dismissed EB-1A Case: Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV . 14, 2024 In Re: 34886929 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See hnmigration 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 extraordinary 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 petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that he satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that 
he is coming to the United States to continue work in his area of expertise as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). We remanded the matter for the entry of a new decision. The Director again denied 
the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria, he 
did not show his sustained national or international acclaim, demonstrate he is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor, and establish he is coming to the United States to continue work 
in his area of expertise. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
MatterofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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 , provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 implementing 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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying 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). 
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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) requires that "the petition must be accompanied 
by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of 
expertise." The regulation further states that "[s]uch evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of pre-arranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the 
beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States." 
Id. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief that does not address all the Director's grounds for denial. 
Specifically, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the original contributions of major significance 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). He further argues that the Director's final merits determination 
was in error because the totality of the evidence shows he is an individual of extraordinary ability who 
has sustained national or international acclaim and who has risen to the very top of his field. 
The Petitioner's appeal does not specifically address or dispute the Director's decision regarding his 
intent to continue work in his area expertise in the United States. 1 See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). Accordingly, we will not address this uncontested ground on appeal, 
and we deem it to be waived. An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 
28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 
2012)). See also Sarin v. United States, No. 2:22-CV-07498-SVW-JS, 2023 WL 5667531, at *8 (C.D. 
Cal. July 27, 2023) (affirming our determination that the petitioner waived the director's finding 
relating to the intent to continue to work in the area of extraordinary ability requirement when it was 
not explicitly argued or contested on appeal). 
Since the waived issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
his appellate arguments regarding his satisfaction of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and the 
1 In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner's May 2023 statement "lacked detailed plans 
establishing how you will continue your work in your profession. Statements only expressing your prospective hopes of 
finding work or offering vague ambitions do not constitute detailed plans or the type of clear evidence that demonstrates 
eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(S)." While we do not agree with the Director's subsequent comment that "the U.S. 
position offered must be a pennanent, full-time job with an employer," the record does not contain letter(s) from 
prospective employer(s), evidence of pre-arranged commitments such as contracts, or a sufficiently detailed statement 
from the Petitioner elaborating clear plans on how he intends to continue his work in the United States to demonstrate that 
he meets the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(S). Although the Petitioner's statement listed various 
U.S. research institutions where he asserted that he intended to seek a research position, the record does not include any 
corroborating, credible evidence to support his claim about obtaining a position at any of the listed institutions. 
2 
Director's final merits determination. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that 
agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the 
ultimate decision); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to 
reach alternative issues on appeal where the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3