies on her total number of citations in the aggregate. More probative of a wide 
influence is the number of citations for an individual article. The record does not contain evidence 
to place the number and content of the citations in the context of other contributions of major 
significance in the Petitioner's field. For example, the Petitioner did not provide statistics on 
citations in her field or an example of how other authors have cited her work such that the level of 
influence is apparent. 
The Petitioner also submitted certificates of publishing for two books: 
published in 2008, and 
published in 2014. The Petitioner cited the books' respective circulations of 
2,000 and 4,000 as evidence of their impact. These quantities appear to be the number of volumes in 
the initial run of publication. The Petitioner does not provide any further infmmation regarding the 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of H-J-L-
use or dissemination of these works. As a result, their publication does not demonstrate their 
significance for the field at large. 
l 
The record contains additional evidence that the Petitioner has been successful in her field. She has 
peer-reviewed numerous articles for several different academic journals. She received funding as 
the principal investigator for grants in 2008-09. She has served as the Editor-in-Chief for the 
from While these engagements 
show the Petitioner is active, they do not themselves constitute contributions of major significance, 
and the Petitioner does not explain how they have impacted the field as a whole or are otherwise 
indicative of someone who has made such a contribution. 
Lastly, the Petitioner provided the letter of recommendation from who stated that she first 
noted the Petitioner's work in 2012 while attending a conference. 2 She described the Petitioner's 
accomplishments as follows: 
Major findings included that the students in a rated their receptive 
learning ability higher than their critical and creative learning abilities. To me, the 
most interesting finding of her research was that while U.S. students ' perceptions of 
their critical learning abilities increased significantly over the years, Korean students' 
perceptions changed relatively little over time. I think that [the Petitioner's] research 
contributed to the field of education by providing insights in terms of the impact of 
culture, epistemological belief, and instruction on critical and creative learning in 
higher education. 
did not further explain how these findings add to the body of knowledge already in 
existence, or why they are significant in the field. While credited her improved course 
evaluations to consultations with the Petitioner, this assistance does not rise to the level of a 
contribution of major significance to the Petitioner's field. Regardless of the field, the plain language 
of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond 
one's employer and clients or customers. See Visinscaia v . Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 
2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not 
demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). explained the Petitioner's development of 
distinct conceptualizations for education and her expertise in integrating technology through the use 
of "scaffolding " and other teaching strategies for online distance education. did not, 
however, explain how these conceptualizations and strategies have already impacted distance 
learning. Letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. See Kazarian v . USCIS, 
included a section entitled "[The Petitioner's] Potential and the U.S. National Interest." While section 
203(b )(2) of the Act allows USClS to waiver the labor certification process in the national interest for advanced degree 
professionals and foreign national with exceptional ability , that is not the benefit the Petitioner seeks with this petition. 
4 
Matter of H-J-L-
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).3 For these reasons, 
the evidence provided by the Petitioner does not meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the beneficiary's authorship of scholarly articles in the .field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
The Director found the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. The Petitioner authored eighteen scholarly 
articles published in academic journals. We therefore agree that she has met the plain language of 
this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As indicated above, the Petitioner has satisfied only two of the regulatory criteria. As a result, the 
Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or at least 
three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must establish that the 
individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three 
evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the 
submissions in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) 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 alien 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 v. USCIS, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we need not provide the type of 
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the Petitioner has not shown she enjoys the level of expertise required for the 
classification sought. 
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. § 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the 
Petitioner has not met that burden. 
3 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting 
to [the alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 
596 F.3d at 1122. 
Matter of H-J-L-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofH-J-L-, ID# 14855 (AAO Dec. 16, 2015)