dismissed EB-1A Case: Sciences

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 1 4 2015 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts 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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 Mption (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. 
Thank you; 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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), which 
makes visas available to aliens 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 determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time 
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed 
below, we agree that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive classification 
sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achiev ement 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, 
and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
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. 
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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page3 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 st 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) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the petitioner's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the petitioner's achievements in 
the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient 
qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (91h Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 
772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 201 0) (holding that the '1ruth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that USCIS examines "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"). 
· 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
aw.ards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned his claims under this 
criterion. Sepulveda v. U.S. Atty Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CV-273120ll, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the 
plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under this criterion. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner 
claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
Documentation of the alien's members hip 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. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore, the petitioner has abandoned his claims under this 
criterion. Sepulveda 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885, at *9. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 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 .. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the 
published material must be about the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner's work in 
the field under which he seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also appear 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Professional or major trade 
publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution and be published in a 
predominant national language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published 
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner indicates that information relating to the book he' authored titled, ' 
is qualifying evidence under this criterion. The 
regulation requires that the published material must relate "to the alien's work in the field for which 
classification is sought." .The petitioner's book, however, is not related to scientific research in the 
petitioner's field. According to the evidence originating from the petitioner's book 
is a political science publication. The director advised the petitioner that his publication .was not related 
to his field, and the petitioner does not provide evidence to the contrary on appeal. Rather, the 
petitioner asserts that his writing endeavor can substantially benefit the United States. While we do not 
question the beneficial intent of the petitioner's writing pursuits; the classification the petitioner seeks 
requires that the petitioner demonstrate extraordinary ability in the area he seeks to pursue in the United 
States. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(5). Cf Lee v. I.N.S., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. 
Ill. 2002) (holding that an individual seeking to enter the United States to coach may not rely on his 
achievements as a competitive athlete). 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
This criterion requires not only that the petitioner was selected to serve as a judge, but also that the 
petitioner is able to produce evidence that he actually participated as a judge. The phrase "a judge" 
implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties must have been directly judging the work of 
others in the same or an allied field in which the petitioner seeks an immigrant classification within the 
present petition. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
According to the Form I-140 petition, Part 6, the petitioner seeks classification as a science technician in 
the area of translational scientific research. The evidence the petitioner provides under this criterion 
relates to the petitioner's service on a panel at a local community college conference titled, 
' While we do not question the merits of the 
conference, the petitioner has not provided evidence or discussion that establishes this conference is "in 
the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought," which the regulation at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) requires. 
Moreover, the letter from 
states: 
Director of the 
[The petitioner] served on a panel that analyzed the presentations of two key�10te 
speakers -- both accomplished authors of international repute. He engaged in dhilog 
with the speakers and fielded questions from the audience. His participation enhanced 
the session by virtue of his sharing both his personal experience and academic acumen. 
The Internet materials about the conference list the petitioner as op.e of three panel guests at 
While we do not question Mr. assessment that the 
petitioner's presence on the panel enhanced the session, the evidence does not establish that the 
petitioner was actually serving as a judge of the work of the other two authors on his panel as required 
by the plain language of the criterion. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not provided evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
Evidence of· the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions in his field. These contributions · 
must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The petitioner must 
also demonstrate that his contributions are original. The evidence must establish that the contributions 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The fmal requirement is that the 
contributions rise to the level ofmajor significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to 
an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some 
meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3 rct Cir. 1995) quoted in 
APWU v. Potte r, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major significance 
connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); 
see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 135-136. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying 
all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner indicates his book titled, 
is qualifYing evidence under this criterion. As stated above, while we do not question the merits 
of the topic, this publication is not related to the scientific research in the petitioner's field. Therefore, it 
does not constitute a contribution of major significance to the petitioner's field. Moreover, while the 
book has garnered positive reviews, al issue is its impact upon dissemination. The petitioner has not 
demonstrated the influence of the book. 
The petitioner did submit recommendation letters from his local colleagues. These letters praise the 
petitioner's molecular and cellular biology skills, lab techniques, and work ethic and discuss the 
potential benefits of his area of research, but do not explain how he has already impacted the field. , 
I 
In addition, the petitioner submitted scholarly scientific articles. The regulations contain a separate 
criterion regarding the authorship of published articles. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Accordingly, the 
regulation views contributions as a separate evidentiary requirement from scholarly articles? The 
petitioner submitted evidence that one article has garnered a small number of citations; however, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that this number is indicative of a contribution of major significance in 
his field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, to include published scholarly works in his field, to establish that he 
meets this criterion. 
2 Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that 
they were of"major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (91h Cir. 2009) affd in part 596 F.3d 
1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion 
in finding that the alien had not demonstrated contributions of major significance . 596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page7 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
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 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.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.3 
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 of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain 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)(l)(ii); see also INA 
§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); 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 INS, now 
users, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions) . 
. ·