dismissed EB-1A Case: Safety And Risk Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2024 In Re: 28787841 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, either as the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award, or by meeting at least three of the ten regulatory criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify under this immigrant classification, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b )( I )(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 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 international recognition of his or her achievements in 
the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that 
pet1t10ner 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, 1121 (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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner states he is an expert in the field of safety and risk management. Because the Petitioner 
has not indicated or shown that he 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). The Petitioner initially 
claimed to have satisfied five of these criteria, summarized below 1: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance in the field of endeavor; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media; and 
• (viii), Performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized prize or award under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and that he only met the criterion for 
authorship of scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the Director's findings regarding his participation as a judge of 
the work of others, original contributions of major significance in the field of endeavor, and leading 
or critical role for distinguished organizations. The Petitioner does not contest the Director's 
determination relating to receiving a major, internationally recognized prize or award and membership 
in associations that require outstanding achievements. Therefore, we consider the Petitioner to have 
waived these issues. 2 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree that he has not met the initial evidentiary 
requirements for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
1 As the Petitioner does not and has not claimed to meet any of the remaining criteria not listed, we will not address them 
here. 
2 See Matter of R-A-M-. 25 T&N Dec. 657. 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision. that issue is waived); see also Sepulveda v. US Att'y Gen., 401 F .3d 1226. 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding 
the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 
Evidence ofthe individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that they have not only been invited to judge the work 
of others, but that they have participated in judging the work of others in the same or allied field of 
specialization. The Petitioner submitted evidence that he was invited as an acceptance review expert 
for three national railway projects to evaluate the reports and render approvals for the proposed 
projects. While the Director concluded that the documentation did not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner's role as a judge involved evaluating the specific work of others in his field or an allied 
field, we disagree and conclude that the submitted evidence is sufficient to satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), we determine not only whether the 
person has made original contributions, but also whether they are of major significance in the field. 3 
Examples of relevant evidence include, but are not limited to: published materials about the 
significance of the person's original work; testimonials, letters, and affidavits about the persons 
original work; documentation that the person's original work was cited at a level indicative of major 
significance in the field; and patents or licenses deriving from the person's work or evidence of 
commercial use of the person's work. 4 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner demonstrated that his contributions are original, but not of 
major significance to the field. The Director explained that although the Petitioner provided a printout 
from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure which shows that the Petitioner's seven journal 
publications were cited 54 times since 2002, he did not submit evidence to demonstrate that this 
number of citations is indicative of major significance to the field. The Petitioner does not address 
this particular issue on appeal but instead repeats that he has "been cited by other scholars in their 
research and implemented in the transportation safety and risk management systems in the field." 
Without more, the Petitioner has not shown that his citations for his publications are commensurate 
with contributions of major significance. 
The Petitioner also focuses on the national government-funded projects in which he incorporated his 
transportation safety and risk management theorems and systems and the letters of recommendation 
from individuals in the field. While the Petitioner has shown the original research he performed on 
the national projects has had some impact in the field, he has not established the level of significance 
in the field required by this criterion. The Petitioner has not sufficiently shown wide acceptance or 
implementation of his research findings or that experts in the field have relied on his research findings 
in their own studies or deemed his studies as crucial in their own projects. 
In addition, while the Petitioner provided letters of recommendation from individuals that discuss his 
contributions to the field, including his work on the national government-funded projects, they do not 
3 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
4 Id. 
3 
demonstrate how his contributions are "of major significance in the field." The letters restate the 
Petitioner's claims and lack specific information about the impact of the contribution on the field. For 
example, the letter from M-R- states that the Petitioner developed a theory for the safety assessment 
and safety approval for the operation of the I Iand that the 
application "ended up with good results, solved a large number of safety problems or hidden risks, 
and played a vital role in ensuring the system safety and safe operation of [the] 
I I M-R- further states that due to the successful application of~h-is_t_h_e-ory--on-th-e~
I Ithe Petitioner was invited by the I I I I to provide support for the safety approval of their maglev project. 
The letter from B-W- states that the Petitioner "initiated the "Risk Research System of Liability 
Insurance in Safe Production Based on International Standards" in China's insurance industry." B­
W- also states that the "Research Guide compiled by [the Petitioner] in accordance with the "Risk 
Research System of Liability Insurance in Safe Production Based on International Standards" has 
become the research basis and unified guidance of the three subprojects," building construction, 
hazardous chemical, and coal mine, and that it "has been further applied, which has generated 
important social and economic value in providing risk assessment and accident prevention services of 
liability insurance in safe production for the insurance industry, screening hidden accident dangers for 
insured enterprises, and improving the level of work safety management." 
However, the letters do not provide sufficient specific information to demonstrate that the Petitioner's 
contributions are of major significance to the field. For example, the letters do not establish that the 
Petitioner's contributions have resulted in a substantial effect 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 
Without more specific information and evidence demonstrating that his work constitutes original 
contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must first establish that they have performed in either a leading or 
critical role for an organization, establishment, or one of its divisions or departments. A petitioner must 
then establish that the organization or establishment ( or the department or division) for which they hold 
or held a qualifying role has a distinguished reputation. 6 
The Petitioner claimed to satisfy this criterion through his position as deputy manager of the Safety and 
ualit De artment and Safet Assessment Center (SQDSAC) at ~----------~ 
4 
I 
I 
The record establishes that the Petitioner has held a leading role for the SQDSAC at I 
._______.I The next question is whether SQDSAC has a distinguished reputation, defined as "marked by 
eminence, distinction, or excellence or befitting an eminent person."7 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that: 
._________________ ___. in China at the time, and assuming the 
country's important maglev science project to develop the technology, I
I !indeed enjoyed a distinguished reputation as there were no other 
entities in the field and it had successfully completed the .________ ~(the
I Iin the country. 
In addition, the Petitioner submits a document entitled "Special Report on Safety Evaluation of 
Commercial Operation System of I Iwhich was previously 
submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence. 
While we acknowledge that the company was the.
________ ___.in China and that it completed 
a national project,! Idoes not necessarily establish its distinguished reputation. 
More importantly, the Petitioner does not provide sufficient supporting documentation to establish 
that SQDSAC, the division or department in which he held a leading role, has a distinguished 
reputation, as required under this criterion. The Petitioner did not include evidence, for example, 
showing the field's view of the SQDSAC or how its successes or accomplishments relate to others, 
signifying a distinguished reputation consistent with the regulatory criterion. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he fulfills this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has not established that he meets at least three of the ten criteria, 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 conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for 
the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification. USCIS has long held that even athletes 
performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" 
standard. Matter ofPrice, 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 otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or 
international acclaim in the field, and that he 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). 
7 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distinguished, cited m 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 appendix, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
5 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6