dismissed EB-1A Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF P-K- DATE: APR. 6, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a nurse, seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not submit the necessary initial evidence. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In its appeal, the Petitioner discusses his nursing credentials, 
but does not articulate how he has satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements for the classification. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 
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 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim 
and the 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 categories 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing a two-part review 
where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered 
in the context of a final merits determination) . See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. 
Wash. 2011) (affirming our proper application of Kazarian) , aff'd, 683 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that we appropriately applied 
the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the 
"truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and 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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner did not submit evidence of a one-time achievement or documentation meeting at least 
three criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director analyzed 
the record under four of the regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner does not specifically 
identify which criteria he meets. We will therefore address the four criteria examined by the 
Director. Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met any of the 
regulatory criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the individual 's m embership in assoczatzons i n the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievement s of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines orfi elds. 
In the denial, the Director found the Petitioner did not submit sufficient material to satisfy this 
criterion. The Director noted that the record contained evidence of the Petitioner's membership in 
the but that the filings did not demonstrate this association 
required outstanding achievements of its members, or that such determinations were made by experts 
in the field. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
On appeal, the Petitioner does not identify a particular document that satisfies this criterion, but 
states that he "sat in a board of m as a 
Membership Officer." The Petitioner did not file corroborating evidence of this position in the 
, though the record does contain an undated letter confuming 
his renewed membership in the organization. The membership letter did not contain information 
regarding (1) the requirements for acceptance into the association, or (2) who made the 
determination regarding admission as a member. As a result, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner has not shown that his membership in the meets 
the second or third element of this criterion identified above; therefore the Petitioner has not satisfied 
the plain language ofthis criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field 
Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the 
field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or customers. 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 demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). The Director 
acknowledged letters of recommendation the Petitioner submitted, but found that they did not 
identifY an original contribution he made or how his contributions had been of major significance. 
The authors of many of these letters discussed the Petitioner's qualifications for certain medical 
positions, not his contributions in the field of nursing, or eligibility for the classification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: "My nursing skills and background have been highly recognized by 
nursing professionals who mentored or worked with me." The record contains multiple letters of 
recommendation from nursing professionals the Petitioner encountered through schooling or 
employment. Each of the letters spoke favorably of his abilities and work ethic. For example, 
an assistant professor at the characterizes the 
Petitioner as "a wonderful student" and an "enthusiastic, intelligent, and organized beginning 
practitioner" who has "a great combination of skills that will make him a very successful nurse." 
None of the letters, however, specifically identified an original contribution the Petitioner made in 
the field of nursing, nor indicated that his contributions had been of major significance in the field as 
a whole. Although several of the letters praised the Petitioner's ability to do his job well, they did 
not speak to the necessary elements ofthis criterion. Vague, solicited letters from colleagues that do 
not specifically identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those contributions 
influenced the field are insufficient. 1 Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd 
in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). On appeal, the Petitioner does not argue that any other 
1 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "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. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
documentation shows his original contributions of major significance in the field. As a result, he has 
not satisfied the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In his denial, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's previous positions as an engineer for 
from 1997 to 1999 and for 
from 2003 to 2006. The Director found, however, that the Petitioner did not establish 
that he played a leading or critical role for either organization
, or that either company had a 
distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner does not raise this issue or identify a role or an 
organization that meets this criterion. The Petitioner has, therefore, abandoned this criterion on 
appeal. See Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. 
Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011 , 2011 WL 4711885, at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding the 
plaintiffs prior positions abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). 
Nevertheless, even if the Petitioner had not abandoned this argument on appeal, we would agree 
with the Director's finding that neither his time with _ 
satisfies this criterion. A leading role should be apparent by its position in the organizational 
hierarchy and the role's matching duties. A critical role is apparent by its overall impact on the 
organization or establishment. The evidence provided does not address the Petitioner's role within 
or the reputation of either organization. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter dated July 10, 2000, from 
_ stating that the Petitioner was an engineer in its Research and Development (R&D) 
department from 1997 to 1999. The letter listed the Petitioner's duties and responsibilities , which 
included researching and developing electronics circuits and software, as well as testing and 
measuring the performance of prototypes. indicated that he had "an exceptionally 
high opinion" of the Petitioner. The letter did not, however, describe a position within the 
organization's hierarchy or job duties consistent with a leading role. Similarly, the letter did not 
suggest that the Petitioner's role in the organization had a critical overall impact on 
Lastly, the letter did not contain information regarding the organization's reputation. As a result, the 
letter from Assistant Manager did not satisfy the plain language of this criterion. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter dated May 5, 2006, from 
regarding the Petitioner 's employment as an electrical engineer from 2003 to 
2006. According to the letter, the Petitioner 's job duties included designing and redesigning control 
components, as well as troubleshooting failed circuits. The letter referred to the Petitioner as "a 
wonderful employee," but did not indicate that he had a leading role as demonstrated by his position 
within the organization and his job duties. The letter also did not describe his impact on the overall 
organization, such that we might conclude that he played a critical role. did give details 
about the company, such as inf01mation about its establishment and the niche market it filled. This 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of P-K-
information did not, however, establish reputation. For these reasons, the Petitioner has 
not met the plain language of this criterion. 2 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
In the denial, the Director noted the Petitioner earned $33.00 per hour or $68,640 per year at 
and that he was offered a position at with a base rate of 
$34.34 per hour. The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion, however, because 
he did not submit documentation to establish that these salaries were high relative to others in the 
profession. On appeal, the Petitioner does not affirm that his salary is high in relation to others in 
the field; rather, he maintains that his salary is sufficient to accommodate a "comfortable living" and 
characterizes his future ability to obtain higher positions and income as "very promising." 
We agree with the Director's finding that the evidence in the record is insufficient. As the Director 
stated , the Petitioner has not provided any documentation regarding salaries or remuneration of other 
nurses. As a result , he has not established that the amount he received is high relative to others in 
the field. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As noted above, the filings provided do not satisfy any of the regulatory criteria. As a result, the 
Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three ofthe ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documents submitted in support of extraordinary ability must show that the individual has achieved 
sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, 
the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the filings in the context of 
whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," 
and (2) that the individual "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and 
then, if satisfYing the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits 
determination). Although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
2 The Petitioner has not explained how his role as an engineer is relevant in the field of nursing, in which the Petitioner 
seeks the extraordinary ability classification. Had the Petitioner met at least three criteria , we would raise this concern in 
our final merits analysis of the evidence in the aggregate . 
Matter of P-K-
Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not 
established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. § 291 of the Act. Here, the Petitioner has 
not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofP-K-, ID# 16057 (AAO Apr. 6, 2016)