dismissed EB-1A Case: Research Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10730197 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a research scientist , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that although the Petitioner 
satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria , as required , he did not show sustained national or 
international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field 
of endeavor. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability , and 
(iii) the alien ' s entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those indivi duals 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 regula tion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 criteria 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); Rifai v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D . Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claimed in his initial cover letter that " a s a Research Scientist, [he] work[ s] for the 
. " 1 Because the Petitioner -----,-....,,.,....-......,...-----,,-..,...,.....,--..,........,,--.....,............,....------,--,---......,....-.,.....-----,-
has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he 
must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled the following three criteria: 
awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and scholarly 
articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . Although the record shows that the Petitioner meets the scholarly 
articles criterion, for the reasons discussed below, we do not concur with the Director's decision 
relating to the awards and published material criteria. 2 
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) 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. In order to fulfill this criterion, a 
petitioner must demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, and they are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 3 Relevant considerations regarding 
whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field include, but are not 
limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of 
the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any 
1 
However, according to his Fmm G-325A Rjograohjc Infowatjon the Petitioner )ired his current employment as an 
f ! for i since August 2016. 
2 Although the Petitioner references attachments in his brief, the record does not reflect that he submitted any exhibits or 
documentation accompanying his brief. 
3 See USCIS 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 ADll-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual /HTML/PolicyManual .html. 
2 
limitations on competitors. 4 The Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on receiving 
I jof the Year - 2016" and 'I O I of Russia" from the All-Russian 
competition. Because the record does not reflect that the Petitioner established eligibility under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), we will withdraw the Director's determination for this criterion. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner provided a letter from I l president of the~I --~ 
'------------------------~ screenshots from Wikipedia, and a 
screenshot from aviationunion.org that described the history, competition requirements, and selection 
criteria. For instance, the screenshot from aviationunion.org indicated: 
I I of the year" is an annual competition to identify the best [ I to 
promote their employment, achievements and experience as the best I : I of the 
Russian Federation. The event has been held since 2000. Its organizers arf the I I 
the international _ I 
.__ ________ _. named after 
.__ _____ _. and the interregional social fund to facilitate Scientific and 
technological progress. The competition is held in two stages in 43 categories, each of 
which is sub-divided into l O O • } (under 30 years of age) and 
.__ _______ ~(participants with experience inl I positions of not 
less than 5 years). The winners are awarded with dir2lomas, commemoratives 
I ~ as well as certificates and signs I I of 
Russia." 
Although the evidence focuses on the com~etition, the Petitioner did not establish that the I I 
of the Year - 2016" and I I of Russia" awards are nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field. Moreover, the documentation does not indicate the status, 
standing, or reputation of the awards in the field. Further, the Petitioner did not show the recognition 
of the awards beyond the organizers of the competition, such as widespread reporting and coverage 
from publications or other media in the field. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance 
of the awards in the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion, and 
we withdraw the Director's decision for this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien'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 claims eligibility for this criterion based on memberships with the I.__ _____ __. 
.__ _______ _,and the International Academy of Technological Sciences (IATS). In order to 
satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on being 
3 
judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field 
for which classification is sought. 5 
Regardingc=] the Petitioner submitted a letter froml L chief scientific secretary, who 
attached a document entitled "Reference," indicating that "[m]embers of the Academy are selected by 
the Competition Council for outstanding achievements in science and development with high scientific 
and technical value." The Petitioner, however, did not supplement the record with c01Toborating 
evidence, such as the official bylaws or other membership requirements, nor didl I provide 
or reference the source for the information. Furthermore, although the evidence reflects that selection 
to Os judged by the Competition Council and "[t]he decision is made by simple majority by open 
vote," the documentation does not show the composition of the Competition Council. Here, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Competition Council involves recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields as required by this criterion. 
Similarly, as it relates to IATS, the Petitioner presented a letter froml 11 I of 
IATS, who stated that "[ m ]embers of the Academy are Russian and foreign scientists who are major 
experts in the field of new high technologies that were elected for outstanding achievements in the 
field of basic and applied technological sciences." Again, the Petitioner did not support the record 
with corroborating bylaws or other membership documentation, nor did I I include the 
sources for his statement. 6 Moreover, while I I claimed that "[a]dmission to the Academy 
is carried out on the basis of a personal statement by the decision of the Academy Presidium, adopted 
by a simple majority of Presidium members who are present at the meeting, by open vote," the letter 
does not show that Presidium members are recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he fulfills this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. In order to meet this criterion, the 
Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of the material. 7 Because the record does 
not reflect that the Petitioner established eligibility under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), 
we will withdraw the decision of the Director for this criterion. 
5 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 distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
6 The record reflects that the Petitioner also submitted screenshots from Wikipedia regarding the founding and history of 
IATS; however, the screenshots do not reveal the membership or judging requirements of rATS. 
7 See users Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
4 
The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on an article from 
Thermal Power and HPU and two aiiicles from Sel 'skaia Zhizn (Rural Life). 8 However, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate that any of the articles show published material about him relating to his work. 
Rather, the articles discuss agricultural issues with the Petitioner's name briefly mentioned one time 
as developing new technology. For example, regarding the Thermal Power and HPU article, it 
discusses heat supply accidents, the need to improve the reliability of power supplies, and possible 
new technology. While the Petitioner is referenced one time as being credited for developing a new 
approach, the article does not discuss him, nor is it about him consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Likewise, the aiiicles from Rural Life repmi on agricultural life, equipment, and production with the 
Petitioner's name indicated once in crediting him for creating a new concept. Here, the Petitioner did 
not establish that the articles represent published material about him relating to his work as required 
by this regulatory criterion. Articles that are not about an alien do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. 
See. e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin. 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding 
a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). 
In addition, although he demonstrated that Thermal Power and HPU qualifies as a professional 
publication, the Petitioner did not establish that Rural Life classifies as a professional or major trade 
publication or other major medium. Specifically, the Petitioner presented a letter froml I I IJ I who indicated that the newspaper is a "social, political, and agrarian 
newspaper," "covers a wide range of issues of rural life, social, cultural and economic life of the 
Russian fa1mers," and has a circulation of "48 thousand copies." However, the Petitioner did not offer 
any independent, objective evidence to support the letter's claims. USCIS need not rely on the self­
promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C.D. CA July 6, 
2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that self-serving asse1iions on the cover of 
a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliant evidence of a major medium). Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not show that the intended audience is intended for professionals, nor did he demonstrate 
the significance of the claimed circulation figures for status as a major trade publication or other major 
medium. 9 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion, and 
we withdraw the Director's decision for this criterion. 
III. 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. 10 As a result, we need not provide the type of 
8 In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner claimed that he submitted "Pages 1 and 7 from 
Heat Energetics,! I" However, the record does not support his assertion that "Heat 
Energetics" published an article about him. In fact, the translation of the Thermal Power and HPU article contains the 
heading "Heat Energetics" and has the same volume, number, and date referenced by the Petitioner. 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation ( on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
10 The Petitioner initially claimed eligibility for the original contributions criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). However, in response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner did not address this criterion or offer 
additional documentation. Moreover, the Petitioner does not contest this criterion on appeal. Accordingly, we consider 
5 
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 conclusion 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 perfmming at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his 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 )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not othe1wise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner has conducted research and published his work, the record does not contain 
sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
this issue to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4 711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
6