dismissed EB-1A Case: Mathematics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-S-J-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 25,2016 
CERTIFICATION OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a mathematician who proposes to found a company and serve as its chief executive 
officer, seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). This classification makes visas 
available to foreign nationals 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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us. 
We withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter for further consideration and entry of 
a new decision. The matter is now before us on certification. 
On certification, the Petitioner submits a statement concerning the benefit of his research, and 
correspondence pertaining to a separate matter before the Board oflmmigration Appeals. 
Upon de novo review, the petition will be denied. 
I. LAW 
By statute, the extraordinary ability immigrant visa classification requires that foreign nationals 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and present extensive documentation of their 
achievements. 
Specifically, section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act explains that a foreign national is described as an individual 
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 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-S-J-
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The implementing regulation defmes the term "extraordinary ability" as referring only to those 
individuals in that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). To meet this definition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part 
analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim and recognition of achievements in the 
field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this documentation, then he/she must provide sufficient qualifying evidence 
that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. 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 Rij"al v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 
1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) proper 
application of Kazarian), aff'd , 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 
131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for 
relevance, probative value, and credibility , both individually and within the context ofthe totality of 
the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). 
In addition, the statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in his area 
of expertise in the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(ii) ; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the 
petitioner detailing plans on how he intends to continue his work in the United States. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria' 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly , artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner submitted a paper describing his invention entitled 
The record also includes documentation indicating that the Petitioner authored 
1 We have reviewed all ofthe evidence the Petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the Petitioner asserts 
that he meets or for which the Petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-S-J-
a book entitled There is no documentary 
evidence showing, however, that the Petitioner's book and invention have affected the field in a 
major way, have been frequently cited by independent researchers, or 
have otherwise risen to the level 
of original contributions of major significance in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a December 2015 letter from stating: 
[The Petitioner's] research in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) is 
zeitgeist for cyber security and the entire STEM field itself. The unprescience from 
the research institutions, government agencies, [S]ilicon [V]alley, private equity and 
the venture capital first is procrastinating this endeavor .... 
mentioned the Petitioner's STEM research, but did not provide any specific examples of 
how his work was of major significance in the field. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not 
identifY specific contributions or their impact in the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. 
US Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). In addition, uncorroborated assertions are 
insufficient. See Visinscaia, 4 F .Supp.3d at 134-3 5; Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791, 
795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements ... submitted in evide.nce as expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not required to 
accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way questionable"). The submission of 
reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. Id. See 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does 
not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
On certification, the Petitioner submits a personal statement asserting that his "research is the 
zeitgeist for curbing the global terrorism and is beyond the unicorn tech. bubble." The plain 
language of the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's 
original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic , or business-related contributions" that are "of major 
significance in the field." Here, the evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of 
original scientific contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" 
is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, 
L.P., 51 F.3d 28, 31 (3rct Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nct Cir. Sep 15, 
2003). Without additional, specific evidence showing that the Petitioner's work has been unusually 
influential, substantially impacted the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of D-S-J-
Evidence of the alien' s authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in prQfossional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
As previously mentioned, the record 
reflects that the Petitioner authored a book entitled 
The Director noted that the book appears to "have been 
published by the Petitioner himself ' and that there was no evidence showing "the number of books 
sold." In addition, the submitted documentation does not indicate that the Petitioner's book is a 
professional or major trade publication or other type of major media. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
C. Continuing Work in the Area of Expertise 
The Petitioner submitted a July 2013 Jetter stating: "The petitioner is proposing the Institutional 
Investors and Venture Capitalists for partnering the endeavor in achieving the trillion dollars 
milestone with the following start-up companies: and 
The Director indicated that while the Petitioner offered an "idea" for his 
employment, there was "no evidence submitted establishing the existence, viability , and profitability 
of the proposed business. " Furthermore , the record does not include any letters from prospective 
employers, evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the 
Petitioner providing sufficiently detailed plans on how he intends to continue his work in the United 
States . . Therefore , we uphold the Director 's determination that the Petitioner did not satisfy the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the Petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories , in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion , the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor ," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise. " 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that he has failed to meet the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting 
evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and ( 4). 
4 
Matter of D-S-J-
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits 
determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a finding 
that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 2 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that he will continue to work in his area of expertise in 
the United States. 
The Director's decision will be affirmed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an 
independent and alternate basis for denial. 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The certified decision of the Director, Nebraska Service Center, is affirmed, and the 
petition is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofD-S-J-, ID# 16980 (AAO Mar. 25, 2016) 
2 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
5