dismissed EB-1A Case: Special Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe: 4310156 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 6, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a researcher in special education, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
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) 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 tenn "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 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 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has a doctorate in applied biology from the University ofl I Centre for Research 
in Mental Retardation (2003). According to the Petitioner's CV, at the time the instant petition was 
filed on September 18, 201 7, she was a doctoral candidate in special education, specializing in the 
area of emotional and behavioral disorders in children at the elementary and middle school level. The 
Petitioner's doctoral research at the University ofC7 involved the development and testing of the 
behavioral assessment tool I I a I I application ( app) for students and teachers 
in which both parties rate student behavior, and teacher ratings are stored to provide feedback and 
track progress. Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, she 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 two of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the Petitioner reviewed papers for journals. In addition, the 
Petitioner has authored scholarly articles in professional publications. Accordingly, we agree with the 
Director that the Petitioner fulfilled the judging and scholarly articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets an additional evidentiary criterion, discussed below. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the record does not support a finding 
that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that the testimonial letters and citations to her work demonstrate her eligibility 
for this criterion. In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must 
establish that not only has she made original contributions but that they have been of major 
significance in the field. 1 For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely 
1 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 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
2 
implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise 
risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner references her submission of letters from colleagues and other educators and 
experts regarding her original contributions in her field. She asserts that the Director discounted the 
submitted reference letters. 2 We find no error in the Director's analysis of the support letters. The 
Director considered their content and concluded that they did not specify how the Petitioner's 
contributions rise to a level consistent with original contributions of major significance in the field. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for a petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). The opinions of 
experts in the field are not without weight and we have considered them below. 
The Petitioner rovided several ex ert letters in support of this criterion.~ _______ ....., Chair 
of the College, indicates that the Petitioner "has developed 
interventions that have proven to be a good option to correct disruptive behaviors and 
~i-n-cr_e_a-se-ti_m_e_o~n academic engagement." I l an English professor atl I 
College in Texas, states that the Petitioner's "work to educate school professionals to 
implement simpl .__ ____ __. interventions based onl t has benefitted school students 
with problem behavior and oor academic erformance. a neurology professor 
at the University of states that he is aware that the Petitioner and 
her research group "have been successfully using th .__ ____________ _. intervention 
to correct behavior and academic problems encountered in the K-12 public school students." These 
letters summarize the Petitioner's research achievements and broadly discuss the potential impact of 
her research in the field of special education. However, they do not establish that her original 
contributions are already recognized as majorly significant within this field. 
The Petitioner also provided letters from several colleagues and other ~ors. I~---~ ~----___.I professor emerita of special education at the University ofL_J asserts that the 
Petitioner's "future inquiry will contribute substantially to the field of education," and describes the 
Petitioner as "an important contributor to the development ofl ~ applications 
aimed at improving student behavior and academic outcomes." I I an assistant 
professor of special education at the University ofO states that the Petitioner's notable 
accomplishments include having "worked on a number of projects to refine the use of1 I to 
improve services for students with disabilities."! l who was a postdoctoral fellow with 
the Petitioner atl J University, states that she is aware of the Petitioner's "vital" 
studies of the use of thel ~ intervention app with two middle school students, and that 
"[b]oth students showed marked improvement in their classroom behavior .... " I I 
.__ __ __.,[ a special education teacher in the.__ _______ ___.School District, indicates that the 
Petitioner "played a key role in our collaborative evidence-based research project in which we applied 
I I interventions." She indicates that the four target students improved their behavior 
2 The Petitioner also broadly maintains that the Director's decision was contrary to the holding in the precedent decision 
of Matter of Sea, Inc .. 19 T&N Dec. 817 (Comm'r 1988). Matter of Sea held, in part, that an evaluation by a credentials 
evaluation organization of a person's foreign education that is not in accord with previous equivalencies, or is in any way 
questionable, may be discounted or given less weight. However, other than citing that precedent decision, the Petitioner 
has not explained how that case supports the instant appeal, i.e., how the facts of that precedent decision are analogous or 
similar to the instant case. 
3 
"from an average baseline of 32% to an average maintenance of 86%." While these authors indicated 
that the Petitioner's research with thel I app benefitted several middle school students in the 
I I public school system, the letters do not establish the impact to the overall field beyond the 
Petitioner's research subjects. 
Within the Petitioner's response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), she provided additional 
letters from colleagues and other educators and experts regarding her original contributions in her 
field.I I a second rade teacher i~ I states that she and her student were part of 
the pilot pro ram for the app, and that she continues to use it to enable students in her 
classroom to.___.--- ___ ___.,behavior. She calls it "a marked improvement for my students who 
are usinfi the app.".__ ___ __,., Superintendent of J !school District inD 
I )owa, states that the Petitioner is "uniquely positioned as a researcher to contribute to the field 
of Special Education," through her research onl J and regulation.I I 
curriculum director ofl I in\ I Iowa, and a former elementary school teacher, 
states that the Petitioner's research "uses ] interventions across grade levels, subjects 
and disabilities to achieve the desired behaviors in students." 
The Petitioner's additional expert letters included a letter from a social 
psychologist and Senior Director o_.__ _______________ ____,Research Center. He 
relates his knowledge that the Petitioner conducted a middle-school study using.__ _____ ____. 
I I interventions to reduce students' behavior problems and enhance their academic 
performance, and authored six publications concerning that research. He asserts that the Petitioner 
"has made and will continue t ' ibutions of major significance to 
both research and practice .... " '----,-------.-------=------' an assistant research professor in 
special education at the University o~--~, states that the Petitioner "has demonstrated the ability 
to make significant and innovative contributions to the field of special education, in her work applying 
I I interventions to school-wide behavior practices and assessments." 
I I a doctoral candidate in special education at I I University in I I 
states that the Petitioner coupled the I I app with the I lintervention "in order to 
remediate students struggling with not only reading, but also with behavioral problems." She states 
"[t]his intervention has direct use in the field as it can be implemented on students across subject areas 
and grade levels and on students with different and varying levels of abilities." 
Overall, the letters, as well as other evidence in the record, show that the Petitioner's original work 
has added value to the pool of knowledge, and opened avenues for further research into behavioral 
assessment tools involving I I behavior. The evidence, however, is insufficient to 
confirm that the level of attention she has received reflects widespread commentary and acceptance of 
her work, or that the field of special education has regarded her research as authoritative. The 
Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or 
high impact her research or work has had on the overall 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. 3 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
4 
and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 4 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. The US. Att '.r Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Regarding her citations, the Petitioner initially provided evidence from Google Scholar reflecting 221 
cumulative citations. Specifically, the record shows that her four highest cited articles received 60 
( Genes and Immunity), 45 (Journal of Leukocyte Biology), 36 (Journal of Biological Chemistry), and 
23 (The Journal of Immunology) citations, respectively. 5 Within its RFE response, the Petitioner 
submitted updated information from Google Scholar reflecting 267 cumulative citations. Moreover, 
the articles indicated above contained the following revised citation figures: 67 ( Genes and Immunity), 
51 (Journal of Leukocyte Biology), 36 (Journal of Biological Chemistry), and 29 (The Journal of 
Immunology). On appeal, the Petitioner presents farther citation numbers from Google Scholar 
showing 292 cumulative citations, including 71 (Genes and Immunity), 51 (Journal of Leukocyte 
Biology), 37 (Journal of Biological Chemistry), and 29 (The Journal of Immunology). The Petitioner 
did not establish how many of the citations occurred in papers published after the filing of her original 
petition. 
Notwithstanding the above, this criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that she has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Thus, the burden is on the Petitioner to identify her 
original contributions and explain why they are of major significance in the field. Generally, citations 
can serve as an indication that the field has taken interest in a petitioner's research or written work. 
However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that her citations for any of her published articles 
are commensurate with contributions of major significance. Here, the Petitioner did not articulate the 
significance or relevance of the citations to her articles. Although her citations are indicative that her 
research has received some attention from the field, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her citation 
numbers to her individual articles represent majorly significant contributions in the field. 6 
In addition, the record indicates that the Petitioner submitted articles and excerpts of articles that cited 
to her work. A review of those articles, though, does not show the significance of the Petitioner's 
research to the overall field beyond the authors who cited to her work. 7 For instance, the Petitioner 
provided a partial article entitled, ~----------------~ (Immunological 
Reviews), in which the author cited to her highest cited article ( Genes and Immunity). 8 However, the 
article does not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's written work from the over 205 other cited 
papers. In the instant case, the Petitioner has not shown that her published articles through citations 
rise to a level of "major significance" consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
4 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
5 The Petitioner's remaining 16 articles received between 1 and 14 citations, with 5 articles garnering no citations. 
6 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working in the field, or 
entries (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite the individual's work as authoritative in the field. may 
be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor). 
7 Id. at 8-9; see also Visinscaia v. Beers. 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom 
dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
8 Although we discuss a sample article, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
5 
Likewise, the record contains evidence of her attendance and participation at conferences but did not 
demonstrate how they resulted in contributions of major significance in the field. Publications and 
presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of 
"major significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), ajf'd in part, 
596 F.3d at 1115. In this case, the Petitioner has not established that a presentation at a conference 
alone demonstrates a contribution of major significance in the field. 
Further, the Petitioner claims that she meets this criterion because she has received funding from 
governmental agencies to conduct her research. While the Petitioner's research is no doubt of value, 
it can be argued that any research must be shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to 
receive funding and attention from the education community. Every research adds information to the 
pool of knowledge in some way for it to be accepted for publication, presentation, or funding. It does 
not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of 
knowledge has inherently made a contribution of "major significance" to the field as a whole. To 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has met this criterion, she must offer evidence that after the completion 
of the study, or the publication or presentation of the findings, the reaction to her work confirms that 
it has remarkably impacted or influenced the field as a whole. Here, the Petitioner has not submitted 
such evidence. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
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. As a result, 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 finding 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 performing 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 her 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 she 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). 
Although the Petitioner has reviewed papers for journals and has authored scholarly articles, the 
Petitioner has not established that her professional accomplishments have placed her among the upper 
level of her field. 
6 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her 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. 
7