sustained EB-1A Case: Human Rights Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 9450423 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL Y 28, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a human rights lawyer and legal researcher, seeks classification as an alien 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 although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in the 
small percentage at the very top of the field. The Director also found that the Petitioner had not 
established that she intends to continue her work in the United States, or that her entry will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 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 sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 their 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 
they must provide sufficient 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. 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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has served on the faculties of various universities in Venezuela, most recently I 
I IUniversitv, where she is a professor and researcher at the I O I and 
coordinator of the[ I Since 2014, she has been executive director of the 
.__ ____________ ____,.., a human rights organization that she founded in Venezuela. She 
is also the chief executive officer of the I I a New Jersey-based nonprofit 
organization that she co-founded in 2018. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has 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 met eight criteria, summarized below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
2 
• (vii), Display at artistic exhibitions or showcases; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met the three criteria numbered (iv), (vi), and (viii). On appeal, 
the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the other five claimed evidentiary criteria. Because we agree 
with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied at least three criteria, we need not discuss them in 
detail here. We will, however, note that the evidence presented in support of the various criteria is not 
of uniform strength. For instance, when discussing the seventh criterion, the Petitioner has contended 
that her reports and presentations are "displayed" to the public, but when quoting the regulation, the 
Petitioner has consistently omitted the word "artistic," which is integral and essential, rather than 
incidental, to the regulation cited. Notwithstanding such issues, a petitioner need not satisfy every 
criterion claimed to reach a final merits determination, so long as they satisfy at least three of them. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether she has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, her sustained national or international acclaim and 
that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that her 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits 
determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to 
determine if their successes are sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the 
field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has established her 
eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
The record as a whole supports a finding of eligibility. The Director acknowledged the Petitioner's 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. Foremost 
in this respect is her leadership oti I The record establishes that I I has been involved in 
several national-level civil rights initiatives, and the Petitioner's leadership of that organization has 
led to frequent consultations at national and international levels, with organizations such as 
Venezuela's (which designated her a permanent advisor to thel I 
.__------------~~- and various committees of the United Nations. Other nations 
have taken notice of her work as well, as shown by a commissioned report for thel Ito 
Venezuela. 
The Petitioner has established not only a dedicated and productive career, but one that has attracted 
high-level attention in academia, government, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), while 
earning the respect and accolades of other activists in her field. 
1 See also USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 4 (Dec.22.2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating that adjudicators should then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
3 
C. Continued Work in the Field and Substantial Prospective Benefit to the United States 
On the petition form, asked for a very short description of her occupation, the Petitioner described 
herself as a human rights researcher. In a request for evidence, the Director stated that the Petitioner 
is "running an NGO" and "working as an attorney instead of as a Human Rights Researcher." In the 
denial notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not addressed these points, and therefore 
it was not evident that the Petitioner seeks to continue working as a human rights researcher. 
The Director's conclusion appears to rest on a misunderstanding of the Petitioner's research work. 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner conducts research in furtherance of her broader activities 
as an attorney and activist, pursuing actions both within and beyond the government to address matters 
of concern in human rights (emphasizing, but not limited to, women's rights). The benefit arising 
from her work does not derive directly from the research element of that work, but from increased 
awareness of human rights violations and political pressure to remedy them. The grounds raised in 
the request for evidence, and indirectly referenced in the denial notice, do not support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner will not continue to work to advance human rights or that the United States will not 
benefit from the presence of a dedicated human rights activist. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has established that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). She has also demonstrated sustained national acclaim in her field and submitted 
extensive documentation of her achievements. Lastly, the Petitioner has shown that she intends to 
continue working in the United States in his area of expertise and that her entry will substantially 
benefit prospectively the United States. She therefore qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
4