remanded EB-1A Case: Forensic Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 17, 2024 In Re: 31493939 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish he satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, and he did not demonstrate his 
entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. The matter is 
now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b )( 1 )(A) 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 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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or 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. 20 I 0) 
( 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). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established receipt of 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 claimed to have satisfied six of these criteria, but the Director determined the Petitioner 
fulfilled only one: awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he 
meets an additional five criteria relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), original contributions 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), leading or critical role at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). For the reasons discussed 
below, the Petitioner has shown he fulfills at least three categories of evidence. 
First, in order to meet the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the Petitioner must show that 
has acted as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization. The 
Petitioner's documentary evidence indicates that he has peer reviewed manuscripts for a scientific 
journal. A letter from the executive secretary of the editorial board of the journal I 
I 1 also referred to in the record as I I identifies three scientific articles he peer 
reviewed between 2022 and 2023 as the publication's deputy editor-in-chief. The Petitioner therefore 
demonstrate that he fulfills this criterion. 
1 The record indicates that covers "issues of criminolo and forensic examination" and is a 
biannual publication of the where the 
Petitioner is the deputy director. 
2 
Next, the regulation at 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's authorship of 
scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." The 
record reflects that the Petitioner authored several scholarly articles, including: I I 
published 
in Medicni Pers ektivi in 2021 • and 
published 
in Journal ofEducation, Health and Sport in __2021. 
users first determines whether the person has authored scholarly articles in the field. As defined in 
the academic arena, a scholarly article reports on original research, experimentation, or philosophical 
discourse. It is written by a researcher or expert in the field who is often affiliated with a college, 
university, or research institution. Scholarly articles are also generally peer reviewed by other experts 
in the field of specialization. In general, it should have footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography, and 
may include graphs, charts, videos, or pictures as illustrations of the concepts expressed in the article. 
See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. For other 
fields, a scholarly article should be written for learned persons in that field. Learned persons include 
all persons having profound knowledge of a field. Id. Here, the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence 
demonstrating his authorship of articles containing characteristics of scholarly material. 
Second, users determines whether the publication qualifies as a professional publication, major trade 
publication, or major media publication. In evaluating whether a submitted publication is a 
professional publication or major media, relevant factors include the intended audience (for 
professional journals) and the circulation or readership relative to other media in the field (for major 
media). See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). Here, the Petitioner's 
documentation reflects issuance in professional publications. Therefore, the petitioner fulfilled the 
scholarly articles criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner demonstrated his qualification for the judging and scholarly articles criteria 
under 8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). Therefore, the Petitioner has overcome this basis for denial 
of the petition through fulfillment of three regulatory criteria. Nevertheless, granting the third initial 
criterion does not suffice to establish eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
The Director must undertake a final merits determination to analyze the Petitioner's accomplishments 
and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if they establish that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim in the field and that he is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); 
see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20.2 
2 Because the Petitioner has fulfilled three criteria, we need not decide whether he meets the original contributions, leading 
or critical role, or high salary criteria, and the entire record will be evaluated in the context of the final merits determination. 
See also generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (indicating that in the second step of the analysis, the 
petitioner must demonstrate that the person has sustained national or international acclaim and that their achievements 
have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the person is one of that small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor). 
3 
B. Substantial Prospective Benefit 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act requires that the person's "entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States."3 Although neither the statute nor the regulations 
specifically define the statutory phrase "substantially benefit," it has been interpreted broadly. 4 In this 
case, the Petitioner provided sufficiently detailed plans explaining his intentions to continue work in 
his area of expertise in the United States, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 5 In 
addition, his plans addressed how his entry will substantially benefit the United States in the future. 6 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has overcome this basis for the Director's denial. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because the Petitioner has overcome the stated reasons for denial, we remand this proceeding so that 
the Director can render a final merits determination. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3 See also generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(A)(3). 
4 See Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953 (Assoc. Comm. 1994) (golfer of beneficiary's caliber will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States given the popularity of the sport). 
5 See also generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual , supra, at F.2(A)(2). 
6 For instance, he intends to continue his scientific work relating to technological advancements to improve the 
methodological support of the investigation of firearm-related crimes, and research regarding bullet wound channels to 
provide advancements in protocols for the surgical repair of gunshot injuries. 
4