dismissed EB-1A Case: Web Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 21, 2024 In Re: 34291254 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a web developer and digital designer, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 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. 1 
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 under 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 )( 1 )(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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit 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 
1 On the Fonn I-140 petition, the Petitioner specified that he seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
The Petitioner 's initial submission includes some references to a separate immigrant classification, for individuals of 
exceptional ability and members of the professions holding an advanced degree, under section 203(b )(2) of the Act, with 
a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement under section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. But since that time, the 
Petitioner has addressed various evidentiary criteria relating to extraordinary ability and has not further pursued the other 
classification mentioned in the initial filing. The Director adjudicated the petition under the requirements for extraordinary 
ability, as the Petitioner had specified on Form 1-140. 
can demonstrate international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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). 
IT. ANALYSTS 
The Petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in informatics and information technologies in 201 7 in his 
native Uzbekistan. That same year, he began working in the marketing department of a Japanese 
information technology company as a web developer. The Petitioner has been in the United States since 
October 2022, when he entered as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he 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). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied three of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not satisfied the requirements of any of the three 
claimed criteria. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not met the initial evidentiary threshold. 
One of the claimed criteria, at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), requires documentation of the individual's 
membership 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 Petitioner stated that he satisfies this criterion as "a member of the International Association of 
Engineers (IAENG)." 
In the denial notice, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit documentation of this 
claimed membership, and did not submit evidence ofTAENG's membership requirements. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director's conclusion "lacks an understanding of the provided 
evidence." The Petitioner does not identify that evidence or explain how it addressed the regulatory 
requirements of the criterion. 
The regulation requires documentation of membership. We agree with the Director that the record does 
not contain any documentary evidence identifying the Petitioner as a member ofIAENG. The Petitioner, 
therefore, has not satisfied the criterion's regulatory requirements. 
IAENG has three levels of membership, the highest of which, "Fellow Member," "is conferred on 
engineers and scientists of distinction and outstanding qualification, and who has made extraordinary 
contributions in the engineering field." The rank of fellow member may conform to the regulatory 
requirements, but the Petitioner did not specifically claim to be a fellow member of the IAENG, and did 
not submit any evidence to document such a membership. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts: "The IAENG's membership eligibility is determined by a panel of 
recognized experts in the field of engineering and computer science. These experts evaluate prospective 
members based on their professional achievements and contributions to the field, ensuring that only 
individuals with outstanding credentials are admitted." The Petitioner does not cite to any evidence to 
show that any such panel granted him IAENG membership. 
When the Petitioner first claimed membership in IAENG, he stated: "IAENG boasts a diverse 
membership, including research center heads, faculty deans, department heads, professors, research 
scientists/engineers, experienced software development directors and engineers, and university 
postgraduate and undergraduate students." The Petitioner did not explain how an association that admits 
undergraduate students restricts membership to individuals with outstanding achievements. 
For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not established, through documentary evidence, that he is a 
member of an association that requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The Petitioner has claimed to satisfy three of the eligibility criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Because he has not satisfied the requirements of the claimed criterion relating to memberships in 
associations, he cannot satisfy the minimum of three criteria. Detailed discussion of the remaining 
two claimed criteria, relating to leading or critical roles and remuneration, cannot change the outcome 
of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve these issues. 2 
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 Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
2 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 unnecessmy to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-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). 
3 
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. 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 a degree of recognition of his work that 
rises to the level of sustained national or international acclaim and 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 
section 203(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 Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4