dismissed EB-1A Case: Mental Health Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-M-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 21,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a research analyst, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(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 field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Rather, 
the Director found that the Petitioner met only two. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not correctly evaluate the evidence for three 
additional criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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 
.
Matter of A-M-S-
at 8 C.P.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 listed at 8 C.P.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. 2010).1 
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 research analyst with the Department of Mental Health. As 
he has not established the receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at 
least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director 
found that the Petitioner had judged the work of others and authored a qualifying scholarly article, 
thus satisfying the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). The record supports that 
determination. Specifically, the Petitioner reviewed a manuscript for 
He also authored ,. 
" which appeared in the 
Accordingly, at issue is whether he meets a third criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner no longer contends that he meets the published material or high 
remuneration criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (ix). Rather, his appellate statement 
addresses membership, contributions of major significance in the field, and performing in a leading 
or critical role. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (v), and (viii). He asserts that the Director did not 
correctly evaluate the evidence for these criteria. For the reasons discussed below, even if we were 
to find that the Petitioner has satisfied a third 
criterion based on one of his association memberships, 
the evidence in the aggregate does not demonstrate his eligibility for the classification. 
1 This case discus~es 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.O. Wash. 2011). 
2 
.
Matter of A-M-S-
A. Regulatory Criteria 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires documentation ofthe Petitioner's "membership 
in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding 
achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields." The Petitioner documented his membership in the following associations: 
• 
• • 
• 
The Petitioner offered membership information for two of the four associations, and 
. As is open to "individuals interested in the purpose of the Association," it does not 
require outstanding achievements. admits by invitation the top 15 percent of college 
and university sophomores, juniors, and seniors, based "solely on their academic achievements." 
is not an association "in the field for which classification is sought;" it is a general 
association that admits members from all areas of study. In addition, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that national or international experts in their field judge admission. Regardless, even if 
we found that the Petitioner meets a third criterion, the evidence in the aggregate does not establish 
his eligibility. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
We now 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. If so, a petitioner 
has met the requisite burden of proof and established eligibility for visa classification as an 
individual of"extraordinary ability." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The Petitioner's membership in while a notable academic accomplishment, is not 
indicative of wider recognition in the field. For example, he has not documented that 
which is not an association in his field, widely reports its membership admissions or that trade 
publications or the general media cover the selections. The record also lacks evidence showing that 
experienced members of the field compete for or aspire to this membership. Accordingly, it is not 
indicative of the Petitioner's status among the small percentage at the top of his field. Similarly, he 
has not demonstrated that his membership in the other organizations confirms that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim in his field. 
While the Petitioner has reviewed a manuscript for a peer-reviewed journal, he has not documented 
that participation in the peer-review process at this level is indicative of national or international 
acclaim. The widespread peer review process necessarily requires _knowledgeable members of the 
3 
.
Matter of A-M-S-
field to review manuscripts. The record, however, lacks evidence that he is credited as one of a 
small number of reviewers, that he was individually sought out by multiple journals based on his 
status in the field, or other information that might reveal that this review is consistent with a finding 
· of his acclaim. 
The Petitioner's publication record is also not indicative of his standing as one of the small 
percentage at the top of his field. As noted above, he has authored one scholarly article. Subsequent 
to the date of filing, he published his dissertation through 
While not relevant to the question of whether the Petitioner meets the authorship criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), citations of scholarly articles are relevant in the final merits 
determination. Kazarian, 596 F .3d at 1121. The record contains two articles that cite the 
Petitioner's work, but lacks corroboration that this number of citations is reflective of national or 
international acclaim. He has not offered evidence other than citations that might verify that his 
single article shows his achievements are recognized in the field. 
The remaining evidence, in addition to not satisfying any criteria, also does not support the 
Petitioner's eligibility for the classification sought. Reports of his activities on the website of the 
university he attended are not published materials about him in professional, major trade 
publications, or other major media? Regardless, they are not indicative of wider recognition of his 
achievements in the field beyond his school. A single paystub, without evidence of high-end 
earnings in the field, does not demonstrate a high salary in relation to others in the field3 or his status 
among the small percentage at the top of his field. The letter from his 
supervisor, is unsigned and does not offer examples of the Petitioner's influence beyond the 
department where he works. Accordingly, the letter is not sufficient to confirm his impact in the 
field consistent with a finding of a contribution of major significance4 . or recognition beyond his 
employer. 
With respect to his role for his employer, it is neither leading or critical for an organization with a 
distinguished reputation5 nor consistent with a finding of national or international acclaim: The 
record contains his reports for the Department of Mental Health and documentation of the 
in In general, a leading role is evident from the role, its 
duties, and how it fits within the overall hierarchy of the organization. A critical role is apparent 
from a petitioner 's impact on the entity. 
The record lacks information on the hierarchy of the Petitioner 's department. Thus, he has not 
sufficiently shown that his role is leading. With respect to whether his role is critical, he presents 
two reports that he has prepared for the , one of which 
is dated after he filed the petition. He has not offered corroboration as to how many reports 
2 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) . 
3 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) . 
4 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . 
5 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) . 
4 
.
Matter of A-M-S-
commissions or how it has utilized his reports. Ms. characterizes his recommendations as 
"valuable," but 
does not detail if and how has successfully implemented them. Regardless, as 
mentioned above, she did not sign her letter, which diminishes its evidentiary value. Finally, the 
Collaborative Summary Report for the Wraparound Program does not mention the 
Petitioner and the record does not explain the nature of his role with that program. Accordingly, he 
has not sufficiently established that his involvement in these projects is indicative of his status 
arnong the small percentage at the top of his field or acclaim at the national or international level. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility. The 
record verifies his membership in an association that recognizes academic rank; his review of one 
manuscript; the website of the university he attended reported on his activities; his authorship of a 
single, minimally-cited article; and his compensated employment. These documents and others in 
the record are indicative of a successful student who has secured employment and performed 
valuable work for his employer. These accomplishments, however, do not constitute extensive 
evidence confirming that his achievements have been recognized in the field and are not consistent 
with sustained national or international acclaim. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because the record in the aggregate does not support a finding that he 
has reached the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-M-S-, ID# 409731 (AAO July 21, 2017) 
5