dismissed EB-1A Case: Military Scholarship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-M-H-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 15,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a military scholar, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
education. 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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had only shown that he met one of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. · 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he meets four criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(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 
.
Maller of S-M-H-
requirements. First, a pettt10ner 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 CF.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. 20 10) 
(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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. 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 ind~vidually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a military scholar. As he has not established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C .F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner had only met one of these criteria. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets three other criteria which we will discuss below. 1 Upon 
review, we conclude that the evidence in the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
meets the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relaiing to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The record contains evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner was a significant contributor to the 
documentary that aired on and the 
in 2009. The record contains a letter from the Joint Managing Director of 
which is the company that co-produced the documentary with 
She asserts that the Petitioner "was one of the historical consultants on the 
firm and was also a filmed contributor. " She adds that "he took part in important research into the 
1 While we note that the Petitioner originally indicated that he met the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3Xiv), he 
has not raised this issue on appeal and the evidence in the record does not establish that he meets this criterion. 
2 
.
Matter ofS-M-H- . 
naval history and the underwater archaeology, helping to pinpoint the wrecks and plan the 
exploration of the and " 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's expertise in providing research and performing as a filmed 
contributor for this documentary, the record does not establish that this documentary was about him. 
In her letter, specifically states that followed the expedition 
of retired United States Navy officer, professor of oceanography at the 
and the discoverer of the Titanic, as he searched for the shipwrecks 
involved in a WWI naval engagement." She further indicates that the Petitioner "offered the Turkish 
naval view point as well as offering an emotional touchstone from a Turkish perspective " and that he 
"played a critical role in assisting us with the administrative hurdles that were often put in our way 
by the authorities." Thus, the documentary focuses on and his search for shipwrecks and 
the Petitioner provided a support role in.the production. In addition, the record does not contain a 
transcript of the portion of this documentary in which he was interviewed, and therefore, we are 
unable to determine whether the program satisfies this criterion. 
The record contains two newspaper articles about the Petitioner and others that reference him briefly 
in the and newspapers , among others, but the record does not contain 
full translations of these articles. Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a 
full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The translator must certify that the 
English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to 
translate from the foreign language into English . ld Because the Petitioner did not submit a 
properly certified English language translation of these articles, we cannot meaningfully determine 
whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports the Petitioner ' s claims. 
Even if the record contained certified translations of this documentation, the two letters that are 
about the Petitioner include the ru1icle in the newspaper and 
in the magazine. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that these newspapers 
constitute major media. Accordingly, the Petitioner does not meet this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific , scholarly , artistic , athletic , or busine ss-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) (v). 
The Director held that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his contributions have risen to the level 
of major significance in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his four book publications 
and thirteen ru1icle publications are of major significance , particularly when viewed alongside the 
expert statements provided by members of the military community. First, we note that the Petitioner 
has not indicated how his published work constitutes contributions of major significance. The 
record indicates that he has published material pertaining to the fortification , battles , and other 
military history in Turkey from 1770 to 1918. However, the Petitioner has not shown the impact 
these publications have had in the field. . . 
3 
.
Matter ofS-M-H-
In a letter from , retired Lieutenant General in the U.S. Army, he asserts that 
the Petitioner 's "background with the Turkish military, his specialties which include Maritime, 
World History, European History, Maritime History ... and his knowledge regarding Turkish 
politics and regional dynamic s makes him a leading scholar and expert with respect to the situation 
in the Middle East region and issues that have a direct impact on the United States' interest in this 
area." further states and that "[the Petitioner 's] knowledge would be extremely 
helpful to our country's ongoing ability to determine and make strategic decisions with respect to 
diploma tic and military issues." This refers to prospective contributi ons that the Petitioner will make 
rather than contributions that he has made. 
Similarly , one of two letters from a retired commander in the U.S. Navy , references 
the Petitioner's resume and states that the Petitioner "is recognized internally for his work as a 
student and as practitioner of strategic naval warfare" and that "[h]is understanding for the military 
and political factors inside Turkey ... makes him an important , indeed critical, voice that U.S. 
policy makers need to hear." This letter referenc es the Petitioner 's experience and understanding of 
Turkish military, but it also addresses prospective contributions that the Petitioner may make and 
does not establish that he h as already demonstrated con~ributions of major significance. The 
evidence in the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner 's contributions are of major 
significance in the field of military scholarship , and we conclude that he does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the fie ld, in professio nal or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(vi). 
The Direct or determined that the Petitioner meets this criterion. The Petitioner submits evidence of 
articles he has published pertaining to certain naval battles during World War One in the 
citing the prestige of this magazine. ~ccordingly, we find that the Petitioner meets 
this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perform ed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguish ed ~eputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) . 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in tpe overall organizational hierarchy and through the 
role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the Petitioner's impact on the 
organization or the establishment' s activities. The Petitioner's performance in this role should establish 
whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. · 
The Directo r 
found that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion, noting counsel 's statements 
regarding the Petitioner ' s role in the Turkish ~ilitary and holding that the record did not contain 
additional corroborating evidence of this role. The Director also held that governmental groups do 
not qualify as organizations or establishments for purposes of meeting this criterion. A second letter 
from states that the Petitioner served as a captain in the Turkish Navy overseeing a 
frigate and later as a Commodo re overseeing ten ships and more than one thousand officers and 
sailors. 
4 
.
Matter ofS-M-H-
In her letter , Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, indicates 
that the Petitioner rose to the ranks of Commodore of the Turkish Training Division . The record 
contains a Service Certification from the Admiral of the Turkish Naval Forces regarding the 
Petitioner service as a commodore in the Turkish Navy, which corroborates the information in these 
letters. The record contains sufficient evidence demonstrating the distinguished reputation of the 
Turkish military. We find that the Petitioner has persuasively demonstrated on appeal that the 
Petitioner's role overseeing a frigate and later a significant portion of the Turkish Navy constitutes a 
leading role in an organization with a distinguished reputation. Therefore, the Petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he 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 fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-M-H-, ID# I 081749 (AAO May 15, 20 18) 
5