dismissed EB-1A Case: Psychology

(b)(6)
DATE: 'APR 2 3 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigrati on Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Mass achusetts Ave ., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case . 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or 
policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider 
or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-
290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at" 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thankyou, ~ 
~2£-----
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in the sciences, pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The 
director found that the petitioner had not established that she is "an individual of extraordinary ability." 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim " and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief, which generally repeats the same assertions she made in 
response to the director's request for evidence (RFE). With regard to most of the criteria , the director's 
final decision provided more in depth analysis than the RFE, which the appeal does not address. For 
the reasons discussed below, upon review of the entire record , the petitioner has not established her 
eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. 
I. lAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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 
(iii) the alien ' s entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991 ). 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. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established either 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a 
petition filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the 
court upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation 
of evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion. 1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while users may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires the petitioner to establish 
that the prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized and are awarded for excellence 
in the field of endeavor. 
Regarding the it is limited to graduates of The Graduate School of Applied 
and Professional Psychology at Contrary to the petitioner ' s assertions , the 
record does not contain any evidence that the award is nationally or internationally recognized. 
'Regarding the it was awarded for "recognition of valuable services 
given to Montserrat in the field of Community ork." According to the information submitted, the 
certificate may be awarded "to residents of Montserrat who have rendered or may hereinafter render 
loyal and valuable service worthy of special recognition or to persons who have by their loyalty and 
meritorious conduct being of exceptional benefit to the people of Montserrat." The record does not 
contain any evidence to support the petitioner's assertions that, based on Queen Elizabeth the 
Second's approval, it is "comparable to a recognition given by the President of the United States." At 
issue is not the distinguished nature of the issuing authority, but the field's recognition at the national 
level of the award as one for excellence in that field. The petitioner has not documented that the 
was "given for excellence" in the petitioner's field of psychology, or that it has 
recognition "from scholars" as the petitioner claims. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comrn'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm 'r 1972)). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
In the RFE, the director concluded the letters the petitioner submitted did not demonstrate her 
contributions of major significance in the field. In response to the RFE, the petitioner listed her 
presentations, proposals, report, and manuscripts. In the final decision, the director discussed the 
evidence submitted for this criterion, including both letters praising the petitioner and her presentations, 
proposals, reports, and manuscripts, and found that the petitioner failed to establish that the evidence 
was qualifying because the evidence did not establish that the petitioner had made original 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
contributions of major significance in the field as a whole, as required by the regulation. On appeal, 
the petitioner once again lists her presentations, proposals, reports, and manuscripts without 
explaining why the AAO should find these documents any more persuasive than the director did. 
The petitioner also fails to provide any additional evidence or offer any additional arguments 
identifying any errors of law or fact in the director's analysis. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned 
this issue. Desravines v. United States Attorney General, No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 435 
(11th Cir. 2009) (finding that 
issues not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned). 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media . 
. The director thoroughly discussed all of the evidence submitted for this criterion and found, both in the 
RFE and the final decision, that none of the evidence constituted scholarly articles. In response to the 
RFE and again on appeal, the petitioner lists her presentations, proposals, reports, and manuscripts. On 
appeal, the petitioner does not explain why the AAO should find this list any more persuasive than 
the director did. As the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this criterion by 
addressing the director's findings, or offer additional arguments, the petitioner has abandoned this 
issue. !d. 
B. Summary 
As the petitioner did not submit qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is 
that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she satisfies the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
three types of evidence. 
ill. CONCLUSION 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence 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[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien 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) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination? Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 
that she has satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
3 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145. In 
any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of the Act; 
section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 
8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio , 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
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. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).