dismissed EB-1A Case: Mathematics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19961825 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a doctoral student and teaching assistant, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability in the field of mathematics. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 
8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 evidence requirements of this immigrant visa classification 
through evidence meeting at least three of the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) or showing that he 
received a major, internationally-recognized award. 
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 )(1) 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 
international 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 criteria 
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. 20 l 0) 
( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently a doctoral student and teaching assistant at the University ofl I I I and has stated that he intends to pursue a teaching career at this or another institution. He holds 
a master of science degree in mathematics fromc=]and another from the I I 
University of Russia. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he 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 did not meet any of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the 
three evidentiary criteria discussed below. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find 
that he does not meet the initial evidentiary requirement for the requested classification. 
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 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
As evidence of meeting the requirements of this criterion, the Petitioner submitted reference letters 
describing his activities as a teaching assistant and student mentor aO ~--------~ 
the Petitioner's current advisor, states that the Petitioner mentors several undergraduate students, 
which he describes as "beyond the call of duty" and "an indication of [the Petitioner's] commitment 
to mentoring, teaching, and developin as a leader." Further details of the mentorship program in 
which the Petitioner participates, th...__ ____ __,..-----~-~---------' are provided 
b~ la fellow doctoral candidate at He notes that mentors and students spend several 
hours per week in researching an area of math, and that at the end of each academic quarter the students 
in the program give presentations. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the presentations are a "competition-like element" of thd 
program, and that they are evaluated by a panel. However, neither the letter from I I or the 
information from thel ~ebpage in the record mention these evaluation panels described by the 
Petitioner, nor is there any indication that he served on such a panel. In addition, this evidence does 
not support the Petitioner's assertion that his mentoring of students in the I I program involves 
judging the work of others in the field. The information froml I describes the program as a 
quarter-long reading project in which undergraduate student mentees meet with the graduate student 
mentors on a weekly basis to discuss readings. While his mentoring activity is not part of the 
Petitioner's duties as a teaching assistant, the evidence does not demonstrate that it involves judging 
of the work of others in the field. We therefore agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner 
does not meet 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) 
In his decision, the Director stated that the Petitioner's papers inl lcould not be considered to have 
been published in professional or major trade publications or other major media, nor could unpublished 
conference papers. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director failed to consider the evidence 
of his publications in Russian journals, as well as a textbook "used by hundreds of students." He notes 
that these journals include Inverse Problems, Differential Equations, and SIAM Journal on Control 
and Optimization. While the evidence shows that the Petitioner authored an article which was 
published in Inverse Problems inl I 2015, there is no evidence of the publication of his work 
in the other two publications claimed. We further note the evidence shows that abstracts of papers 
presented by the Petitioner at several conferences were published in the proceedings of those 
conferences. As such, we disagree with the Director and find that the Petitioner has established that 
he meets this criterion. 
II. CONCLUSION 
We conclude that the Petitioner meets the criterion relating to his authorship of scholarly articles, but 
does not satisfy the criterion regarding his service as a judge of the work of others. Although he also 
claims to meet an additional criterion relating to original scientific contributions of major significance, 
we need not reach this additional claim. Because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary 
requirement for this classification by meeting at least three of the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
we reserve this issue. 1 
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 
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. 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
3 
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 T&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his 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. l 0 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )( 1 )(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 he is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(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. 
4