dismissed EB-1A Case: International Relations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
·MATTER OF D-A-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION ' 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 25, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an international relations· scholar and co1sultant, 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 Texas Service Center approved the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. 
However, the Director of the Texas Service Center subsequently issued a notice of intent to revoke 
and later revoked the approval of the immigrant petition, finding that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) had approved the .petition iri error. Specifically, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he 
must meet at least three. · 
On. appeal, the Petitioner offers additional documentation, as well as previously submitted 
documentation, and a brief, contending that he meets at least three of the ten criteria and qualifies as 
an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient 
cause, revoke the approval of any petition ... ·.''. Section 205 of the .Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155. By 
regulation this revocc).tion authority is delegated to any USCIS officer who i,s authorized to approve 
an immigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a). USCIS must giv,e the petitioner notice of its intent 
to revoke the prior approval of the petition and the opportunity to submit evidence in opposition 
thereto, before proceeding with written notice of revocation. See1 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(b) and (c). The 
Board oflmmigration Appeals has discussed revocations on notice as follows: 
[A] notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is properly issued for "good and 
sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time the notice is issued, if 
• Matter of D-A-
I 
unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition based upon 
the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The decision to revoke will be 
sustained where the evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, including 
any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of 
intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 1 
( 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 
acclc:1im and whose achievements have • been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation,. 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m 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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must prnvide 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 c:F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 acclaiQ1 and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 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); R!jal 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 
1 Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter c?f Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987)). 
2 
.
Matter of D-A-
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 
Because the Petitioner has not. indicated or established that he has 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). In revoking the approval of the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner 
did not meet any of the initial evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he fulfills 
the four criteria discussed below and requests that we consider additional documentation as 
comparable evidence for the artistic display criterion at. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 2 We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien ·s membership in assoczatwns in the field for which 
classffication is sought, which require outstanding achievements <~{their members. as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in_ their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). . 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner presents documentation indicating his selection for 
jobs as a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the a Scholar-in-Residence at 
and a Visiting Fellow at the __ As supporting 
evidence, he submits job postings for a "Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy" position at the 
and a "Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence" position at The 
Petitioner states that "these institutions are distinguished research and academic institutions which 
have highly discerning processes for selecting these roles and the people making the selections are 
recognized experts in their own rightt 
\ 
While the Petitioner emphasizes the distinguished reputation of the above organizations, the record 
does not demonstrate that his selection for employment in the aforementioned jobs constitutes his 
"membership in associations in the field." Submission of documentary evidence reflecting. a 
petitioner's employment or involvement with a particular organization without evidence showing 
that the petitioner is a member of an association that requires. outstanding achievements of its 
members , as judged by recognized national or international experts , is insufficient to· meet the 
requirements of this criterion. The Petitioner's unsupported assertions that his employment in the 
2 The Oirector detennined that the Petitioner's evidence did not m~et the published· material criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) because the submitted material (including, for instance, documentation of his appearances on CNN and 
Al Jazeera) was not about him. The Petitioner does not contest that determination on appeal. Instead, the Petitioner 
asserts on appeal that the submitted media covernge should be evaluated as comparable evidence .under the regulation at 
8CF.R. § 204.5(h)(4). · 
.
Matter of D-A-
noted roles should be evaluated as "memberships" are not persuasive and are inconsistent with the 
regulations. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
We further note that the record does not sufficiently document that the above organizations' job 
requirements for his particular positions rise to the level of outstanding achievements. With respect 
· to the Petitioner's employment at a March 2018 letter from 
Director of the identifies the Petitioner as 
a "Scholar-in-Residence" rather than a "Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence" ( e!11phasis added). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown that the "Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence" job 
. announcement is an accurate representation of the selection requirements for his position. Similarly, 
the Resident "Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy" fulltime perm~nent job announceme.nt from the 
is not specific to the Petitioner's part-time Nonresident Senior Fellow positiqn. 
The record also includes a March 2018 letter from a Senior Fellow at the 
asserting that his organization's "Visiting Fellow program is highly discerning'' 
and that "Visi_ting Fellows are selected based on their outstanding achievements in their specific area 
of expertise." Similarly, a March 2018 letter from Executive Vice President at the 
contends that his organization's "Nonresident Senior Fellows are carefully 
selected by leadership as well as our in-house experts in the field, based on their outstanding 
achievements as policy analysts or scholars in the field." The aforementioned letters from 
and do not list their organizations' specific requirements or further elaborate on 
the job selection criteria. Repeating the language of the regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), a_ff'd, 905 
F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
Finally, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that job applicants' 
achievements are judged by recognized national or international experts. · 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly, artistic. athletic. or business­
relatedcontributions of ma_jor significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner provided various letters of support and 
documentation relating to his published work and several conferences and speaking engagements in 
which he participated. The Director considered this documentation, but found that it was not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major 
significance in the field. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with that determination. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) , a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made contributions that were original but that they have been of major signific ;mce in the 
field. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented 
throughout the field , have remarkably impacted the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field . 
On appeal , the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in determining that the letters of ·support 
from experts in the field were insufficient to meet this criterion . The Petitioner provides additional 
4 
.
Matter of D-A- · 
support letters and contends that he has "provided expert policy analysis and advice to U.S. 
policymakers with regard to U.S.-Israel-Middle East relations, impacted the policy outcomes, and 
contributed to the· theoretical and strategic framework for critical bilateral and multilateral 
agreements such as the July 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal." ' In addition, he presents documentation 
relating to bilateral and multilateral peace agreements and other programs in which he maintains he 
was involved. 3 
With respect to the Petitioner's letters of support, the Director explained that "USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony," but noted that 
"USCIS is ultima~ely responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility." 
See Matter of <;aron Int 'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). A.s a result, we evaluate the 
content of letters to determine whether they support his eligibility. See id. at 795-96; see also Matter 
of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact"). Here, the record includes letters from notable experts in international 
relations attesting to the Petitioner's involvement as a government official or consultant in various 
international agreements and his status as an influential authority in matters of policy. However, as 
discussed below, the letters do not offer sufficiently detailed information, nor does the record include 
adequate corroborating documentation, to demonstrate the nature of specific "original contributions" 
that the Petitioner has made to the field that have been considered to be of major significance. 
With respect to the Petitioner's work as a U.S.-Middle East relations strategist and scholar, the 
record includes a letter of support from Distinguished Fellow and 
Counselor at the for Near East Policy, stating that the Petitioner has influenced 
"policy makers, companies and individuals with interests in the Middle East." indicates 
that "[t]he ongoing crises in the Middle East pose many challenges for the United States" and that 
the Petitioner "has successfully shaped policies in order to achieve stability in the region." 
, however, does not identify -specific U.S. or Israeli policies the Petitioner is credited with 
shaping or provide specific examples of how his particular work furthered stability in the Middle 
East or otherwise rises to the level of a contribution of major significance in the field. 
In his February 2017 letter of support, 
During the time that I served 
at the 
at 
Executive Director for Research at the 
4 states: 
and [the Petitioner] was the 
[2009-2012], we 
.3 This documentation includes "Declaration of Principles" ( 1993), ''.Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty" ( 1994), "Wye River 
Memorandum" (1998), information about the "Builders for Peace" program ( 1990s), "Me1norandum of Understanding 
Between Israel and the United States" (2007), "Israeli-Palestinian lnteriin Agree1ilent" ( I 995), and information about the 
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Ac.tion - Iran Nuclear Deal (2015), The aforementioned documents do not mention the 
Petitioner or demonstrate the significance of his specific involvement 
4 From 2009 until 2013, "served as 
During much of ___ service, the Petitioner worked as 
__, from 2009 until 2012, I · 
5 
.
.Matter of D-A-
frequently consulted on diplomatic strategies to achieve a solution to the Iranian 
nuclear threat. [The Petitioner] was a strong advocate for reaching a deal with Iran 
because failing to do so would lead to devastating outcomes .... [The Petitioner] has 
consistently communicated to the policy community that a military campaign 
·· involving the United States, ~srael or the Gulf States would be counterproductive 
because it would draw the ire of the international community and bestow Iran with 
legitimacy to pursue a nuclear weapon. 
March 2018 letter further contends that the Petitioner's "advice was well received and 
ultimately taken by U.S. policy makers including myself, laying the groundwork for and ultimately 
contributing to the United States' nuclear agreement with Iran in July 2015. This multilateral 
agreement restricted the growth of Iran's nuclear capabilities in exchange for lifting certain 
sanctions." In addition, states that the agreement "was a major· diplomatic 
accomplishment for the United States and a step toward securing peace and preventing nuclear 
proliferation in the Middle East, one for which [the Petitioner] played an important role." ' . 
While indicates that he and the Petitioner "consulted on diplomatic strategies to achieve 
a solution to the Iranian nuclear threat," we note that neither was working for· his respective 
government in July 2015 when the agreement was reached. According to the "Joint Comprehensive 
Plan of Action" submitted by the Petitioner, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, 
the United States, the European Union, and Iran executed this agreement in July 2015 and Israel was 
not among the participating countries. Furthermore, the record includes a July 2015 article, entitled 
"6 Things You Should Know About the Iran Nuclear Deal," indicating that the agreement concluded 
after a "marathon negotiating session by top diplomats over the past three weeks in Vienna." The 
documentation in the record relating to ,the Iran Nuclear Deal does not indicate that the Petitioner 
was among this agreement's chief negotiators or architects. While attests that the 
Petitioner advocated for pursuing a peaceful diplomatic solution and avoiding U.S. military action 
against Iran, the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner's particular consultations with 
and advice to other U.S. policy makers regarding a solution to the Iranian nuclear threat 
de~onstrate his integral role in bringing about the Iran Nuclear Deal or otherwise rise to the level of 
an original contribution of major significance in the field. 
· Moreover, a letter of support from former states: 
[The Petitioner] was an influential analyst and policy strategist on developments in 
U.S.-Isra~I and Israel-Middle East relations during my time on the 
committees. As at the 
. . . and subsequently as a Senior Fellow at [the 
Petitioner] provided me with critical insight and analysis that helped me gain a better 
understanding of U.S.-Israel and Middle East politics when I served on the 
committees. His analysis and advice were 
tremendously helpful to me in my efforts to further strengthen America's relations 
with Israel and my policy decisions vis-a-vis Israel and the Middle East. . 
0 • 
6 
.
Matter of D-A-
further contends that the Petitioner "contributed signifibantiy to the foreign policy 
dialogue surrounding U.S:~Israel and Israel-Middle East relations and ultimately impacted U.S. 
policy toward Israel and the region as a whole." While indicates that the Petitioner 
provided valuable ·insight, analysis, and advice on international relations and Middle East politics, he 
does not identify specific examples of issues on which the Petitioner's policy guidance on U.S., 
Israeli, and Middle Eastern affairs proved influential, nor does he offer sufficient information 
regarding how the Petitioner's particular consultations "impacted U.S. policy toward Israel and the 
region as a whole" or otherwise equate to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
A letter of support from former (2014-2017) and U.S. 
m == (2007~2010), discusses the Petitioner's participation as "a regular member of the 
states that the Petitioner frequently contributed to this group's "discussions which ultimately 
laid t~e diplomatic groundwork for subsequent coordinated U.S.-Israel policy on dealing with 
regional challenges such as the Iran Nuclear issue and the Arab Spring." While the Petitioner 
participated in the aforementioned working group's discussions, the record does not include 
sufficient information regarding his original contributions to these meetings or the significance of 
such contributions. For instance, neither ; letter nor supporting evidence in the record 
demonstrates whether the Petitioner offered specific strategies, recommendations, and/or policy 
input as a member of the group that constituted original contributions of major significance in the 
field. 
Additionally, asserts that the Petitioner "played a central role in the drafting and later 
signing of the U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding securing the historic $30 billion in U.S. 
security assistance for Israel for the period 2008-2018, signed by the parties in Jerusalem in 2007." 
The record includes an August 2007 article from the israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website 
entitled "Signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between Israel and the United States." This 
article states: 
Representing the United States at the ceremony were Undersecretary of State R'. Nicholas 
Burns and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Richard Jones. On the Israeli side, Bank of Israel 
Governor Stanley Fisher, Director General of the Foreign Ministry Aaron Abramovich, 
Director General of the Ministry of Defense Pinchas Buchris and Israel's Ambassador to 
the United States, Salai Meridor, attended. 
The aforementioned article includes a five-page "Transcript of ceremony and press conference," but 
the Petitioner is not mentioned in the aiticle or transcript , nor identified as having "played a central 
role in the drafting and later signing " of the memorandum as claimed by Nor does the 
record otherwise include sufficient information or evidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner ' s 
particular work relating to this memorandum rises to the level of an original contribution of major 
significance in the field. For instance , the record does not show that the nature and extent of his role 
in the agreement was such that its passage was largely · attributable to him, nor has he identified or 
documented specific original contributions that he made to the drafting of the agreement which have 
been of major significance. 
.., 
.
Matter of D-A-
l 
The record also includes a letter of support from former 
to the United States from 1993 until 1997. 5 He states that the Petitioner served as his Chief of Staff 
during that period and "was a key point of contact to the and 
in planning, ,organizing, and carrying out a number of important 
diplomatic events including numerous visits to the. United States" by 
and and further 
indicates that the Petitioner "helped coordinate the historic signing of s~ver,al peace agreements 
including the U.S.-backed Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles," "the Israeli-Jordanian 
Washington Declaration," "the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty in the Arava Crossing," and "the Israeli­
Palestinian Interim Agreement on tl]e West Bank and the Gaza Strip." In addition, . 
states that the Petitioner accompanied him to the , Israeli.:Syrian talks in 
participated as a member of and served as 
Israel's.point of contact for both the U.S. Government-funded program and the 
. While the Petitioner served as "a key point of 
contact" to the U.S. executive branch in his role as Chief of Staff at the the record 
does not include sufficient information and supporting evidence to demonstrate that through his 
coordination of various diplomatic events, participation as member of 
and work relating to the ___ program and 
he made original contributions of major significance in the field . 
. An additional letter from 
discusses the Petitioner's work as 
from 2009 to 2012 when was to the United States. asserts 
that the Petitioner "was directly involved with the niost important events affecting Israeli foreign 
policy, diplomatic, and security matters during his tenure as · and he made a 
vital contribution to attempts to advance the U .S.-backed peace efforts between Israelis and 
Palestinian promoted by _______ " further states: 
) 
[The Petitioner] was intimately involved in the joint and coordinated U.S.-Israeli 
consultations' and efforts to prevent Iran from reaching military nuclear capability; 
' U.S. continuous diplomatic efforts to bridge the gaps between the Israeli government 
. and the Palestinian Authority; the Israeli-Turkish flotilla incident in May 2010, the 
collapse of Israel-Turkish relations, and U.S. attempts to resolve these issues; Israel,'s 
strategic thinking with regard to the events of the Arab Spring beginning in January 
2011 including the Egyptian Revolution and the outb.reak of civil war in Syria; the 
lifting of the siege on Israel's embassy Cairo in September 2011; restoring Egyptian 
natural gas supply to Israel after terrorist attacks on the pipeline cut supply by 40%; 
and joint U.S.-Israel efforts to deal with the diplomatic, fallout and attempts at the 
letter notes that he is "currently President of the and professor eineritus of 
at . distinguished global professor at and a distinguished 
fellow at the 
8 
.
Matter of D-A-
' [United Nations] and other international organizations to sanction Israel over its ,A 
actions in Gaza. 
lists various peace efforts and foreign policy, diplomatic, and security matters in which the 
Petitioner was involved, but he does not sufficiently explain the nature of the Petitioner's original 
contributions to these efforts and the record does not show that his specific work relating to these 
events rises to the level of major significance .in the field. Furthermore, to the extent the 
aforementioned statements from and focus on the Petitioner's 
responsibilities as and Chief of Staff at the in and the tasks 
he performed in those roles, this information is more relevant to the leading or critical role criterion a:t 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), a separate and distinct criterion discussed below and that he has satisfied. 
Consisterit with the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria, we 
will generally not consider evidence relating to the leading or critical role criterion to satisfy this 
one. 
In addition to the letters of support, the record reflects that the Petitioner has published and presented 
his work. For example, the Petitioner published an analysis paper entitled . 
and spoke at a policy conference organized by the 
Committee. Publications and presentations, howevyr, are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance."· See Kazarian v. USCJS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), a.ff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. There is no presumption that 
every published article or conference presentation is a contribution of major significance in the field; 
rather, a petitioner must document the actual impact of his article or presentation. 6 In this case, the 
record does not show that the Petitioner's published and presented work has affected his field in a 
substantial way or that it otherwise equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Without sufficient evidence demonstrating the nature of his original contributions or their major 
significance in the field, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s authorship ofscholarly articles in the field in professional or 
major trade publications or other major medid 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
As discussed, the record shows that the Petitioner authored an analysis paper, entitled 
that was pµblished by the at the 
The record includes sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this work constitutes a 
scholarly article in a prot~ssional publication. 7 ·Accordingly , the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
. . 
· 6 Generally, citations can confirm that t.he field has taken interest in a scholar's work. The Petitioner submitted examples 
of several articles that cited to or referenced his analysis paper; .however they do not reflect that his work was singled out 
as particularly important. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the citations to his work, considered both individually 
and collectively, are commensurate with contributions "of major significance in the tJeld." 
· 7 A scholarly article should be written for "learned" persons in the field. "Learned" is defined as having or 
demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship. Learned persons include all persons having profound knowledge of a 
field. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evalziation ol Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
9 
.
Matter of D-A-
Evidence that the alien has per.formed in a leading or critical role.for organizatio,ns or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation .. 8 C.F:R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). · 
We find that the Petitioner meets this criterion based on hi.s prior roles as and Chief of Staff at 
the 1n 
B. Comparable Evidence 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that "his media coverage, speaking engagements, and published 
· articles" should be considered as comparable evidence of the "showcase of his work in lieu of 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)," a criterion that requires "[ e ]vidence of the display of the alien's work in 
the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases." 8 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)( 4) allows for 
comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily apply to his occupation. A petitioner should 
explain why he has not submitted evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the evidence he has included is "comparable" to that required 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
9 . 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the listed criteria do not readily apply to his occupation. He 
has not asserted or demonstrated that he cannot offer evidence that ineets at least three of the ten 
criteria. As discussed, the Petitioner has claimed to ·meet more than three criteria. Moreover, the 
Petitioner has not shown that international relations scholars and consultants cannot present evidence 
relating to the other regulatory criteria such as receiving awards for excellence and commanding a 
high salary. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (ix). As such, the Petitioner has not established that 
he is eligible to meet the initial evidence requirements through the submission of comparable 
.d 10 e,v1 ence. 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/pol icy-memoranda. 
8 We note that, withrespect to the media covera·ge relating to the Petitioner (such as his CNN and Al Jazeera appearances 
as well as quotes appearing in major print media), the Director detennined that this evidence did not meet the published 
material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) because the submitted material was not about him and the Petitioner does 
not challenge that determination on appeal. In addition, both our dec.ision and that of the Director have addressed the 
· Petitioner's speaking engagements under the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Furthermore, 
as discussed above, we found that the Petitioner's published article entitled · ___ fulfilled 
~he authorship of scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. · . 
10 On appeal, the Petitioner cites an AAO non-precedent decision for the proposition"that to prove eligibility under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), one must only demonstrate that at least one criterion is not applicable, and that the submitted 
e.vidence is comparable to that criterion. This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind 
USClS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(c). Instead, we are bound by the published policy 
memorandum referenced above. 
10 
Matter of D-A-
) C. 0-1 Nohimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability: Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard -
statute, regulations, and case law. Many Form I-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d is 
(D.D.C. 2003); !KEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. SUJ?P· 2d 22 (D.D._C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), a.ff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). 
Furthermore, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant 
visa petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even 
if a service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are 
not bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. Louisiana 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL. 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000), aff d, 248 · 
F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S.Ct. 51 (2001). 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits detennination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
It follows that t.he Petitioner has not established his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. The revocation of the previously approved petition is affirmed for the above stated reasons, 
with each considered as. an independent and alternative basis for the decision. The burden of proof 
in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter 
of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). The burden remains with the 
petitioner in revocation proceedings to establish eligibility for the benefit sought under the 
immigration laws. Matter of Cheung, 12 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1968); Matter ofEstime, 19 l&N Dec. 
at 452, n.1; and Matter o{Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 589. Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. . I 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of D-A-, ID# 15189_16 (AAO Jan. 25, 2019) 
11