dismissed EB-1A Case: Mathematics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-T-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 22. 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140. IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner. a mathematics professor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in education. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(h )( 1 )(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 tield through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140. Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she meets at least three of the ten criteria. 
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 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 
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. 
.
Ma!ler olC-T-
internationally recognized a\vard). Alternatively. he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evid ence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships. and published material in certain medi a ). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4) allow s a petitioner to submit comparable material if he o r she is able to demon strate 
that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his or her occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets the se initial evidence requirements, we then co nsider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the reco rd shows sustained 
national or intern ational acclaim and demon strates that the individual is amo ng the small percent age 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USC/S'. 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discussing a hvo-pa11 revie w where the documentation is first count ed and then. if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria. considered in the context of a tina! merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers , 4 F. Supp. 3d 126. 131-32 (D.O.C. 2013); Rijalv . USC{)' . 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the ''truth is to he 
determ ined not by the quantity of evidenc e alo ne but by its qualit y.'' as well as the principl e that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for releva nce, probative value. and credibility. both indi vidually 
and within the context of the totalit y of the evidence, to determine \Vhether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." lvfatter ofChawathe. 25 I&N Dec. 369,3 76 (AAO 20 10). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner states that she has served "as a full-time professor of mathematics at Southwest 
campus ofthe since the Fall of 20 15." As she has not indicat ed 
or established that she has received a major , internationally recogni zed awa rd. the Petition er must 
satisfy 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 met only the authorship of scholarly art icles criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).
1 
On appeal, the Petiti oner contests the Direct or's find ings regarding three 
criteria: nationally or internationally recogn ized awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). original 
contributions of major significance at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and critical role for distinguished 
organizations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 2 For the reasons discu ssed below·. the record does not 
support a findin g that the Petitioner satisfie s at least three criteria . 
Documental ion oft he alien ·s receipt of'lesser nationally or internationally r eco~nized pri=es 
or mmrdsfor excellence in the .field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h )(3)( i). 
The Petitioner submitted a certificate indic ating that she received a' 
' (2002) in recognition of her .. superior academic 
achievement.·· In her appea l statement. she asser ts that this certitic ate is ''an important scholarly 
1 
For example, the record includes an article the Petitioner authored in This evidence supports the 
Director's finding that the Petitioner satisfies the regulatory criterion at 8 C. F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
2 
The Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the high salary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), which we will 
also address in our decision. 
2 
.
Matter of C- T-
award in a STEM [Science Technology Engineering Mathematics] field'' and that only a few 
students receive this award each year. The record, however, does not include sufficient evidence to 
demonstrate that this student scholarship is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
for excellence in her field. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a certificate from 
stating that she completed course " 
also offered three certificates from her alma mater. the 
and · 
· (20 16 ). She 
for completing its 
graduate student certification programs in 2011. The aforementioned certificates reflect completion 
of graduate student and professional development training at the Petitioner's university and college 
rather than her receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. 
She has not established therefore that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence (~f the alien ·s original scientific, scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
conthbutions ofmajor significance in thefield 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner submitted her Ph.D. dissertation, publications. and presentations; citation evidence for 
her published work; and a letter of recommendation from a professor of 
economics at The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of this evidence. but 
found that it was not sufficient to demonstrate that her work constituted original contributions of 
major significance in the field. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with that determination. 
With respect to the Petitioner's published work, the regulations contain a separate and distinct 
criterion concerning the authorship of scholarly articles in professional publications at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), a category that she has already satisfied. In Kazarian r. USC!S, 580 F.3d I 030, 
1036 (9th Cir. 2009). the court held that publications and presentations are not sufficient evidence 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance" in the field. 
In 2010, the Kazarian court reat1irn1ed its holding that we did not 
abuse its discretion in finding that the 
petitioner had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. Furthermore. 
there is no presumption that every published article or conference presentation is a contribution of 
major significance in the field; rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact of her article 
or presentation. 
As one type of evidence of the impact of her work. the Petitioner provides a 2017 
citation report indicating that her 2009 article entitled' 
was .. cited by 6." 3 
This report does not show any further cites to her remaining publications. Generally. citations can 
confirm that the field has taken interest in a scholar's work. In this case. the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the citations to her work, considered both individually and collectively, are 
commensurate with contributions "of major significance in the field." 
3 
The record reflects that three of these citations were self-cites by the Petitioner or her coauthor. 
.
Matter q(C-T-
In addition, as another form of evidence under this criterion, the record includes a letter from 
discussing the Petitioner· s unique skills, academic success. and devotion to her students at 
notes that the Petitioner is working on an "unpublished·· project involving "a 
Chemical alphabet developed using genetics , which will then be used to convert her self-composed 
poems written in multiple languages, into musical pieces."' The evidence . however. does not show 
that the Petitioner's work has substantiall y influenced her field or otherwise rises to the level of 
original contributions of major significance in mathematics . 
The Petitioner explains on appeal that her current research involves studying ''the connections 
between Mathematics, poetry, music and genetics.·· She states: "I invented a chemical alphabet by 
using Mathematics and Genetics, which I use in order to convert my published poetry into DNA 
sequences, then into classical music pieces." The Petitioner further indicates that this project offers 
a cross-curricular teaching method for helping students '·to better understand some algebraic 
concepts" and to improve their problem solving and communication skills. The record. however. 
does not indicate that her instructional method has atTected the field in a major way, that her approach 
has been widely utilized , or that her work otherwise represents a contribution of major significance in 
the tield. Without sufficient evidence demonstrating that her work constitutes original contributions 
of major significance, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pet:fiJrmed in a leading or critical role fhr organizations or 
establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that she has performed in a leading or critical role as "a full-time Instructor 
of Mathematics '' at She asserts that her completion of ' 
certifies her to teach online STEM courses and demonstrates her critical role as an educator. In 
addition. the Petitioner notes that she has received favorable evaluations from her students and that 
many of them have '·transferred to four year universities," which also demonstrate her critical role. 
She further maintains that is a ''prestigious" college and "one of the community 
college[s] in the country." 
In general , a leading role is evidenced from the role itself , while a critical role is one in which an 
individual was responsible for the success or standing of the organization . The Petitioner did not 
provide an organi zational chart or other similar evidence to establish where her role 1it within the 
overall hierarchy of The submitted documentation does not differentiate the Petitioner from 
other faculty so as to demonstrate her leading role. and does not establish that her course 
instruction has contributed to the college in a way that was of substantial importance to its success or 
standing. Furthermore, the record does not include sut1icient documentary evidence showing that 
has a distinguished reputation relative to other colleges and universities in the United States . 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
4 
.
Matter olC-T-
Evidence that the alien has command ed a high salary or other significantly high remunemtion 
fiJr services, in relation to others inth ejie ld. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for this criterion, she does not continue to do so 
on appeal, nor does the record support a finding that she meets it. The Petitioner initially submitted 
a letter from Hum an Resources stating that she was "currentl y on Faculty Salary Plan: FAB; 
Grade: F12 ; Step ~- Annualized Salary: $64,863.00 .'' The Director found that the Petitioner 's 
employment contract and facult y pay sca le did not show that she '' has commanded a high 
salary or other significantly high remuneration for her services as a profe sso r working in the field of 
mathematics." 4 According to the faculty pay scale, there are 20 steps above the Petitioner' s 
step 8 pay level. The Petitioner's salary is substantially below the "Max Step 28" level , a nd 
therefore does not show that she earns a high salary relative to other faculty at For example. 
the Max Step 28 salary ranges from $75 ,677 to $96,383. Regardles s, as the salary information 
provided is limited to faculty at the Petitioner' s college, it is not sufficient to show that she has 
recei ved a high salary '·in relation to others in the tield." Accordingly. the Petitioner has not 
established that she meet s this criterion. 
liT. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because she has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement or document s 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 fully addres s the totality of the material s in a 
tina! merits determination. Kazar ian, 596 F.3d at 119-20 . Neve 11heless. we advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the agg regate , concluding that it does not support a findin g that the Petitioner 
has established the leve l of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter oj'C-T-, ID# 832996 (AAO Dec. 22, 2017) 
~ After discussing the relevant evidence and the basis for the Petitioner's ineligibility under this criterion, the Director' s 
decision erroneously s tated that the Petitioner's documentation ''meets this criterion.·· Despite this clear typographical 
error, the Director's analysis on the issue is otherwise sound. 
5