dismissed EB-1A Case: Water Emergency Management

MATTER OF J-H-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY23,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a water emergency management, mitigation, and safety specialist, seeks classification 
as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 Form I -140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, stating that he meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(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 
.
Matter of J-H-P-
(iii) the alien's 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 
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 pro;Vide 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201b) (discussing a two-part review 
where the documentation is first counted and then, if it fulfills the required number of criteria, is 
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. ~d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011), qff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holdil).g that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (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"). Accordingly, where a 
petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has held several positions within the 
in South Korea and is the of civil engineering at Because 
the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has 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). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met only the 
scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that 
he is contesting five criteria: the awards criterion under 8·C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the membership 
criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the 
original contributions criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and the leading or critical role criterion 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 1 We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and it does 
not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
1 
In his brief, the Petitioner only provides arguments regarding the original contributions and leading or critical role 
criteria. 
2 
.
Matter of J-H-P-
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
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 Petitioner presented certificates reflecting his receipt of: 1) an "Outstanding paper award" for a 
journal article from the 2) an '' 
, for being a model during the "20 14 ' from 
and 3) a ' ' for his "dedication for local society improvement" from 
In order to meet this regulatory criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
Here, he did not establish that his certificates are tantamount to nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in his field of water emergency management, mitigation, 
and safety. Accordingly, the Petitioner does not satisfy this criterion. 
Documentation of the al(en '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). 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, a petitioner must 
show that the association requires outstanding achievements as an essential condition for 
membership, as judged by recognized national or international experts. The Petitioner submitted 
certificates reflecting his membership with the the 
and the 
In addition, the Petitioner provided a copy of his membership card with the 
Regarding and the Petitioner submitted screenshots regarding the backgrounds, 
goals, and activities of the associations from their respective websites. The evidence, however, does 
not list the membership requirements or state whether membership is judged by recognized national 
or international experts. Accordingly, although he documented his membership with and 
the Petitioner did not show that they require outstanding achievements, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. Similarly, while he offered a certificate and a 
membership card for his membership with and the Petitioner did not establish the 
membership and judging requirements for the associations. For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
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. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
2 
We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
3 
.
Matter of J-H-P-
The record contains the 2015 edition of the 
and a copy of the inside cover of the 2015 edition, The Petitioner is listed as one 
of 32 editors, including 10 associate editor-in-chiefs, and one editor-in-chief As pointed out in the 
Director's decision, the back cover indicates "[t]he Editorial Board may request that authors 
revise 
the manuscripts in light of the reviewers' suggestions," and "[t]he Editorial Board will make a final 
decision on the approval for publication of the submitted manuscripts and can request any further 
corrections, revisions, and deletions of the article." 
A petitioner must show that he has not only been invited to judge the work of others, but also that he 
actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization.3 
Here, although the Petitioner is listed on the editorial board, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
he actually reviewed or edited any of the manuscripts or otherwise performed the functions of an 
editorial board member showing that he participated as a judge of the work of others consistent with 
this regulatory criterion. Without supporting evidence, the Petitioner has not met his burden of 
showing that he meets this 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 Petitioner contends on appeal that his previously submitted recommendation letters from 
(deputy director of the and 
(senior researcher at the demonstrate his original 
contributions of major significance.
4 
Although the letters make general claims regarding his work, 
they do not provide specific details establishing that the Petitioner 's research has been of major 
significance in the field. Specifically, the letters generally indicate that the Petitioner's models have · 
been employed by civil engineers involved in river management on an international scale. They do 
not, however, elaborate to which models they are referring, nor do they identify where the 
Petitioner's models have been implemented to, show that his work has been of major significance. 
See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this 
criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field). 
Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, ajf'd in part , 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the USC IS' conclusion that the "letters from physics professors 
attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the 
relevant regulatory language." 596 F.Jd at 1122. The letters considered above primarily contain 
3 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 (A FM) 8 (Dec. 22, 2010) , http://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy­
memoranda . 
4 
The record contains a third letter from (senior researcher within the 
which we have also considered for this criter ion. 
4 
.
Matter of J-H-P-
attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without providing specific examples of how those 
contributions rise to a level consistent with major significance in the field. USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 
1990). 
The record also reflects that his article was cited 32 times.5 
Generally, citations confirm that the field has taken interest in a researcher's work. In this case, the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the citations to his authored work, considered both individually 
and collectively, are commensurate with a contribution "of major significance in the field." 
Similarly, the Petitioner offers evidence of his presentations at various conferences, such as the 2012 
Participation in conferences demonstrates that his 
findings were shared with others and may be acknowledged as original based on their selection for 
presentation. The record, however, does not show that his presentations have been frequently cited 
by other researchers or have otherwise significantly impacted 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." Kazarian v. USCIS. 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), ajf'd in part, 
596 F.3d 1115. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that we did not abuse our 
discretion in our adverse finding relating to this criterion. 596 F.3d at 1122. For these reasons, the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field. in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
As discussed above, the Petitioner documented his authorship of scholarly articles in professional 
publications, such as the Thus, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and the record supports that finding. 
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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he has held leadership roles at 
national organizations in the 
Republic of Korea. Specifically, he states that "[h]e has investigated and diagnosed safety issues 
and has managed disaster issues while at [,] and has 
held the position of of Civil Engineering at ' Moreover, the Petitioner indicates that he is 
an editor for the and was the. director of In 
general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself. 6 
5 Although the record of proceedings reflects other articles authored by the Petitioner, he did not show the citations to 
them. 
6 
A critical role is generally one in which a petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or 
establishment. The Petitioner does not indicate, nor does the record reflect, that he has served in a critical role or how he 
has contributed to the reputations of the organizations. 
5 
.
\ 
Matter of J-H-P-
Regarding his roles at and the the record contains certificates of 
appointment reflecting that the Petitioner has been . appointed as a 
member, and member. Although the evidence reflects his 
membership on committees, it does not demonstrate whether the Petitioner performed in a leading 
role for or the or 
where his committee membership fits in the overall 
hierarchy for each organization. Based on the position levels and the lack of supporting evidence, 
the Petitioner has not shown that his roles were leading. In addition, while he provided a screenshot 
from Wikipedia regarding background information for the Petitioner has not shown that 
or the has a distinguished reputation. 
As it pertains to his appointment as ofthe civil engineering department at the Petitioner did 
not establish that this constitutes a leading position at the university. The Petitioner, for example, 
did not show how his position compares to the of the other departments, members of the 
faculty, and administrative positions including the president of the university, to reflect that he 
performed in a leading role. Further, although he offered screenshots from website regarding 
the president's message and the institution 's history, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
enjoys an esteemed reputation in the field. 
Co.p.cerning which we discussed under the membership criterion, the Petitioner did not 
provide corroborating evidence detailing his role beyond a certificate confirming his membership 
status. Regarding the while the inside cover page 
shows that he is a member of the editorial board, it also identifies 31 other editorial board members, 
10 associate editor-in-chiefs, and an editor-in-chief . The Petitioner did not sufficiently distinguish 
his specific role to show that it was leading for the publication. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that or the journal has a distinguished reputation, such as evidence showing that 
is highly respected or that the journal is highly ranked among other publications in the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner 's certificate of membership with indicates that he served as a director 
for approximately two years. We note that the submitted screenshot from homepage 
reflects that it has a president. The Petitioner did show how his role compared to the role of the 
president or provide information detailing his responsibilities as a director. Further, while the 
Petitioner provided screenshots from including a message from the president and an 
introduction to the organization , he did not establish that has a distinguished reputation 
consistent with the requirements of this regulatory criterion. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not 
met his burden of satisfying this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, 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 listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
6 
Matter of J-H-P-
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of evidence in the context of whether it demonstrates that the 
individual "has sustained national or international acclaim" such that she is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her achievements "have 
been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1119-20. Although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in 
Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not 
established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the fore,going reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-H-P-, ID# 397674 (AAO May 23, 2017)