dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF 1-W-B-S-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 19. 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR /\LIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an attorney. mediator. journalist and author. seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)( I )(A). 8 U.S.C. 
~ 1153(b )(1 )(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those \vho 
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 Form I-140. Immigrant Petition f(Jr Alien 
Worker. concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which he must meet at least three. The Director indicated that the Petitioner had not stated \'vhich of 
the ten criteria he was applying for and how the evidence should be applied. 
On appeaL the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he meets the regulatory 
criteria as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 
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. 
.
Afaller ofi-W-B-S-
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). Alternatively. he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three ofthe ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards. memberships. and published material in certain media). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria. however. does not, in and of itself. establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Ka~arian v. USCIS. 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) (discussing a two-part revie\v 
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); Rija/ v. U\'CIS. 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011). aff'd. 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matler oj'Chawathe. 25 I&N Dec. 369. 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the ''truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality'" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services 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'"). Accordingly. where a petitioner submits 
qualifying evidence under at least three criteria. we will determine whether the totality of 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. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(2)-(3 ). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner states that he qualities as an individual with extraordinary ability as a multilingual 
attorney. journalist. author. and mediator. At the time of filing, he was serving as a volunteer 
mediator with the m Because he has not 
indicated or established that he has received a major. internationally recognized award. the Petitioner 
must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In 
denying the Petition. the Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the regulatory criteria. 
On appeal. the Petitioner contends that the Director did not properly consider the evidence in the 
record. He discusses his documentation and achievements relating to the criteria identified below. 
We find the evidence insufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets at least three criteria. 
Evidence o(lhe alien's participation. either individually or on a panel. as ajudKe of'the H'ork 
of' others in the swne or an a/liedfie/d of' specification f("· which classification is sought. 
8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(iv). 
1 
The Form 1-140 petition lists the Petitioner's occupation as .. student." The record does not contain evidence. such as a 
statement from the Petitioner, as required by 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(5). indicating how he intends to continue his work in 
the area of expertise in the United States. 
2 
.
A1attcr of 1-W-B-5'-
The record contains evidence that the Petitioner has served as a mentor critiquing and evaluating the 
performance of other mediators in the 111 
Therefore, we find that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s authorship o(scholarly articles in the field in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(vi). 
The Petitioner authored an article entitled. · 
that was published by the 
Accordingly, the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien ha.'l· perfhrmed in a leading or critical role .fhr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(viii). 
In generaL a leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational 
hierarchy. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization or the 
establishment's activities. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner has been a volunteer mediator for the 
The Petitioner states that he has completed hundreds of mediations and that his fluency in 
several languages gives him a unique advantage as a mediator. He offers letters from various 
colleagues discussing his role as a mediator. For example. the Court Mediation 
Services Coordinator for the states that the Petitioner was 
accepted as a Volunteer County Mediator in the Court in January 2016 and that he currently 
mediates county cases two mornings each week. She further indicates that he ··is very professional. 
follows direction. and is well-liked by the public he is serving." 
In addition. the Staff Family Mediator. asserts that the Petitioner '·has handled well 
over 250 individual cases within our circuit alone since beginning his time within our Courthouse 
Mediation Department." also notes that the Petitioner is ··quite experienced" and that 
his specialized training. background. and ability to speak four languages set him apart from other 
mediators. Fm1hermore, Attorney contends that the Petitioner ··is truly a 
valued and exemplary mediator in Florida... further explains that 
the Petitioner's ""work ethic has allowed him to achieve a high level ofrespecC and that he ··is well­
regarded by attorneys, clients, faculty members. and our administration... While \Ve acknowledge 
that the aforementioned letters indicate the Petitioner is an effective mediator. the evidence in the 
record does not establish that he has performed in a leading or critical role for the 
2 This article was subsequently published in the book 
The record also indicates that the Petitioner was a journalist in Brazil for network in 
Brazil. but he has not demonstrated how this relates to the legal field or the other regulatory criteria for classification as 
an individual of extraordinary ability. 
.
Matter of 1- W-B-,)'-
The record also includes a list of the outside mediators for the 
Residential Mortgage Mediation program. The Petitioner is listed here as one of the mediators in 
this program, but the list includes over 170 other individuals. The evidence submitted does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has a leading role in the hierarchy of the organization or that he 
performs a critical role when compared to the numerous other mediators in the organization. In 
addition, the Petitioner has taken many professional development courses to further his expertise as a 
mediator, but this does not establish that he has performed in a leading or critical role. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
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 determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter o/1-W-B-S-, ID# 668002 (AAO Dec. 19, 2017) 
4