dismissed EB-1A Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-A-A-E-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Ollice 
DATE: JUNE 15, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an accountant, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
business. 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 not shown he met any one of the ten initial evidentiary 
crit~ria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he meets three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 tn 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 two options for satisfying this classitication's· initial evidence 
.
Matter ofS-A-A-E-
requirements . First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards , memberships , and published material in certain media). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totalit y 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. USC!S , 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Was h. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "tru th is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality ," as well as the principl e that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidenc e, to determin e whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true. " Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 376 (AAO 20HJ) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an accountant. As the Petitioner has not established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director held that the Petitioner did not meet any of these crite ria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that ·he meets the following criteria: memb ership at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), published m aterial at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 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) , high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). For the reasons discus sed below, the 
record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
Documenlalion of the alien 's membership in associations in the jie ldfor which class[fication 
is sought, which requir e 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). 
The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion based on membership in the following 
organizations , which we will discuss further below. 
The Petitioner references a letter from , a partner at the aud it, tax, and consulting 
firm , who was a Board Member for the 
from 2001 to 2003. states that the is "the only local professional 
body of acco unting/auditing " in Kuwait and that the Petitioner "has been at the forefront of the 
evolution of basic accounting and auditing services in the state of Kuwa it." 
indicates that in 2001 and 2002 the reque ste d that the Petitioner submit art icles for 
2 
.
Matter of S-A-A-£-
-publication in its journal in 20<ll and 2002 due to his outstanding achievements in the field. While 
this shows the Petitioner was a contributing member of the the record does not reflect that 
the organization required outstanding achievements of its memb ers. In addition, these achievements 
appear to have occurred after the Petitioner join ed the association. The regu lation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires outstanding achievements as a prerequi site for joining the association. The 
document from the tor Kuwait states that the "was 
established in 1973 and consists of auditors and accountants" and that its "ma in objectives are to 
develop an appropriate level of expertise." Thus, it appears that the is an organization that 
all auditors and accountants can join , provided that they meet the minimum expert ise requir ements . 
The record does not indicate that member ship in :the requires outstanding achiev emen ts of its 
members to join the association. 
The reco rd contains a letter from , the owner of the accounting firm 
stating that he hired the Petition er to prepare the 2014 end-of-year financial 
accounts for one of his company's 
prem ier clients. The record does not demonstrate that the Petiti oner is a member of 
Therefo re, this evidence does not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in thefieldfor which classificatio.n is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and llll)' necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner states that he meets this criterion but has not identified what mat erial about him has 
been published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Ther efo re, the 
record does not establish that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence (~{the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel . as ajudge r~fthe work 
of others in the same or an allied field of !>pecification for which classification is sought. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner submits a letter from . the Executive Man ager of 
and asserts that and "its high profile client, 
relied on the independent judgement of the Petitioner to accura tely and reliably define its 
objectives for the future." He further asserts that has relied upon the Petiti oner as an 
expert accountant "creatin g innovative and achievable solutions to business problems for our 
prominent clientele." He adds that the company turned to the Peti tioner "to produ ce a Risk 
Management Report in 2015 on behalf of - and that he 
performed a vital role in addressing risk exposures and reco mmend ing "suitable corrective actions" 
which "resulted in significant strategic decision-making in the best interes t of the company. " 
The record also contains a letter from 
at in the Middle East. 
who specializes in risk and regu latory advising 
states that in 2015 he incorporated the Petiti oner' s risk 
3 
.
Mateer of S-A-A-E-
assessments and internal auditing judgments into the final auditor's report for "one or Kuwait's 
highest profile companies, He further indicat es that "the 
believe the judgements contained in [the Petitioner's] in-depth 
Entity Wide Risk assessment provided a vehicle for continuous improv emen t and its rank ing 
as one of the top tourism infrastructure developers in the region ." While we tind that the Petitioner 
demonstrated exe mplary decision-making skills in carrying out the risk assessments and audits for 
this does not constitut e judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The 
record does not reflect that the Petitioner judged the work of others in the field as an objec tive 
observer who would determine one's level of expertise . Therefor e, the Petition er does not meet this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship (~f scholarly articles in the field. in profes sional or mc!jor 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner submits an article published in in December 2001 with a translation· 
stating that this is a "spec ialized scientific journal issued by 
' This article does not contain a properl y certified translation. Any document in a 
foreign langu age must be accompanied by a full English languag e translation . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). The transl ator must certify that the English langu age translation is complete and 
accurate, and that the translator is compet ent to translate from the foreign langu age into English. /d. 
Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly cert ified English language translati on of the 
document, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the transl ated materi al i s accurate and t hus 
supports the Petitioner 's claims . 
The Petitioner also submit s an article he authored entitled, 
· in 2002 , but the reco rd does not establish what entity published this article. 
Therefo re, the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished replllation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organiza tional hierarchy and throug h the 
role 's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the Petitioner's impact on the 
. organization or the establishment's activitie s. The Petitioner's perform ance in this role should establish 
whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a whole. 
The Petitioner asserts that he provided a critical role in the . In a 
Jetter from , the manager of he states that the company hired the 
Petitioner in 201"4 "to perform a financial overhaul of the comp any" to help the company reboun d 
from the downgrading of its bond rating , a volatile market in the housing finance sector , and new 
finance laws affec ting the industry. · i'ndicates that the Petitioner' s "mission was to 
set the stage for strong performances from every sector as well as dedication of our highly skilled 
team of experts to pursue new and novel approaches to diversif y the company's activities to· suit the 
.
Matter o[S-A-A-E-
market needs and demands , in accordance with a clear strategy and ambitiou s plans set. by our Board 
of Directors." states that "[b]y June 2015, [the Petitioner] had memorialized his 
institutional changes and subsequently, growth clearly materialized in our spec ialize d field of real 
estate" and that in 2016, recorded a surge of 139.5% in profi ts over the same quarter the 
prior year. adds, "At we are convinced tha t [the Petitioner] played a 
critical role in securing a new financial dimension to the company where it wasn't enough just to 
make sure was compliant, but took the opportunity to help our organization look forward 
and address issues that could imp act business performance." This letter indicates tha t there are two 
objectives the Petitioner focused on: compliance and issues that '"could impact business 
performance." focuses on the financial results the company achieve d two years 
after hiring the Petitioner "to perform a financial overhaul of the Company ," but it also appears that 
the Petitioner was working closely with team of experts. It is unclear what amount of the 
Petitioner's work focused on compliance with new finance laws and what role this team had in 
achieving the company's overall financial objectives. Accordingly,. the record does not contain 
suffiCient objective evidence to estab lish what extent the growth at in 2016 is directly 
attributable to the Petitioner. In addition, the record does not contain evidenc e demonstrating that 
has a distinguished reputation in the industry. 
The record contains a letter from , legal counsel for the law 
firm in Kuwait. states that the Petitioner has served as a financial expert at least 45 
times, highlighting specifically three major cases in which he asserts that the Petitioner played a 
critical role in the outcome of the litigation. It is unclear how the Petitioner' s testimony in these 
instances was a determining factor in the outcome of these cases. also states that the 
firm has relied upon him "to provide the legal financial foundation to sophisticated business 
transactions, help protect the right s a nd intere st of our clients , and assi st them in achieving their 
obj ectives while saving them both time and money." However, the Petitioner has not provided 
evid ence demonstrating that his role has been critical to the outcome of these matters. In addi tion , 
while the record contains document s printed from the law firm' s website, statin g that the firm is 
"one of the oldest legal service provider s in Kuwait ," the reco rd does not contain objec tive evidence 
that this organization has a distingui shed reputation . 
As stated above, the record contains a letter from the ow ner of the 
accounting firm _ , stating that he hir ed the Petitioner to prepare the 20 14 
end-of-year financial accounts for 
states that the Petitioner's "final accounts for the financi al year ending 
December 31, 2014 proved to be impeccable as they provided crucia l information to 
General Secretariat, Ministerial Council , the Exec utive Office , and the Judiciary , as to the financial 
and administrative status of However , does not state why this "crucial 
information " had a critical role for 
We find that the evidence in the record does not establish that the Petitioner ·performed a cri tical role 
for organizations with a distinguished reputat ion. Therefore , the Petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
5 
.
Matter of S-A -A-E-
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
This Petitioner states that he has earned an average monthly salary of 3,267 in Kuwait i dina r (KWD) 
and that the average monthly compensation for chief ·accoun tants in Kuwait is 850 KWD and for 
auditing managers is 1,550 KWD. The Petitioner also submitted documentation from 
which provides salary estimates 
for occupations. This document states that "salary 
estimates ... are calculated using data provided by candidates register ed on The record 
also contains a document from Salary Explorer, which states that it is "a sa lary comparison and 
career resources website for both employees and employers" based on " the informati on submitte d by 
[its] users." We find that it is unclear whether both of these documents sufficiently represent others 
in the industry. ' 
.The record contains 
the Petition er's bank account stateme nts, highlighting his incom e received from 
June 2015 through June 2016. We note that these bank account statements state the income as being 
the salary from local banks, whereas others are from and others are from It 
is unclear why this income is from different sources. Further, we note that the Petition er is claiming 
income from positions with 
1 
during the same period of time. The se discrepancies 
call into question the bank account statements and whether the Petitioner received these funds in the 
same position in the field. Therefo re, the Petition er has not established that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligibl e because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying 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). Thus, we do not need to fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merit s determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20. Nevertheless, we adv ise that we have 
review ed the reco rd in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitione r 
has the level of expertise requir ed for the classific ation sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofS-A-A-E-, ID# 1232896 (AAO June 15, 2018) 
1 We also note that the leiter of the Audit Committee .Meeting for 
§ 103.2(b )(3). 
6 
is noJ properly translated under 8 C.ER.