dismissed EB-1A Case: Mathematics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-A-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : JULY 23, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140 , IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , a mathematician , 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 Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140 , Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had shown that she only met two of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria , of which she must meet at least three . 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she meets three criteria . 
Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act make s 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 M-A-M-
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 of the 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). 
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) 
( 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a mathematician at.__ _______ __, College. As she has not received a major, 
internationally recognized award, the record must demonstrate that she satisfies at least three of the 
ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the 
Petitioner had met the criteria for judging and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(vi), respectively, but not for awards, membership, original contributions of major significance, and 
leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v), and (viii). On appeal, the Petitioner 
maintains that she meets these criteria. Upon reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that 
the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least 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 Director noted that the Petitioner submitted evidence of being awarded fellowships to study and 
research grants, concluding that, without additional corroborating evidence, these do not qualify as 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field. The Director noted that fellowships are not nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field because only students, and not experts in the field, compete for 
them. He indicated that the Petitioner had not established that research grants are given for excellence 
in the field. 
On apral, Te Petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion on account of her research grant awards 
at the University of,__ ______ ____, and at the I I University of Science and 
1 We note that the Petitioner received the 2018 research award atc=J after the date the petition was filed and thus 
cannot be used to establish eligibility. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the illlllligration 
benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
2 
Matter of M-A-M-
[ her recognition awards froJ I College and the Missouri J,__ __ __. 
--------,.-------___.l and an outstanding professor award from the Chi Omega sorority at the 
,__ __ ~!University of Science and Technology. Although the Petitioner contends these awards are 
well-known in the field, she has not submitted evidence to support that assertion or demonstrate that 
these awards are nationally or internationally recognized to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
We also note that the Petitioner has not submitted evidence of the criteria upon which these awards 
are based; thus, it is unclear whether they are given for excellence in the field. Documentation in the 
record indicates that thel lgrant program was established to encourage and support research and 
leverage external fonding, and that it seeks to enhance the university's role as a research institution, 
farther professional growth and development, and provide support for scholars. It also indicates that 
preference is given to junior faculty in the allocation of fonds. Furthermore, the criteria for evaluation 
for the award identifies factors such as scholarly or creative merit, likelihood of the proposed project 
resulting in an original contribution to the field, and potential to receive fonding from external sources; 
however, it does not indicate that applicants are evaluated on their demonstrated excellence in their 
fields. Additionally, the record lacks documentation regarding the research grant from the I I 
University of Science and Technology to determine ifit was awarded for excellence in the field. 
Similarly, the certificates and letters of appreciation that the Petitioner has submitted the award from 
I _ I College indicates it was given for public presentation of intellectual and 
creative scholarship. The certificate from the Chi Omega sorority notes that it was given in gratitude 
for her work preparing students for future careers. Likewise, the letters of appreciation relate to her 
work and participation in mentoring and study sessions. These awards appear to relate to her 
pedagogical work as a professor, rather than excellence in the field of mathematics, as required by the 
regulation. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established her eligibility for this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in thefieldfor which class[fication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that her membership in the American Mathematical Society (AMS), 
the Mathematical Association of America (MAA), as well as for her position on the Math Alliance 
Executive Board and for being a ~----------~Fellow in 2009. 
In his decision, the Director reviewed the membership requirements for both the AMS and the MAA 
and found that neither organization required outstanding achievements for membership, as required 
by the regulatory criterion. He noted that AMS membership is open to anyone who supports the 
mission of the society, while the MAA had no membership requirements beyond the payment of dues. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director. Although the Petitioner submitted 
documentation about both organizations with the appeal, it does not overcome the Director's concerns 
or establish eligibility. For example, the section on AMS membership in the organization's annual 
report for 2016 welcomes new members, but provides no information about membership requirements. 
Similarly, the by-laws for the MAA identify three categories of membership in Article 2, but do not 
set forth the qualifications for any of them. As such, the record does not establish that either the AMS 
or the MAA require outstanding achievements 
3 
Matter of M-A-M-
The Director also noted that the record lacked information about the membership requirements for the 
Math Alliance or its executive board, another organization the Petitioner claims establishes her 
eligibility. On appeal, she has submitted screenshots identifying her as one of the executive board 
members for the I I chapter of the organization and discussing the history of the 
organization, but provides no evidence showing that the position requires outstanding achievements, 
as required by the regulation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims for the first time that herl !Fellowship in 2009 satisfies 
this criterion. While the record contains screenshots on how to apply for al I Fellowship 
wit~ I University, the material provided does not describe the eligibility criteria 
for the position. As such, the record does not establish that it requires outstanding achievements as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established eligibility under this criterion. 
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 spec[fication for which class[fication is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director held that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record reflects that the Petitioner has 
conducted reviews for the Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, the Journal of Inequalities and 
Applications, and the Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences, among other work as a judge of the 
work of others. Therefore, the Petitioner has established that she meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfy. She 
must demonstrate that his contributions are original and scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related in nature. The contributions must have already been realized, rather than being 
prospective possibilities. She must also establish that the contributions rise to the level of major 
significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and thus has meaning. See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor 
Fund, L.P., 51 F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995), quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 
2003). "Contributions of major significance" connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly 
impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. 
The Director cited letters in the record froml 11 I andl I, noting that they 
did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's contributions are consistent with major 
significance. On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional letters attesting to the extent of her 
contributions. However, most of these letters discuss her work in mentoring other students, her 
innovative presentations, and the research grants she has received, but these details do not demonstrate 
how her work has been implemented in the field. For example, I L a professor of 
mathematics at I I College states that "[ the Petitioner] has been a driving force 
4 
Matter of M-A-M-
for the mathematics community at the college, the university and on the national level," highlighting 
her work as a "reviewer for the largest mathematical databases in the world" and as a mentor and 
organizer of research activities. I I indicates that she "has a spectacular talent for motivating 
and engaging students to present their results." She concludes that "[the Petitioner] is an outstanding, 
internationally recognized mathematician that has made significant contributions to her area of 
research." Merely repeating the language of the statute or 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), afI' d, 905 
F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729 1997 WL 188942 *5 
(S.D.N.Y. 1997). Furthermore, letters from colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions 
or detail how those contributions have influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d at 1036: aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115. 
We note that two letters discuss the Petitioner's proposals to the '.__ __________ __, 
Research Initiative," indicating that these were published in the Proceedings of SPIE journal. 
However, the record does not contain evidence demonstrating that this work has had a significant 
impact on the field. 
The Petitioner also addresses her scholarly articles and the rate in which they have been cited by other 
scholars and experts in the field. We note that the record contains a Google Scholar report indicating 
that the Petitioner has published five scholarly works that have cumulatively been cited 15 times. 
While the record contains other documentation indicating she had published other scholarly articles, 
much of this documentation has not been translated into English with an accompanying certified 
translation under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Thus, the Petitioner has not explained how her publication 
and citation history demonstrate that she has made original contributions of major significance in the 
field. 
In addition, the fact that the Petitioner has published articles that other researchers have referenced is 
not, by itself, indicative of a contribution of major significance. Publications are not sufficient to 
establish eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), absent evidence that they were of "major 
significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), affd in part, 596 F.3d 
1115. Furthermore, contributions of major significance connotes that the petitioner's work has 
significantly impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. While the Petitioner submits a 
scholar! article she co-authored with two of her coll ea ues at College entitled, 
she has not '---------------------------------~ submitted supporting documentation that establishes how this has impacted the field. For these 
reasons, and those discussed above, the Petitioner has not established 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 held that the Petitioner met this criterion an account of his articles published in the 
Journal of Logic Analysis, the Journal of Geometric Analysis, and Topology Proceedings, among 
others. Thus, the Petitioner has established that she meets this criterion. 
5 
Matter of M-A-M-
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). 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is or was a leader. 2 If a critical role, 
the evidence must establish that the petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance 
to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. A supporting role may be considered 
"critical" if the petitioner's performance in the role is or was important in that way. It is not the title 
of the petitioner's role, but rather her performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. 3 
The Director held that the Petitioner had not established that her position as a professor at I l the 
University of I State University, I I University of Science and 
Technology, the School of Information Technology, thel I University of Technology, 
and the University of.__ __ _. amounted to leading or critical roles. The record reflects that the 
Petitioner was a professor at these institutions, but she has not submitted any evidence indicating that 
she was in a leadership position to constitute a leading role. 
The Petitioner cites letters from former colleagues at the University ofl I and~I _____ _. 
Universitx, but these do not establish that she performed a critical role at these universities. For 
example,L I associate professor at the University ofl J states that he was 
impressed with the Petitioner's teaching, noting her innovative methods such as encouraging students 
to create three-dimensional models in multi-variable calculus. The letters from other professors 
similarly attest to the Petitioner's engaging manner of teaching students, but the record does not 
contain evidence demonstrating how the Petitioner's role as a professor at these institutions was of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization's activities to constitute a critical role. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that she meets the requirements of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because she has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement, or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to folly address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. 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 appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 IO (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i- l 40-evidence-pm-6002-005-1.pdf. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
6 
Matter of M-A-M-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-A-M-, ID# 3349591 (AAO July 23, 2019) 
7