dismissed EB-1A Case: Network Communications And Internet Of Things

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25051384 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 7, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the Petitioner did not establish that he was the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award, nor did he demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010) . We review the questions in this matter de novo . 
Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify under this immigrant classification, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate : 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future . 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 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. 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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner attained several degrees from his studies spanning from 2004 to 2014, and he has 
operated in the network communications and the "internet of things" realm. 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). Before 
the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met eight of the regulatory criteria. The Director decided that 
the Petitioner satisfied two of the criteria relating to authorship of scholarly articles and performing in 
a leading or critical role, but that he had not satisfied the criteria associated with: 
• Prizes or awards; 
• Membership; 
• Published material; 
• Judging; 
• Original contributions; or 
• Commercial success. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the evidentiary criteria relating to published material, 
original contributions, and commercial success. As the Petitioner does not contest the following 
criteria, he has abandoned those claims within these proceedings: prizes or awards, membership, and 
judging. See Matter of Zhang, 27 I&N Dec. 569, 569 n.2 (BIA 2019) (finding that an issue not 
appealed is deemed as abandoned). 
A. Translation Certifications 
We begin noting a deficiency in the appellate evidence relating to documents that originate in a foreign 
language. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3)) states "[a]ny document containing foreign language 
submitted to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's 
certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." See also 
Matter of Nevarez, 15 I&N Dec. 550, 551 (BIA 1976). 
2 
The language utilized within the regulation implicitly precludes a single certification that validates several 
translated forms of evidence unless the certification specifically lists the translated documents. Without 
a single translator's certification for each foreign language form of evidence, or a translator's certification 
specifically listing the documents it is validating, the certification cannot be regarded to be certifying any 
specific form of evidence. The final determination of whether evidence meets the plain language 
requirements of a regulation lies with USCIS. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988) (finding the appropriate entity to determine eligibility is USCIS). 
Reviewing the certifying documents relating to the Petitioner's evidence on appeal, those instruments 
appear to be a single certification document that was photocopied for each form of evidence originating 
in a foreign language, and they do not identify what document they are translating. Each certification is 
identical in appearance to include the certifier's unique signature as well as the handwritten date. 1 A 
photocopied blanket certification that does not identify the translations it is certifying-or name the 
Petitioner-is not probative evidence that the certification relates to all or any of the translations in 
this record of proceeding. Such a deficiency in the certification results in the evidence accompanied 
by these translations to possess diminished value and are insufficient to demonstrate the validity of 
the foreign language materials. 
Because the Director did not raise this specific issue, we will not apply this determination to the two 
criteria the Director granted unless the Petitioner demonstrates he satisfies one additional criterion, 
which would result in a remand to the Director. We also note the translator's signature on the 
documents before the Director appears markedly different than the signature for this same individual 
on appeal. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating 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 necessmy translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director determined the Petitioner's evidence did not meet the requirements of this criterion 
because it was not about him. The Petitioner initially claimed eligibility under this criterion and 
submitted supporting evidence. The Director found the Petitioner did not satisfy the regulatory 
requirements and issued a request for evidence (RFE), but the Petitioner's response to that request did 
not contain claims relating to this criterion. The regulation states a petitioner shall submit additional 
evidence as a director, in his or her discretion, may deem necessary. The purpose of an RFE is to elicit 
further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established, as of 
the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(8), (12). The failure to submit requested evidence 
that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.2(b)(14). 
1 In making this determination, we do not propose to be handwriting experts. But we can identify identical appearing 
documents, especially when they contain letters, words, and numbers that are indistinguishable in their slant or angle, 
writing instrument lifts at identical portions of various letters, symmetry of the letters, etc. 
3 
Where, as here, a petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given 
an opportunity to respond to that deficiency, we will not accept new claims or evidence offered for the 
first time on appeal. See Matter of Izaguirre, 27 I&N Dec. 67, 71 (BIA 2017) (citing Matter of 
Soriano, 19 T&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 T&N Dec. 533, 53 7 
(BIA 1988). If the Petitioner had wanted the submitted claims and evidence to be considered, he 
should have submitted the documents in response to the Director's RFE. Id. Under the circumstances, 
we are not obligated to consider the sufficiency of these specific claims or evidence submitted on 
appeal. 
Setting that issue aside, the Petitioner provided several documents that appear to either be articles or 
in-person interviews. Even though the material appears to reflect the title, date, and author, it lacks 
the source in which each form of evidence appeared. Furthermore, the translations of this material are 
accompanied by the deficient certifications that significantly diminishes the evidentiary value of this 
material. Although the appeal brief indicates the Petitioner is mentioned in each form of evidence, he 
does not establish the Director committed an error in evaluating the material under this criterion's 
requirements. 
Based on these numerous shortcomings, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The primary requirements here are that the Petitioner's contributions in their field were original and 
they rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an 
organization. See Amin, 24 F.4th at 394 citing Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 
2013)). The regulatory phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. 
Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 969 (2019) ( finding that every word and every provision in a statute 
is to be given effect and none should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate 
another provision or to have no consequence). 
Further, the Petitioner's contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, 
future improvements. Contributions of major significance connotes the Petitioner's work has 
significantly impacted the field. The Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all these elements to 
meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The Petitioner claimed his eligibility under this criterion based on his participation on committees that 
produced standards for various practices in his field, as well as his role in receiving patents. The 
Director determined the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
As it relates to the Petitioner's role on committees, the Director noted he did not offer evidence about 
the committees, the specific work that resulted from each committee, or the actual impact of each 
committee's work in the broader field. On appeal, the Petitioner restates he was one of the main 
drafters in the preparation of national standards and he identifies several exhibits and their 
corresponding exhibit number that corroborate his claims. However, a review of the Petitioner's 
appellate materials-consisting of more than 250 pages-reveals that he did not organize the evidence 
4 
using exhibit numbers as he claims. Due to the nature of the material appearing in a foreign language, 
it is also not clear how the documents are organized. In visa petition proceedings, it is a 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). 
We noted above why foreign documents without sufficient certified translations will not adequately 
aid the Petitioner in demonstrating eligibility within these proceedings. Even setting that deficiency 
aside, the appellate material that we can discern as addressing the various committees and their work 
does not establish how that work had a significant effect in the Petitioner's broader field. Simply 
claiming a group effort to create standards without evidence showing how those standards impacted 
the field are insufficient under this criterion. Additionally, when a petitioner advances similar claims 
on appeal that they presented to the Director, but without explaining how the Director's decision 
contained any errors, this may generally be viewed as an inadequate basis to claim eligibility under 
this criterion on appeal. 
Because the Petitioner submits foreign material with deficient translations, he offers significant 
amounts of evidence without devising a method to identify what documents he is referencing, and he 
does not explain how the Director might have erred in their decision, he has not overcome the adverse 
determination relating to this criterion on appeal. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or 
record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
The Petitioner provided information related to patents. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
did not meet the requirements of this criterion because the regulation limits this provision to those in 
the performing arts. Although the Petitioner contests the Director's ultimate determination under this 
criterion, he does not address the Director's actual reasoning for not granting the criterion. As the 
Petitioner has not addressed the Director's findings nor adequately explained how his claims or 
evidence situate him within the performing arts, he has not met the plain language requirements of 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 do not need to 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 it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
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 that goal. 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 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of their 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. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
5 
203(b )(1 )(A). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and they are one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated their 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. 
6