dismissed EB-1A Case: Linguistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7881804 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 11, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a rhetorical linguist in the field of education , 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirement of meeting at least three of the 
criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates that she received a Ph.D. in linguistics in 2014 from the I !university of 
in Brazil, and that at the time of filing she was a visiting scholar at the L...-------r---~---~---, 
University of~---~----~ She states that her plans in the United States include 
"accepting a position at.__ ____ __. Unified District" after she gains teacher certification, and 
opening a consultancy to provide training in rhetoric and the Portuguese language. 
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 one of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to judging the work of others. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that she also meets three additional evidentiary criteria. 1 After reviewing all of the evidence 
in the record, we find that she does not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
The Petitioner submitted evidence to establish that she was a recipient of the I !(Brazilian 
Service for Support to Micro and Small Enterprises) Entrepreneur Education award. A certificate 
documenting this award indicates that she received it on July 8, 2011 for "excellent performance in 
teaching speech courses." In his decision, the Director found that the evidence does not establish that 
this award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts thatl I is a national organization and that the award is national 
in scope, and that it submitted several media articles and other evidence which supports the award's 
recognition at the national level. However, we note that the record includes conflicting evidence about 
the status and scope of the award. First, in what appears to be a news release from I ldated 
May 11, 2018, it is announced that the agency is launching the first edition of the national l I 
Award for Entrepreneurial Education." Another article from a Brazilian website dated March 20, 2019 
1 The Petitioner does not contest on appeal the Director's finding that her membership in~I ---~ldoes not meet the 
requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
2 
indicates that enrollment for the first edition of this prize has opened. These articles do not mention 
the awards! !previously granted, such as the Petitioner's issued seven years earlier, and the 
selection process for the national-level awards which they describe does not relate to that previous 
award. 
In addition, articles regarding previous awards issued b~ I refer to the same award being 
presented at the state level. For example, an article dated May 2, 2018, which appears to have been 
posted on the website of a military school in the cit ofl ,I indicates that it received "the 
I ~ward for Entrepreneurial Education 2nd edition." A second article states that 
another institution~ lin the state of received the award in 2018. And a third article 
concerning another institution's receipt of a.__ __ _, award includes a quote from an official of the 
receiving entity, noting that this was its first such prize received "at the state level." These articles 
indicate that the I I award was previously granted at the state and local level, possibly in 
addition to the national level. Further, as with the articles noted above, the references to a first edition 
and a previous second edition indicate that the recent information in the record regarding a national 
award does not apply to the award received by the Petitioner years earlier. It has therefore not been 
established that the award given to the Petitioner was national in its scope. More importantly, we note 
that the articles in the record originate from the websites of the institutions which received the 
respective awards, indicating that recognition for the award did not extend beyond the receiving 
organization. Therefore, upon review of the evidence initially submitted, as well as that submitted in 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), we find that it does not establish that the award 
received by the Petitioner is nationally recognized. 
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 allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The evidence establishes that the Petitioner served as a judge of theses and dissertations written by 
graduate students atl I We therefore agree with the Director's determination that she meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of 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 Director stated in his decision that the evidence submitted in support of the Petitioner's claims to 
this criterion did not include scholarly articles, noting that the source of the materials submitted was 
not verifiable. However, the issue of whether an article is scholarly depends solely upon the content 
of the article and its intended readership, and is not dependent on whether it was published or in what 
type of media. On review of the evidence, we note that it includes the Petitioner's Ph.D. dissertation, 
as well as at two additional papers that include all of the hallmarks of scholarly papers. 2 In addition, 
we note that the evideny regarTng the Petitioner's dissertation indicates that the website on which it 
was published serves as s "digital library." This evidence sufficiently establishes that it was 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14. (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https: / /www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/P o licyManual.html. 
3 
published in a professional medium where the works of other researchers and scholars would be 
published. Accordingly, based upon the evidence of the Petitioner's dissertation, we disagree with the 
Director and find that she meets this criterion. 
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) 
In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that she played either a leading or a critical 
role for a qualifying organization or establishment. If a leading role, the evidence must establish that 
the she is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is, 
in fact, leading. If a critical role, the evidence must establish that she 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 her role, but rather the performance in it that determines whether the role is critical. 3 
In support of her assertion that she played either a leading or critical role for I l the Petitioner 
submitted three reference letters from professors at the institution under whom she studied during her 
graduate and doctoral degree programs, and who were later her colleagues. These letters generally 
relay the Petitioner's skills and accomplishments, and two of the letters describe her as "a linguist of 
extraordinary ability," but they do not establish that she played either a leading or critical role at the 
institution . .__ ___________ __. notes that the Petitioner had a good relationship with her 
students and found solutions for challenging situations, and that her "extensive teaching experience 
had great assets to our program." ~---------------~ rites that the Petitioner 
"was successful in all her evaluations," and that as a member of the Orality and Writing Group (GEOE) 
of the Brazilian National Council of Research (CNPq) she conducted linguistics research on the 
I I language, "aiming at applying the result toward the teaching of this language." 
And I I verifies that the Petitioner taught a course on 
academic writing during her graduate studies and is a member o~ l the Brazilian association 
of linguistics. None of these letters indicate that, in her duties as a teacher and researcher atl I, 
the Petitioner served as a leader for the institution as a whole, or that the role she played was of 
significant importance to its activities. 
In responding to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner also referenced her own statement letter. She 
indicates in that letter that she "spearheaded the growth and development of the linguistics education 
program, as well as performed important research for the school." However, this statement lacks 
sufficient detail regarding the impact of her work on] I overall, and is not supported by the letters 
discussed above or any other documentary evidence in the record. We therefore agree with the 
Director and find that the Petitioner does not meet 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 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14. (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https: / /www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/P o licyManual.html. 
4 
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 her 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 that she 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
5