dismissed EB-1A Case: Mathematical Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19809940 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 15, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a financial management business, seeks to classify the Beneficiary , a mathematical 
researcher, 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 Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the 
Beneficiary satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, the Petitioner did not 
show the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among 
that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
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)(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. 
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. 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. 20l3);Rijalv. 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, the Beneficiary must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner met four of the 
claimed evidentiary criteria relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), scholarly articles at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and high salary at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). However, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not show that the 
Beneficiary garnered sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise, demonstrating that he is one of that small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field. On appeal, we will review the totality of the evidence in the context 
of the final merits determination below. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Beneficiary's sustained national or 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,EvaluationofEvidenceSubmittedwith Ce1tainFormI-l 40Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 13 (Dec. 22, 20 I 0), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/H1MUPolicyManuaLhtml (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extra ordinary ability under section 2 03(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act). 
2 
international acclaim, 2 that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, 
and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a 
final merits determination, we analyze a beneficiary's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in 
the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown the 
Beneficiary's eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary received a bachelor of Sf ieuce from University 
in 2011 and a doctor of philosophy from the University ofl _I in 2016. In addition, the 
Beneficiary served as a research fellow and lecturer at the I _ the University of 
from 2016 to 2018. Moreover, the Petitioner has employed the Beneficiary as a 
mathematical researcher since 2019. As indicated above, the Director determined thatthe Beneficiary 
reviewed a few papers, authored some scholarly material, and serves in a critical position while being 
compensated at a higher rate by the Petitioner. However, the record does not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary enjoys a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723, 59(Sept. 19, 1990). 
Relating to the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 4 The record 
reflects that the Beneficiary participated in reviewing five papers for three journals and two 
conferences. However, the Petitioner did not establish that these instances place the Beneficiary 
among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner 
did not show, for example, how the Beneficiary's review experience compares to others at the very 
top of the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that these five judging events, occurring approximately 
within four years from filing of the petition, contributes to a finding that the Beneficiary has a career 
of acclaimed work in the field or indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. 
See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not establish, for 
instance, that the Beneficiary garnered wide attention from the field based on his work reviewing 
journal and conference papers. Moreover, participating in the peer review process does not 
automatically demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary ability and sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. Without evidence that sets him apart from others in 
his field, such as evidence that he has a consistent history of completing a substantial number of review 
requests relative to others, served in editorial positions for distinguished journals or publications, or 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 14 (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and 
providingBlack's Law Dictionary's definitionof"sustain" as to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time, 
and to persist in making an effort over a long period of time). 
3 Id. at 4 (instructing that USCI S officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to detennin e if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high leve I of expertise 
of the immigrantclassification). 
4 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.I,supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained nationalorintemationalacclaim). 
3 
chaired technical committees for reputable conferences, the Petitioner has not shown that the 
Beneficiary's peer review experience places him among that small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Likewise, authorship and publication do not automaticallyplace one at the top of the field. 5 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner presented evidence showing that the Beneficiary authored three journal 
articles and four conference papers. 6 However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's publication record of seven documents in a six-year timeframe, with his most recent 
occurring approximately two years ago, is consistent with having a career of acclaimed work and 
sustaining national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b )(l)(A) of1he 
Act. The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 203 (b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act 
provide that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability 
is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation 1han 
that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704(July 5, 1991). Here, the Petitioner 
did not establish that the Beneficiary's authorships reflect being among the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner, for instance, did not show the 
significance of the Beneficiary's authorships or how his publications compare to others who are 
viewed to be at the very top of the field. 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence ofhis written work can be an indicator 
to determine the impact and recognition that his publications have had on the field and whether such 
influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by 
the Beneficiary may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that other 
mathematical researchers have been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits 
determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. 
Here, the record contains a few reference letters that briefly describe the Beneficiary's past research 
projects while pursuing his higher education but do not elaborate and explain any attention that he 
received from the field based on his written work and research. For instance,! I 
discussed the Beneficiary's research project that he presented at an A1iificial Intelligence in Statistics 
conference and described it as "insightful and unique"; however,1 ldid not indicate any 
impact it had on the field or whether the Beneficiary garnered any significant notoriety from other 
mathematical researchers or statisticians. Furthermore,! opined that the Beneficiary's 
"work has generated widespread commentary, in particular for its impact on the fields of statistics, 
machine learning and digital humanities" and broadly claimed that his "research has been cited 
numerous times by other leading authors, whose works are also published [in] prestigious journals." 
I I did not provide specific information, such as identifying the authors, papers, and publications 
that cited to the Beneficiary's research or the number of citations to each of the Beneficiary's published 
works, and explain how those citations sufficiently demonstrate a level of interest in the field 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim or represent attention at a level 
5 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1,supra,at 13 (providing that publications should be evaluated to 
determine whether they were indicativeofbeingoneofthat small percentage who has risen to the very top ofthe field of 
endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
6 The record contains threeadditionalarticles indicating the Beneficiary's authorship; however, neither the Petitionernor 
the material shows anypublication. 
4 
consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of his field. See section 203 (b )(1 )(A) of 
the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Likewise, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary's written or presented material garnered him 
any national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not 
submit corroborating citatory documentation or other evidence consistent with a very high standard 
requiring the petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that required for lesser 
classifications. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. Further, the Petitioner did not show that the field has been 
influenced by the Beneficiary's work or that it has somehow impacted the field in a significant manner. 
As it pertains to his roles, as mentioned above, the Beneficiary served as a research fellow and lecturer 
at the I I the University of I I for approximately two years and has been 
employed as a mathematical researcher by the Petitioner since 2019. However, the Petitioner did not 
establish whether the Beneficiary's employment resulted in attention or recognition from the field, 
reflecting a career of acclaimed work in the field or a very high standard to present more extensive 
documentation than that required. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
While he submitted a 2018 reference letter froml I, who indicated the Beneficiary's 
postdoctoral researcher position within thel the University of and a 
screenshot from the school's website showing that he taught a course, the evidence does not 
demonstrate that the received any national or international acclaim from this position. Similarly, the 
Petitioner provided letters describing the Beneficiary's contributions in his mathematical researcher 
position, such as developing and enhancing mathematical machine-learning and statistical algorithms, 
leading the institutional funds, and mentoring new hires. 7 The letters, however, do not discuss whether 
any of the Beneficiary's professional achievements with the Petitioner garnered the Beneficiary any 
national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. Further, the letters do not show 
the Beneficiary's recognition on a national or international scale, consistent with being among that 
small percentage at the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2). Here, the Petitioner did not 
establish how the Beneficiary's roles resulted in widespread acclaim from his field, that he drew 
significant attention from the greater field, or that overall field considers him to be at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Finally, although the record reflects the Beneficiary's income with the Petitioner, the record does not 
establish that the Beneficiary commands earnings commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not show that the 
Beneficiary's wages are tantamount to an individual who is among that small percentage at the ve1y 
top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). For example, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate how the Beneficiary's salary compared to others at the very top of his field, or that he 
received notoriety or attention based on his earnings separating himself from others in the field or 
placing him in the upper echelon. In addition, the Petitioner did not document the Beneficiary's 
earnings from other employers, including the ______ the University of I I 
showing a consistent history and recognition from the field of the Beneficiary's extraordinary ability. 
See 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
7 
See letters from __ head of equities research and institutional funds, and chief operating 
officer. 
5 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Beneficiaty's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for 
the Beneficiary, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those 
progressing toward the top. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) 
( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal 
quotation marks omitted) (finding that the extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive 
by design,"); Hamalv. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (HamalII), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 
(D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of 
prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. l 9-cv-2534, 
2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) (citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of 
petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) 
(stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win this 
designation"); Lee v. Ziglar, 23 7 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of 
the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 
While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the 
classification sought, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the Beneficiary has sustained 
national or international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. See section 
203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
C. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Beneficiary previously 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 Beneficiary, 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 25 
(D.D.C. 2003); IKEA USv. US Dept. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108, ajf'd, 905 F. 2d at 41. 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. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-
2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's 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. 
6