dismissed EB-1A Case: Tech Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22602740 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 14, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a tech author, journalist, and educator, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ ll 53(b )(1 )(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 the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing her 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 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 afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's , Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 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 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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D . Wash. 2011) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner contends that her field of extraordinary ability is technology-focused journalism with a 
focus on "tecklash" (backlash to technology), and she wrote a book geared toward academics that 
"examines the history and the powershifts and uncovers the root cause of the backlash against Big Tech." 
She also has made research findings regarding the impact of tech companies and how they should be 
regulated, and her tech journalism delves into issues related to the tech ecosystem. She last arrived in the 
United States in 2021 as an L-2 nonimmigrant, and she is a visiting research fellow at the University of 
_____________ School for Communication and Journalism. The Petitioner 
contends she has more than a decade of leadership in tech journalism and works as a teacher, lecturer, 
and journalist. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she 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). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied three of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; and 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met two of the criteria, pertaining to published material 
about the individual in professional or major media and judging the work of others. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that her evidence satisfies the applicable legal requirements to satisfy the other 
claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we will not disturb the Director's determination regarding the Petitioner's 
published material about the individual in professional or major media and her participation as a judge. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
other claimed criterion . 
A. Evidentiary Criterion 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The primary requirements here are that the Petitioner's contributions in their field were original and 
they rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an 
2 
organization. Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
at 134. The regulatory phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. 
Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 969 (2019) (finding that every word and every provision in a statute 
is to be given effect and none should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate 
another provision or to have no consequence). Further, the Petitioner's contributions must have 
already been realized rather than being potential, future improvements. Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The Petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
In her initial submission, the Petitioner submitted evidence of her: (1) participation in peer-reviewed 
conferences, together with copies of academic papers presented; and (2) academic and business speaking 
engagements, comprised of invited lectures, keynote address and guest lectures in seminars. 
In a request for evidence, the Director acknowledged the evidence submitted by the Petitioner but noted 
that evidence did not establish original contribution of major si nificance. In res onse to the Director's 
request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a letter from of 
Journalism Innovation and Director of the 
_________ of Journalism, the Ci Professor stated in 
his letter he met the Petitioner when she contacted him while researching for her book and was 
"immensely impressed with her grasp of her subject, the thoroughness of her research, and the insight in 
her conclusion, which confirmed a shift in media coverage in technology - from practically utopian to 
nearly dystopian - that I had merely sensed." He also noted that he recommended her book often, 
convinced his podcast co-hosts to have her on as a guest for an entire episode, and recommended her to 
other media outlets for her reporting and commentary. He said that she will bring "invaluable evidence 
and perspective to policymakers in government and journalists in media." He also stated, "without 
equivocation that she is unique in the field and brings critically important contributions to it." 
The Petitioner also submitted an article that outlined the statement Professor made to the Senate 
Judiciary Subcommittee on __________________ whereby he urged the 
committee to read the Petitioner's book. The Petitioner claims that a testimonial and Senate statement by 
a world-renowned thought leader on the future of the news business who met the Petitioner in the course 
of her research is objective evidence that this criterion is satisfied. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter from I I Director, USC Center for Public Relations, 
for Communication and Journalism, confirming that the Petitioner began her research 
fellowship at the University of I in 2017. He stated that the Petitioner's "tech 
background and understanding of cutting-edge innovation proved tremendously beneficial." He also 
stated that she made a significant contribution with her concept of tech crisis communication and her 
"analytical skills and findings add valuable data to one of the most debated issues in the U.S. and abroad." 
The Petitioner contends her work has considerable influence on the field of tech journalism and is 
"reflected by the measurable increase in the level of discourse arising from her contributions." She said 
she is a prolific writer and sought-after speaker and commentator in a large range of tech-journalism fora, 
and she has independent and creative thought. The Petitioner reiterates her participation in peer-reviewed 
3 
conferences, invited lectures and conference and guest lectures at seminars and academic colloquia in the 
field of tech journalism, and invitations to review academic papers. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for this criterion. On appeal, 
the Petitioner contends the Director erred when he stated that Professor I managed, employed, 
instructed, worked with or collaborated with the Petitioner. However, the letter from Professo 
stated that the Petitioner first contacted him in the course of her research, which culminated in her 
book and therefore it could be possible that the Petitioner and Professor collaborated in the 
book's writing. The Petitioner did not provide more information of her working relationship with 
Professor! I We will review the letter and discuss it below. 
The Petitioner contends that she submitted two testimonial letters that describe her original 
contributions to the field of tech journalism. The letters, however, do not contain detailed, specific 
information explaining how the Petitioner's leadership resulted in original contributions of 
major significance in the field; instead, the letters make broad statements. For instance, Professor 
stated that he was "immensely impressed with her grasp of her subject, the thoroughness of her 
research, and the insight in her conclusion," and she will bring "invaluable evidence and perspective 
to policymakers in government and journalists in media." These are vague and general statements and 
do not provide a true understanding of an ori inal contribution of major significance. In addition, 
while it is commendable that Professor recommended the Petitioner's book to the Senate 
Judiciary Subcommittee o ___________________ this does not provide 
evidence that her book presents an original contribution of major significance. Books can be 
recommended for many reasons such as ease for understanding a complex topic or for educational 
purposes but not necessarily proof of an original contribution of major significance. Furthermore, the 
testimonial froml I is also general and does not provide enough information to corroborate 
the general statements. For example, he states that the Petitioner made a significant contribution to 
my field with her concept of tech crisis communication but does not go into detail of how he came to 
that determination. 
The Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence 
or high impact her leadership 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. 1 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value and 
are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 2 
Moreover, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) need not accept primarily 
conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
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. 
In addition, the record contains evidence the Petitioner spoke at several peer-reviewed conferences and 
served as a panelist at conventions and seminars. However, the Petitioner did not show how her 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
2 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff din 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). 
4 
speaking and panelist engagements resulted in contributions of major significance in the field. She 
did not demonstrate, for example, that her participation or contribution to the events influenced the 
field in a significant, major manner. 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), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. While the Petitioner asserts that the 
significance of her contribution is reflected by their measurable increase to the level of discourse in 
the field, the record does not evidence ofreporting of her conferences and seminars. 
For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
B. Reserved Issues 
Based on the foregoing discussion, we agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner has 
not met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, as required. Since the 
identified basis for denial is dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby 
reserve the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding whether he seeks "to enter the United States to 
continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" and whether his entry "will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States," under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii)-(iii) of the Act. See INS v. 
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 
the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N 
Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is 
otherwise ineligible). 
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. We also need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20, or render a determination on the 
issue of whether the Petitioner's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 3 
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 those progressing toward the top. 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes 
do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that 
EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. 
Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist 
specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even 
highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 
918 (N .D. Ill. 2002) ( finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" 
did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 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). The record does not contain sufficient 
evidence establishing that she is among the upper echelon in her field. 
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. 
6