dismissed EB-1A Case: Speech Language Pathology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 21635112 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 25 , 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a rehabilitation services provider, seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a speech language 
pathologist , and to classify her 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner ' s burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 international recognition of a beneficiary 's 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 it 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. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner 
to submit comparable evidence if it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation . 
Where a petitioner meets the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary earned a doctorate in speech language pathology from the Universi 
India, in 2013. From 2016 to 2020, the Beneficiary served on the facul o Institute of 
Speech and Hearing I I affiliated withl !University in India. The 
Beneficiary entered the United States in January 2020 to work for ________ in H-lB 
nonimmigrant status. In August 2020, still in H-lB status, she began working for the Petitioner as a 
speech-language pathologist contracted to public schools in California -first at I I 
Elementary School and then at thel I School District. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that the Beneficiary received a major, internationally 
recognized award, it 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 seven of these criteria, 
summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, relating to participation as a judge 
and authorship of scholarly articles. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that it has also submitted 
evidence to meet the criteria relating to prizes; membership in associations; original contributions; and 
leading or critical roles. The Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusions regarding display 
at artistic exhibitions, and therefore we consider that issue to be abandoned. 1 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criteria 
related to judging (through the Beneficiary's peer review activity) and authorship of scholarly articles. 
We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
1 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. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-­
CV-2 7312011, 2011WL4711885 at* 1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to theAAO). 
2 
First, however, we note that the Petitioner's appeal includes some new material, chief among them 
being an "expert evaluation letter" from a speech language pathologist on the faculty of 
University. If this and other materials had appeared to be likely to affect the outcome of the appeal, 
we would have remanded the case for the Director to consider these new materials. But the letter is 
essentially a synopsis of the existing evidence of record, with the summary conclusion that asserts 
such evidence is sufficient to establish eligibility. As explained below, we do not agree with this 
conclusion. 
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 USCIS Policy Manual states: 
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 awards or prizes; 
• The national or international significance of the awards or prizes in the field; and 
• The number of awardees or prize recipients, as well as any limitations on 
competitors ( an award limited to competitors from a single institution, for example, 
may have little national or international significance). 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/po1icymanua1. 
The Petitioner initially claimed research grants and a "Certificate of Clinical Competence" under this 
criterion. The Petitioner does not contest the Director's conclusion that these attainments are not prizes 
or awards. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims only one qualifying award. The Beneficiary received the ___ 
Award for at a 2007 conference of the Indian Speech and Hearing Association 
(ISHA). The Director concluded that eligibility for the award was limited to conference participants. 
The Petitioner asse1is on appeal that "the Award is a national award," which "can be given 
to any national or international professional in the entire speech-language and hearing field." The key 
requirement, however, is national or international recognition, not national availability. In its appellate 
brief, the Petitioner describes ISHA and the process by which that organization selects the winning paper, 
but neither of these factors establishes that the I I Award is nationally or internationally 
recognized. For example, the Petitioner asse1ts that papers presented at the conference are selected from 
a larger number of candidate submissions, but this appears to be a regular practice of academic 
conferences, rather than an indication that participants seek consideration for a best paper award. 
In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a newly-written letter from an ISHA 
official, who referred to the I I Award as "prestigious" but did not elaborate or provide 
corroborating evidence. 
3 
The Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the national or international recognition 
of thel IA ward. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classtfication 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 asse1ts that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion because she is a member of ISHA and 
the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). 
ISHA governing documents in the record indicate that the qualifications for life membership are payment 
of a membership fee and "an Under-Grnduate or Post-Graduate [degree] in Speech-Language." Neither 
of these requirements amounts to an outstanding achievement in the field as required by the regulation, 
and the Petitioner has not shown that ISHA relies on recognized national or international experts to 
determine whether or not a prospective member meets membership requirements. 
Regarding her ASHA membership, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiaty holds a higher level of 
membership limited to individuals who hold a Certificate of Clinical Compliance. The Petitioner asserts 
that this certification entailed a credential evaluation, completing a 36-week clinical fellowship, and 
passing a Praxis exam. The Petitioner has not shown that any of these steps are outstanding achievements 
as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major signifzcance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director concluded that, while the Petitioner has documented the Beneficiaty's original 
contributions, the Petitioner has not established the major significance of those contributions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
Research in the field of speech-language pathology is aimed to promote the investigation 
of speech-language and hearing disorders, foster improvement of therapeutic procedures 
for such disorders, and to stimulate the exchange of information among persons engaged 
in and disseminating such information. Therefore, the Beneficiary's expansive research 
in and of itself should be automatically considered as a major contribution to the field. 
The stated conclusion does not follow from the premise, and does not explain why speech-language 
pathology research "should automatically be considered as a major contribution to the field" of speech­
language pathology. The Petitioner must establish the significance of the Beneficiary's contributions, 
rather than the intrinsic importance of the overall field. 
4 
Publication of scholarly articles satisfies a separate criterion, at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi); in order to 
satisfy this additional criterion, the Petitioner must establish the major significance of the Beneficiaty's 
contributions. Publication and presentation can be indicators of originality, but not of major significance 
without additional evidence to establish that factor. Peer-reviewed "presentations or 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 that cite the person's work as authoritative in 
the field, may be probative of the significance of the person's contributions to the field of endeavor." 
6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. 
A Google Scholar printout lists 12 articles and papers by the Beneficiary. The printout shows that one of 
those articles has been cited three times since its publication in 2016. Two other articles, published in 
2009 and 2012 respectively, have each been cited once. The Petitioner has not established that this total 
is a "goodly number" of citations in her field, or that the citations occurred in a context that demonstrates 
major significance. 
The Petitioner asserts that the "citations indicate that [ the Beneficiary's] research ... is being used, 
considered and implemented by other researchers in the field." The standard is not whether the 
Beneficiary's contributions are productive and useful, but whether they have major significance. 
On a eal the Petitioner em hasizes twos ecific ro·ects. The title of the first is 
The Petitioner asserts that 
this project led the Beneficiary to develop a "new test/scale for the assessment of speech and language 
development inl I .. [which] is now routinely used for clinical assessment and progress 
monitoring across different training institutes in India." The Petitioner, however, documents its use at 
only two institutions: I I where the Beneficiary was an associate professor atthe time she developed 
the test; and the All-India Institute for Speech and Hearing, which provided the grant funding for the 
underlying research. A letter froml I explains how the test is useful, but does not establish its major 
significance. The same letter indicates that other existing "tests and scales are usedroutinely" in the field, 
with no explanation as to how this particular test is of major significance. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Beneficiary "developed anl I software for rehabilitation of 
language in thd I language," which "can be used in children with delayed speech and language 
with poor vocabulary" and "adult language disorders such as Aphasia who exhibit word finding 
difficulties." Both the software and the test described above are specifically for use in thel I 
language, which the Beneficiary describes as a "regional lankage of I India." This appears to 
limitthe impact of the Beneficiary's projects to the __ region; the Petitioner has notmetits burden 
of proof by explaining why the test or the software are of major significance throughout the field. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 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). 
For a critical role, we first look at whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in a 
way that is of significant impmiance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or 
those of a division or department of the organization or establishment. A supporting role may be 
5 
considered "critical" if the person's performance in the role is ( or was) important in that way. It is not 
the title of the person's role, but rather the person's performance in the role that determines whether the 
role is (or was) critical. 6 USCISPolicy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. Further below, we discuss the 
second element of the organization's distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary performed in a critical role atl I first as an associate 
professor and then as a professor and principal. The Petitioner states that the Beneficiary "conducted 
theoretical and clinical classes" and "served as a chairperson for the board of examiners for undergraduate 
and postgraduate programs at !University." The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not 
shown how the Beneficiary's roles have been critical or"more valuablethanothercolleagges atherplaces 
of employment." As a result, the Director did not address the question of whether I has a 
distinguished reputation. 
The record contains letters from the chairman of I, asserting that the Beneficiary "played a critical 
role in the growth and development of the institute" and served for two years ''as the Chairperson for the 
Board of Examinations ... forundergraduateand postgraduate courses in the field of speechandhearing." 
The submitted information indicates that the Beneficiary's role atl I went beyond the typical 
responsibilities of a faculty member, but the information describes limited, specified functions that the 
Petitioner has not shown to be of "significant importance" to the outcome of I activities. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established thatl I has a distinguished reputation, with 
"distinguished" defined as "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence or befitting an eminent 
person." 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. 
The chairperson's description of I as "a premier Institute in India" does not suffice in this regard. 
The chairperson indicated thatl lis "approved by the Rehabilitation Council oflndia (RCI) to run 
Undergraduate and Postgraduateprograms,"but suchapprovalis effectively permission to operate, rather 
than evidence of a distinguished reputation. The RCI Certificates of Approval in the record appear to 
designate the approval as provisional; they advise that the approvals will be canceled unless certain 
"shortcomings" are remedied. The Petitioner did not submit copies of the portions of the certificates that 
list those shortcomings, or evidence that they were overcome and approval was no longer provisional. 
Regarding the Beneficiary's work in the United States, the Petitioner asserts: "In her current role with 
[the Petitioner], [the Beneficiary] has played a critical role in various California school districts, as she 
has presented her research ... [and] has also trained teachers on how to apply this knowledge and 
awareness in a school setting." The Petitioner does not adequately explain or demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary's work as a contracted speech pathologist is critical to those school districts. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner 
may submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(4). 
6 
At various stages in this proceeding, the Petitioner has asserted that some materials in the record constitute 
comparable evidence. In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not established 
that the submitted evidence is comparable to regulatory criteria that do not readily apply to the 
Beneficiary's occupation. 
When evaluating claimed comparable evidence, we consider whether the regulatory criteria are readily 
applicable to the person's occupation and, if not, whether the evidence provided is truly comparable to 
the criteria listed in that regulation. 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary's research and travel "grants are comparable to 
awards, because grants are awarded after a rigorous and competitive selection process." The criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) relates to nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence. The 
Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's grants are nationally or internationally recognized, and 
approved on the basis of excellence in the field. Furthermore, a petitioner may rely on comparable 
evidence only when the standard regulatory criteria do not readily apply to a beneficiary's occupation. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5 (h)(4 ). Here, the Petitioner has claimed that the Beneficiary received a qualifying award, 
effectively stipulating that that the criterion relating to prizes and awards does readily apply to her 
occupation. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to establish that (1) the standard regulatory criteria do not readily apply to 
the Beneficiary's occupation, and (2) the evidence submitted is indeed comparable to the evidence that 
would meet one of those criteria. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
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 lesser 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 conclusion 
that the Beneficiary has attained the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks to obtain for the Beneficiary a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for 
individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward 
the top. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 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 recognition 
of the Beneficiary's work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or 
demonstrates a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 
101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not 
otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner 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). 
The record establishes that the Beneficiary used to perform research while employed in academia, and 
that she continues to pmvide therapeutic care to students in schools that contract the petitioning company 
for those services. While the Beneficiary's research has added knowledge to her field, and therapeutic 
services are valuable to the individuals receiving them, these activities are intrinsic to the Beneficiary's 
7 
occupation rather than hallmarks of specific recognition and acclaim. The Petitioner has shown that the 
Beneficiary has had an active and productive career, but has not met its burden of proof to establish that 
the Beneficiary has earned sustained national or international acclaim, and stands in the small percentage 
of those at the very top of her field. From the documentation submitted, her impact in the field appears 
to have been largely limited to the institutions where she has worked. Where the documentation does 
meet the letter of two regulatory criteria, it does so in ways that appear to be more routine in academia -
specifically, through publication of the Beneficiary's own research, and through peer review of articles 
by others. The Beneficiary's evaluation of graduate theses appears to have been inherent to her 
responsibilities as a college professor. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8