dismissed EB-1A Case: Pharmacy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 16, 2024 InRe: 35172902 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a pharmacist, seeks classification under the employment-based, first-preference (EB-
1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with "extraordinary ability." See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . Successful petitioners for 
U.S. permanent residence in this category must demonstrate "sustained national or international 
acclaim" and extensively document recognition of their achievements in their fields. Section 
201(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not meet any of the requested category's ten evidentiary requirements - three less than 
needed for a final merits determination. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director imposed a 
stricter standard of proof than authorized and misapplied law. The Petitioner contends that she 
submitted evidence of: 
• Her membership in professional associations requiring outstanding achievements as judged by 
experts; 
• Her authorship of scholarly articles in her field; 
• Display of her work in her field at artistic exhibitions or showcases; and 
• Her performance in a critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (vi), (vii), (viii). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that she has not satisfied the minimum number of evidentiary requirements. We 
will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that they: 
• Have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• Seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Through their work, would substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" means expertise commensurate with "one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Evidence of 
extraordinary ability must demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, international 
recognized award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary criteria. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 1 
If a petitioner meets either evidentiary standard and the statutory requirements at section 
203(b)(l)(A)(ii), (iii) of the Act, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must then make 
a final merits determination. For approval, the record - as a whole - must establish a petitioner's 
sustained national or international acclaim and recognized achievements placing them among the 
small percentage at their field's very top. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010); 
see generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.2(B), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Facts 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Brazilian native and citizen, earned a bachelor's degree in 
pharmacy from a university in her home country. She then worked in Brazil as a pharmacist for more 
than five years, gaining experience in clinical and hospital pharmacy, and laboratory and toxicological 
analyses. She states that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, she "[w ]orked 24/7 shifts with patients in 
critical condition." 
The Petitioner arrived in the United States in 2022 and states her intent to continue working here in 
her field. She says: "I am committed to bringing my expertise to the United States and contributing 
to the healthcare industry in the country." 
The record does not indicate - nor does the Petitioner claim - her receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award. She must therefore meet at least three of the ten evidentiary requirements at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 
1 If an evidentiary criterion does not "readily apply" to a petitioner's occupation, they may submit "comparable evidence" 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the evidentiary criteria. To satisfy the 
requirements, her proof must objectively meet the parameters of applicable regulatory descriptions. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B). 
B. Evidentiary Requirements 
l. Membership in Associations 
This criterion requires "[d]ocumentation of the [noncitizen]'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." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of her membership in two Brazilian pharmaceutical associations. 
She provided a letter from one association's president and a copy of her identification card in the other 
group. 
As the Director found, however, the Petitioner's documentation does not demonstrate that these 
memberships required her attainment of outstanding achievements in her field as judged by recognized 
experts. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act (requiring petitioners to establish recognition of their 
achievements "through extensive documentation"). We will therefore affirm the Director's 
determination on this evidentiary criterion. 
2. Authorship of Scholarly Articles 
To meet this requirement, a petitioner must submit evidence of their "authorship of scholarly articles 
in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
In adjudicating this criterion, USCIS first determines whether a petitioner authored scholarly articles 
in their field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), Criteria 6. If so, the Agency then 
considers whether a publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade publication, or 
major media publication. Id. Relevant factors for professional journals include the intended audience. 
Id. In contrast, for major media, considerations include the circulation or readership relative to other 
media in the field. Id. 
The Petitioner provided copies of summaries of four articles she co-wrote as a student in 2016. The 
articles focus, respectively, on congenital syphilis, green tea as an alternative treatment for obesity, 
urinary tract infections, and gastrointestinal parasites in children. She claims that these articles 
appeared in major trade publications. 
We disagree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner's documentation does not demonstrate the 
articles' publications. The articles' summaries indicate that journals published the articles. We 
confirmed their publications by accessing a reputable online index of scholarly literature. 
3 
As the Director also found, however, the Petitioner has not provided evidence that the journals 
constitute major trade publications. To be a major trade publication, "the trade journal must be one of 
the major publications in the field." Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO (FMOx), 2007 WL 
9229758, *6 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007). Thus, she has not demonstrated her claimed authorship of 
scholarly articles in her field in major trade publications. See section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act 
(requiring petitioners to establish recognition of their achievements "through extensive 
documentation"). We will therefore affirm the Director's determination regarding this evidentiary 
requirement. 
3. Display of Work at Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases 
This criterion requires "[ e ]vidence of the display of the [ noncitizen] 's work in the field at artistic 
exhibitions or showcases." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
USCIS first determines whether the displayed materials constitute a petitioner's work product. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), Criteria 7. Second, the Agency considers whether the 
display of a petitioner's work was at artistic exhibitions or showcases. Id. We interpret the 
regulation's term "exhibition" using its ordinary, common meaning. See, e.g., Perrin v. United States, 
444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) ("A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise 
defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning .... "). 
In this context, the term "exhibition" ordinarily means "a public showing (as of works of art ... )." 
Exhibition, Merriam-Webster.com, www.merriam-webster.com. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of photographs of herself between 2018 and 2022 at various events, 
including images of her speaking at a "roundtable" and workshop. As the Director found, however, 
the photos do not establish the events' status as artistic exhibitions or showcases. See Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122 (holding that a petitioner's self-published textbook, lectures at a community college, 
and presentations at conferences did not constitute displays at artistic exhibitions or showcases). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that this evidentiary requirement "is not exclusive to artists." She 
notes that the word "showcase" does not necessarily refer to art. "Showcase" ordinarily means "a 
setting, occasion, or medium for exhibiting something or someone especially in an attractive or 
favorable aspect." Showcase, Merriam-Webster.com, supra (emphasis added). 
The Petitioner's interpretation of this evidentiary requirement, however, disregards the modifier 
"artistic." The criterion requires display of work "at artistic exhibitions or showcases." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii) (emphasis added). Thus, the regulation "explicitly requires that the exhibitions or 
showcases be artistic in nature." 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), Criteria 7. We therefore decline 
to adopt her regulatory interpretation. Because the record does not demonstrate the artistic nature of 
the events in which the Petitioner participated, we will affirm the Director's determination regarding 
this evidentiary equivalent. 
4. Performance in Leading or Critical Roles 
Even if the Petitioner submitted evidence of her performance in leading or critical roles for 
organizations with distinguished reputations, see 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), she would not meet the 
4 
reqms1te amount of evidentiary requirements. We therefore need not reach and hereby reserve 
consideration of her appellate arguments regarding this evidentiary criterion and a final merits 
determination. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies 
need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their ultimate decisions). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not met the requisite number of evidentiary requirements for the requested 
classification. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5