dismissed EB-1A Case: Military

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-C-S-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 17. 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a in the seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)( 1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l )(A). This tirst 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 not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brieL contending that he satisfies 
at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we \viii dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified immigrants \vith extraordinary 
ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences. arts. education. business. or 
athletics \vhich 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. 
.
Malter of M-C-S-
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. 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 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. USCJS', 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 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) : 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 individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to he proven is 
probably true." Matter of'Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 201 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a currently stationed with the 
in Virginia. Because he has 
not indicated or 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). In denying the petition, the 
Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the initial evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the following criteria : awards under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). memberships under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(J)(ii). judging under 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) , original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). scholarly articles under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) , leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) , and high salar y 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude 
that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at 
least three criteria. 
2 
.
A1atter ofM-C-S-
Documentation (~f the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awardsfor excellence in thefield ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record indicates that the Petitioner received the Army Commendation Medal and Joint Service 
Commendation Medal in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Accordingly. the 
Petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation (~f the alien's membership in associations in the fieldfor which classification is 
sought. which require outstanding achievements of their members. as judged hy recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(ii). 
The Petitioner contends that his acceptance into the 
and satisfies this criterion. The 
Petitioner submitted a letter from retired Romanian \vho 
stated that almost every year, the send mid-grade officers to 
further detailed that an individual like the Petitioner is selected upon a rigorous exam 
from an elite group ofthe best officers. In addition. indicated that the Petitioner 
went through a similar process to be selected for On appeaL the Petitioner presents 
screenshots from Wikipedia regarding and a brochure for and he stresses the 
reputation of the schools and the acclaimed individuals who have attended them throughout the 
years. 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that he is a member in associations 
requiring outstanding achievements of their members. as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. The reputation or standing of an association is not the issue but whether 
outstanding achievements are required for membership. Here, as indicated by 
the Petitioner was selected to attend and rather than being granted "'membership" to 
the schools. Further, although the Wikipedia screenshots and brochure provide background 
information, history, and course offerings, they do not show the requirements for admittance into the 
military schools. In addition, stated that an individual completes an 
examination, but there is no indication from the documentation reflecting that outstanding 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. are an essential condition 
for attendance at the schools. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that his attendance at 
and satisfies this criterion. 
The Petitioner also argues "that the recruitment process for assignment to is extremely 
rigorous, and represents an induction into an association which requires outstanding achievements of 
its members." According to letter, the Petitioner was appointed ··as 
within the to the 
Moreover. the Petitioner presents a 
order stating that "arc assigned 
based on the results of a contest bet\veen candidates:· Here. the Pctitioner·s appointment as a 
Romanian liaison representative to does not reflect a membership in an association 
.
A1atter ofM-C-S-
rather than a job assignment. Further. the Romanian order does not establish that •·a contest between 
candidates" is consistent with outstanding achievements, and docs not show that his appointment is 
judged by recognized national or international experts. Accordingly. the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that 
his appointment as a Romanian representative liaison qualifies for this criterion. 
Finally, the Petitioner indicates that he is a member of the steering committee for 
He submitted a letter 
from staff otlicer within and who confirmed 
the Petitioner's voting membership status on the steering committee. The letters. ho\vever. do not 
indicate the requirements to serve on the steering committee. As such, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that membership with the steering committee requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. For all these reasons. the 
Petitioner did not show that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien "s participation. either individually or on a panel. as ajudRe oft he work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of'.\pec(ficationfhr vl'hich classification is souRht. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In support of this criterion, the Petitioner contends he has provided letters from colleagues attesting 
to his evaluation of the work of others. Specifically, the Petitioner references the previously 
discussed letters from and as 
well as a letter from a stated that the 
"appointed [the Petitioner! [as a] 
member of numerous panels and commissions designated to evaluate and judge the training and the 
work of the militaries from ' Further. indicated that as a voting 
member ofthe steering committee f()r the Petitioner '·oversce[sl all its activities and makes 
all the important decisions.,. In addition. expressed that as part of the 
steering committee, the Petitioner "direct[s] the activities. evaluate[s] and judgefsJ the 
work and progress achieved by the personnel, and take[ s] all the important 
decisions." Moreover, conveyed that the Petitioner \Vas a project officer 
for many multinational/international military exercises and ''evaluated the outcomes of these events 
and made further recommendations based on the lessons learned ... 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iv) requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien· s participation, either 
individually or on a panel, as a judge of the \Vork of others in the same or an allied field of 
specification for which classification is sought." Although the letters generally claim that the 
Petitioner "evaluated" or "judged,'' they do not contain specitic information, such as w·hen the 
evaluations occurred, whom he evaluated, and what was the ultimate outcome. to support their 
assertions and demonstrate that he served as a judge of the work of others. Repeating the language 
ofthe statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), af{'d, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); A1yr 
Associates. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Further. the Petitioner has not 
shown that evaluating military exercises or reviewing procedures in an informal capacity as part of 
4 
.
Matter rifM-C-S-
one's job duties equates to participation as a judge of the work of others in the field. The phrase "a 
judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity. either on a panel or individually, as 
specified by the regulatory criterion. Without evidence showing that he participated as a judge. the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scient(fic. scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions of major significance in thefield. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner indicates that he meets this criterion based on his published academic contributions. 
Specifically, the record contains his master's thesis, ' 
and a ·written piece, In order to satisfy the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only has he made original 
contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For example, a petitioner 
may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field. have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance 
in the field. 
In support of the claimed significance of his work, the Petitioner points to his submission of 
recommendation letters. professor at stated that during her 
own research, she came across the Petitioner's thesis. She explains the originality of the Petitioner's 
approach "to focus on the nature of the conflict in order to find solutions for it. rather than 
attempting to find these solutions from the first instance." Although asserts that the 
Petitioner's contributions to the study of the conflicts from the former Soviet Lnion and for the field 
that studies the security environment in Eastern Europe are '"of major significance:· she did not 
explain how they are considered as such. In addition, \vhile indicates that she has 
benefited from the Petitioner's thesis, she did not demonstrate the impact or influence on the greater 
field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not 
met this criterion because she did not conoborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Similarly, stated that the Petitioner's thesis 
"allovved [him] to contribute greatly to the classroom discussions, debate and recommend solutions 
on this very sensitive and important topic.'' Moreover, indicated that 
the Petitioner "served as a subject matter expert in International Security. focusing on security issues 
in the post-Soviet era of conflicts'' when she attended as a student at Further. 
claimed that the Petitioner "'provided insight and 
background to [his] professional interest" to the "Frozen Con11icf' in Moldova. While the authors of 
the letters discuss how the Petitioner helped them understand the "Frozen Conflict" and indicate they 
admire· his contributions while attending they do not establish that his contributions and 
written works are viewed as majorly significant to the field. Without further supporting evidence, 
such as documentation showing that his \Vrittcn material has been extensively cited or utilized, the 
Petitioner did not establish that his written work significantly influenced the field. Publications are 
not suflicient under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(v) absent evidence that they were of ··major 
significance." Kazarian v. USCIS. 580 F.3d 1030, I 036 (9th Cir. 2009). af(d in part. 596 F.3d 
5 
.
Matter of M-C-S-
1115. In 20 I 0, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse our discretion in our 
adverse finding relating to this criterion. 596 F.3d at 1122. 
The record also contains a letter from . who described the 
Petitioner's accomplishments while assigned to the within the 
in Afghanistan. Specifically , stated that the Petitioner 
established a permanent and functional maintenance system for the 
identified original sources for automotive spare parts for vehicles. and helped create tactical 
solutions for security and operational mobility for transporting the fuel and water. In 
addition, elaborated on the Petitioner's involvement \Vith working on a 
regulatory manual to evaluate performance, training, and \Vork fur the 
While the letters provide examples of the Petitioner's contributions to specitic projects. they do not 
claim or demonstrate that his work has been of major significance. The letters, for example, do not 
show that his procedures or projects have been implemented throughout the field. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the tield 
without providing specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff"d in part 596 F.3d at 11 1 5. In 20 I 0, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USClS') 
conclusion that the "letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's) contributions in the 
field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language. '' 596 F.3d at 1122. 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statement s. 1756. Inc. 1'. The U.S All) · 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990). For these reasons , the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s authorship qf' scholarly articles in the field. in prof'essional or major 
trade publica/ions or other 
major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
The Petitioner provided evidence show·ing that his master's thesis, 
was published in a collection entitled, 
The record reflects that the thesis is scholarly in nature and was published m a 
professional publication. Therefore , the Petitioner satisfies this criterion . 
Evidence that the alien has perf'ormed in a leading or critical role fhr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished repwation. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204 .5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner argues that he perfnrmed in a leading role tnr the and points to the narrative 
summaries accompanying his commendation medals. Specifically, they indicate that the Petitioner, 
who was a captain at the time and served as the maintenance officer in 
"demonstrated a unique ability to find and create solutions to the complex maintenanc e 
challenges associated with servicing a mixed fleet of vehicles" and assisted the ·'b y finding 
.
Matter of M-C-S-
and procuring $10,000 dollars' worth of badly needed repair parts from local sources to support over 
600 donated vehicles." ln addition, as the deputy chief of maintenance in the 
the Petitioner made "improvements to the 
logistics and sustainment 
capabilities," such as equipment repair and distribution. 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself. Here. the Petitioner did not establish how 
his role as a captain in the deployed as the maintenance ofticer in the 
and as the deputy chief of maintenance in the 
was leading to the He did not show, for example, where he 1its in the overall 
reporting structure of the or how his role compared to the leadership in that organization. 
Moreover, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires the establishments or organizations 
to have a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner, however, did not claim or demonstrate that the 
enjoys such a standing in the field. 
The Petitioner also asserts that he performed in a critical role for the and references 
recommendation letters from and 
indicated that her team relied on the Petitioner's tactical, logistical. 
and operational planning that resulted in quality and sustainable health care within the 
Afghanistan region. further surmised that '"more than half of our missions 
would not have been completed successfully'' without the Petitioner"s assistance. Moreover. 
stated that the Petitioner worked outside the relative protection of the camp on a daily 
basis and was responsible for the security of his crew without a single casualty. 
Commonly, a critical role is one in which a petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of 
the organization or establishment. Although the letters indicate that the Petitioner· s contributions 
and assistance to the in Afghanistan are admirable, they do not demonstrate that he was 
directly responsible for the overall reputation or standing of the 
Similarly, the Petitioner claims that he performed in a critical role for 
representative of within the 
letter. In his letter discussed above, 
as the 
and cites to 
con11rmed the Petitioner's 
positiOn as a point-of-contact and voting member on the steering committee tor 
The letter, however, does not show that his role is responsible 1or success. In addition, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate how his role distinguishes him from other personnel. For 
these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services. in relation to others in the .field. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3 )(ix). 
The Petitioner contends that he receives a monthly income of $6.775 compared to generals and 
admirals that rank above him, who receive $2.339 per month, and even the 
whom he contends earns $3,684 per month. The record includes a letter from 
the to the 
.
Matter of M-C-S-
who stated that the Petitioner's monthly income from August 2014 - August 2017 was $6,775 
($80,300 per year). However, the Petitioner also provided documentation from the 
that reflected a monthly salary of $2,240 with additional compensation 
for living expenses, such as rent, utilities, and family. 
In order to establish eligibility for this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he commands a 
high salary or significantly high remuneration for services compared to others in his field. The 
Petitioner presented a document entitled, "Comparative Table, " indicating officers· salaries in 
Romania and lists a website claiming the source of the information. He did not. however. provide 
the screenshots from the website with certified translations to suppot1 the document. Regardless, the 
document claims that a earned $1,099 USD per month in 2012, a 
earned $872 USD per month in 2015. and $867 USD per month in 2016. and 
"[t]he best paid officer" earned $2,399 USD per month in 2015. 
Here, the data relates to the monthly salaries of otlicers residing in Romania rather than to other 
stationed in the United States as part of or military-related employment. 
Thus, it does not establish whether his salary is high relative to others performing similar work. See 
Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's 
earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965. 968 (N.D. Ill. 
1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers): Muni v. INS. 891 F. Supp. 
440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL 
defensemen). Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he was compensated for living 
expenses at a high rate in relation to other Accordingly. the Petitioner did not 
establish that he fulfills this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 1 Nevertheless, \Ve advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For the 
foregoing reasons , the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-C-S- , ID# 681076 (AAO Nov. 17, 2017) 
1 In addition, as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(I)(A}(i) ofthe Act. we 
need not determine whether he is coming to ··continue work in the area of extraordinary ability·· under section 
203(b )(I )(A)(ii).