dismissed EB-1A Case: Legal Scholarship

MATTER OF E-R-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 29, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a legal scholar, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
education. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding 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 submits additional documentation and a briet: arguing that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova 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 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 
.
Matter of E-R-K-
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 provide 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 acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 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 o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a sole proprietor of in Washington. 
Because he 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 denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets four criteria, discussed below. 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. 1 
1 The Petitioner also argues that USCIS found that he met three criteria in a previous filing. However, each 
extraordinary ability petition is reviewed on its own merits, and we are not bound by decisions of a service center or 
district director. See la. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
2 
.
Matter of E-R-K-
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the.field o.f endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner provided evidence showing that, in 2010, he received an award for innovation in his 
field and that this award is nationally recognized. Accordingly, the Petitioner demonstrated that he 
fulfills this criterion. 
Documentation o.f the alien's membership in associations in the .field.for which class(fication is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements o.f their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or.fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner contends that he satisfies this criterion based on his membership with the 
Specifically, he references letters from 
former president of , and former president of the 
of Brazil, who indicated that the Petitioner was a member of the 1 
and was appointed as vice president of the 
' and later chairman of the committee. Moreover, the Petitioner argues that 
"delegates to the President to choose its members," and that in this case, 
accepted the nomination from former president of the 
and the recommendation by a digital law expert, 
naming him to the special committee. In addition, the Petitioner provides excerpts of regulations 
relating to the to show the president's delegation authority. 
In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based 
on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements 
in the field for which classification is sought. 2 While the letters referenced above explain who 
selected the Petitioner, they do not demonstrate that membership with requires outstanding 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. Although 
regulations give the president authority to appoint members to they do not reflect that 
outstanding achievements are a prerequisite to obtaining a position with or on any of its 
committees. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that membership with requires 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts consistent with 
the regulation at C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this criterion. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluati on of Evidence Submitled with Certain Form /-/40 
Petitions; Revisions to the Acljudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI /-/4 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 
.
Matter of E-R-K-
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion based, in part, on his "revolutionary work in 
digital advocacy that culminated in a pioneer and original book that was and is still a leading 
educational overview of a new field within the field law." 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 original contributions 
but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that 
the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or 
influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner provided translations of the preface and afterword for his book, 
which were written, respectively, by president of 
the and Brazilian judge. 
These individuals described the book as a "very useful guide" and stated that it "demystifies 
technology, translating it to the operators of the right and placing it at the disposal of all to facilitate 
the day-to-day forensics." Further, he offered a translation of a book presentation by , in 
which it attested that the book is "recommended reading not only to those who work in the area of 
law, but to all citizens." Although the Petitioner established the originality of his work through 
authorship of a book, the evidence does not demonstrate that the overall field views his book as a 
contribution of major significance.3 The aforementioned documentation reflects individuals 
promoting and offering praise for the book, but does not show that the general field already 
considered it to be majorly significant. 
The record also contains letters referencing the Petitioner's book and discussing his knowledge in 
digital law.4 For instance, director of the law and technology committee of 
claimed that the publication "is a significant book and has been extensively used by our education 
system at the BAR in our state." Moreover, stated that "[t]he content of this work, 
which is a true manual, involves a lot of expertise in Digital Law ... and other related standards to 
the subject." Further, . a Brazilian attorney, indicated that "[t]he 
great advantage of his book was that for the first time in Brazil, a digital book right on electronic 
process was illustrated in great detail." While the letters praise the usefulness of the Petitioner's 
book and his expertise on digital law, they do not offer sufficiently detailed information, nor does the 
record contain sufficient corroborating evidence, to show how the overall field has been impacted by 
his work. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major 
significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value.5 On the other hand, letters 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the 
field as a whole). 
4 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
4 
.
Matter of E-R-K-
that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be 
probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion.6 Moreover, USCIS need not 
accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). 
Further, the Petitioner argues that his work in digital law "was quickly adopted throughout the 
nation's judiciary, and became such a widely used instrument that a Federal law was enacted to 
regulate the practice throughout the country." The record contains a letter from 
a Brazilian lawyer, who indicated that the Petitioner participated in the development of the 
first software system of the In addition, the Petitioner 
submits Brazilian law and regulations and a translation of an article reflecting that "[ m ]ore than 70% 
of the Federal Court has already adopted the While 
attested to the Petitioner's participation in the development of the first software system, the 
evidence does not corroborate his claims that the creation of the law and regulations and adoption by 
more than 70% of the court were attributable to his work. The letter does not detail what 
contributions the Petitioner made or how he participated in the development of the software 
program. Moreover, the letter does not establish whether the Petitioner's involvement led to the 
software version now utilized by the courts. Because the Petitioner has not sufficiently supported his 
assertions, he has not shown that he has made an original contribution of major significance 
consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that his roles as vice president and chairman of the 
for the satisfy this criterion. Specifically, the Petitioner references the 
previously discussed letter from who described the position requirements and 
attested to his work on the electronic procedural practice. As it relates to a leading role, then 
evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, 
can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 7 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must 
demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the 
outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but 
rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 8 
6 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at I 036, affd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the 
regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are 
insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance in the field). 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at I 0. 
8 Id. 
5 
.
Matter of E-R-K-
Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his roles on a specific commission constitute a leading 
or critical role for an organization or establishment consistent with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(viii). discussed the Petitioner's roles for the commission without 
establishing how the Petitioner performed in a leading or critical role for as a whole. Further, 
did not show, for example, how the Petitioner's chairmanship and vice president 
roles were leading or critical outside of the committee. The letter does not contain detailed and 
probative information that specifically addressed how the Petitioner's roles were leading or critical 
to overall. 9 Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his committee roles contributed 
in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organizations or establishments' 
activities. 10 Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish 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 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. USCIS 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 not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with 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)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the 
Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 11 
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 Matt er of E-R-K-, ID# 1758010 (AAO Nov. 29, 2018) 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at I 0. 
10 Id. 
11 As the Petitioner has not demonstrated his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)( I )(A)(i) of the Act, we need not 
consider whether he intends to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )( I )(A)(ii).