dismissed EB-1A Case: Psychology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 13, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a psychologist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinaiy 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 I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief mirroring her prior arguments made in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE) that she meets four additional criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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. 
Matter ofT-B-
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. 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 be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claimed employment as a program coordinator with.__ ______ ___. since 2018. 
Because she has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). 
In denying the pet1t1on, the Director determined that the Petitioner met only two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscripts for 
a journal. In addition, she authored scholarly articles in professional publications. Accordingly, we 
agree with the Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, as indicated above, the Petitioner repeats her arguments that she made in response to the 
RFE without addressing the Director's specific findings or identifying any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact. Regardless, we have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude 
that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
Matter ofT-B-
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In order to satisfy this regulatory criterion, a petitioner must establish her receipt of lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 The Director 
determined that the Petitioner's receipt of medals for the "Patriot of Russia" and "For the Promotion 
of Education" did not qualify for this criterion. Specifically, the Director found that the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate the medals' recognition for excellence in her field, psychology. 
The record contains background infmmation reflecting that the "Patriot of Russia" and "For the 
Promotion of Education" medals "[are] awarded for a great contribution to the improvement of the 
system of patriotic education of Russian citizens and the implementation of patriotic education 
programs" and "for the significant expert and consultative activity in the field of education of youth." 
Here, the evidence indicates acknowledgment of the Petitioner's work in the area of education. 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that her field of endeavor, psychology, recognizes the 
medals as national or international prizes or awards for excellence consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that she fulfills this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classffication 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). 
In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that membership in the association is 
based on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding 
achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 2 The Director found that the Petitioner's 
membership with the All-Russian Junior Academy of Sciences (ARJAS) did not qualify for this 
criterion, as she did not show that the association requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted a letter from of 
ARJAS, who indicated that membership requires: active participation in the organization, unique 
competence and support of gifted children, achievements in the development of ideas, knowledge of 
infmmational technologies, experience in the support and coordination of creative directors, and 
experience in authoring publications. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that ARJAS' 
membership requirements of participation, competence, knowledge, and experience rise to the level 
of "outstanding achievements" required by this regulatory criterion. In addition, the Petitioner did not 
establish that membership is judged by recognized national or international experts. 
1 See users Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADIJ-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://v..rww.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 See users Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distingnished achievements in original 
research). 
3 
Matter ofT-B-
As such, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she satisfies 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that she has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 3 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. The Director 
concluded that the citations to the Petitioner's published works, conference presentations, and 
recommendation letters did not establish her eligibility for this criterion. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner provided evidence showing that her cumulative citations for her 
published works received 69 citations, which included 24 self-citations, resulting in 45 independent 
citations. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her cumulative number of citations 
identifies which of her works represent contributions of major significance in the field. We note that 
aggregate citation figures tend to reflect a petitioner's overall publication record, rather than 
identifying which research the field considers to be majorly significant. In addition, the Petitioner did 
not articulate the significance or relevance of these citation numbers. For example, she did not 
demonstrate that these citations are unusually high in her field or how they compare to other articles 
that the field views as having been majorly significant. Although her citations are indicative that her 
work has received some attention from the field, the Petitioner did not establish that her citation 
numbers represent majorly significant contributions in the field. 4 Here, she has not sufficiently shown 
that her citations for any of her published articles are commensurate with contributions of major 
significance. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted three article excerpts that cited to her work. However, 
a review of those articles do not show the significance of her work in the overall field beyond the 
authors who cited to her work. Likewise, the Petitioner provided evidence of her participation and 
presentation at conferences but did not demonstrate that they resulted in contributions of major 
significance in the field. Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), ajf'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. 
The Petitioner submitted letters as evidence of her contributions. The record includes a letter from 
managing partner at I I LLC, who claimed that the Petitioner's 
"outstanding expertise in multicultural dialogue methodology provided a critical contribution to every 
phase of training development and implementation process" and "[t]he application of those 
technologies effectively results in the significant increase of quality of the multicultural dialogue 
which results in improved wellbeing and decreased cross cultural conflict and misunderstanding." 
3 Sec USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or 
entries (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite the individual's work as authoritative in the field, may 
be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
4 
Matter ofT-B-
However.I I did not provide specific details explaining how the Petitioner's contributions 
significantly impacted or influenced the psychology field. 
Similarly, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml _ _ ~. the deputy director of ~I --~ 
I I who indicated that the Petitioner developed and 
oversaw a child suicide prevention program that has "been successfully implemented" and "are now 
being followed by specialists nationwide and abroad." Again, I I indicated broad 
claims without detailed information showing that her model has influenced the field in a major way. 
Here, the letters do not contain detailed, probative information that explain how her original 
contributions are tantamount to major significance in the field. Letters that specifically articulate how 
a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work 
add value. 5 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, 
and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 6 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has peiformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director found that the Petitioner's role with I I did not fulfill this criterion. As it relates to a 
leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate 
matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 7 Regarding a critical role, 
the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a 
petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was 
critical. 8 
The letter from I I discussed above, indicated that the Petitioner was a program 
director. However, I Is letter does not establish that the Petitioner held a leading 
position, nor does it contain specific information signifying her essential role for the institution. 9 For 
instancej I did not describe the hierarchy and structure ofLJ and compare the 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
6 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have al ready influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
7 Sec USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
8 Id. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
5 
Matter ofT-B-
Petitioner's position as a program director to others within the institution overall. Moreover, while 
I I discussed the Petitioner's involvement with several projects, she did not show how 
those projects contributed to the success or standing otl I Further, although the Petitioner 
provided an unidentified document claiming to be about the mission and background of the institution, 
she did demonstrate thatl I enjoys a distinguished reputation.10 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
111. 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. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that 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 the top. 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 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her 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 203(b)(1)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(1){A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears 
the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 l&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofT-B-, ID# 3850200 (AAO Aug. 13, 2019) 
10 Id. at 10-11 (defining Merriam-Webster's Dictionmy definition of "distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, 
or excellence). 
6