dismissed EB-1A Case: Accounting And Auditing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-M-A-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 28, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an accountant and auditor, seeks classification as an individual "of extraordinary 
ability." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The 
Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals 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 
determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which requires a one-time achievement or satisfaction of at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), 
(iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (viii) and (ix). For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established 
his eligibility for the classification sought. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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, 
Matter ofN-M-A-
(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 has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifYing evidence that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 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 Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 
1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) proper 
application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 
131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that users 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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner, as initial evidence, may present a one­
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner has 
not asserted or shown that he is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to that of the 
Nobel Prize. As such, he must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation listed under 
the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the Petitioner has filed and will address those criteria he asserts he meets or for 
which he has submitted relevant and probative documentation. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofN-M-A-
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because of his receipt of the 
Award for Community Service. The Petitioner maintains that the Director did 
not take into account a letter from the - an "Australian 
Government Agency that promotes trade, investments and education," or that the selections appeared 
in the local The Petitioner has not shown that the award is nationally or 
internationally recognized as honoring excellence in the field of accounting and auditing. A 
articles in the newsletter of the Office of Advancement for alumni and supporters 
of the , indicated that the Petitioner received the award "for his work in 
developing countries," because he "put his skills to use in teaching and mentoring the needy." As he 
seeks classification in the field of accounting and auditing, he has not established that a community 
service award recognizes his work in the relevant field. 
In addition, the Petitioner has not shown that his A ward for Community Service 
is nationally or internationally recognized. According to the letter, 
Awards "recogni[ z ]e and hon[ o ]r alumni who have attained exemplary 
achievements in their field of speciali[z]ation at a national, regional or international level." This 
letter further noted that the A wards are "limited to Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan 
students who have studied in Australia and now are alumni of relevant education providers." The 
Petitioner has not established that his award, which has a limited pool of applicants, restricted by 
nationality and educational background, constitutes a nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award. Finally, the record does not include evidence indicating that the awards or the Petitioner's 
receipt of the award received any coverage in national or international media outlets or were 
otherwise recognized beyond the award-issuing entity. The record does not contain a 
article. While the Petitioner did offer photographs from the ceremony that appeared in the , 
, they appear in an "Advertising Supplement." Based on these reasons, the Petitioner has not 
shown his receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor. He does not satisfy this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the fieldfor which classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts he meets this criterion because he is a Certified Internal Auditor 
(CIA) in the United States, a Certified Practicing Accountant (CPA) in Australia, and a Certified 
Fraud Examiner (CFE) in the United States. The record does not demonstrate that these 
organizations require "outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts," as required under the plain language of the criterion. The Petitioner has not 
shown that an academic or professional background and specialist qualifications, without more, are 
sufficient to meet this criterion. Compare 8 C.F.R § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), (E)(specifying that licenses 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofN-M-A-
and professional memberships are credentials that can support a finding of exceptional ability, a 
lesser classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Act). 
In May 2001, the Petitioner successfully completed the CIA exam and the 
designated him as a CIA. According to a 2001 press release, 1,000 of the May 2001 
candidates successfully completed the CIA exam, the . has designated a total of more than 33,000 
CIAs worldwide, and the CIA exam "reflects the current state of the art in internal auditing and 
evaluates technical competence in important subject areas related to internal auditing." The 
Petitioner has not shown that successfully completing a professional exam constitutes an outstanding 
achievement, as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts. In a 2001 letter, 
Senior Manager of Certifications at congratulated the Petitioner on his completion of 
CIA exam and informed him of the association's continuing professional education (CPE) 
requirements. 
Similarly, according to a February 2015 letter from Manager, Assessment and 
Activation, Member Advisory and Information Services, that 
association has more than 150,000 members. She explained that to become a member, an applicant 
must: 
• Complete a degree or a postgraduate award recogni[ z Jed by 
• Complete the CPA Program, including [examination and] three years of professional 
experience in finance, accounting or business; 
• Undertake CPD [continuing professional development] activities each year; [and] 
• Comply [with] a strict code of conduct set by 
Finally, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that being a CFE in the 
meets this criterion. According to Director of Membership, 
CFE members must meet the following requirements: 
• Be an Associate Member of the in good standing; 
• Meet minimum academic and professional requirements ; 
• Be of high moral character; and 
• Agree to abide by the Bylaws and Code of Professional Ethics of [ 
Section 5.02 of the bylaws as quoted by Mr. also references testing requirements. The record 
does not contain associate membership requirements. Regardless, the Petitioner has not 
established that the abovementioned qualifications for a CIA, CPA, or CFE, consisting of testing, 
educational credentials, professional background, or personal conduct, meet the plain language of 
the criterion, which necessitates that the Petitioner demonstrate that the membership requirements 
include outstanding achievements as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts. 
Based on these reasons, the Petitioner has not documented his 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. He does not 
satisfy this criterion. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofN-M-A-
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner 
indicates that he has submitted relevant evidence relating to this criterion. He does not, however, 
specifically discuss the Director's finding or reasoning, or provide any legal support demonstrating 
that the Director erred. As such, the Petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he has not properly 
raised it on appeal. See Desravines v. United States Att'y Gen., No. 08-14861, 343 F. App'x 433, 
435 (11th Cir. 2009) (finding that issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed 
abandoned); Tedder v. FMC Corp., 590 F.2d 115, 117 (5th Cir. 1979) (deeming abandoned an 
issue raised in the statement of issues but not anywhere else in the brief). Moreover, although the 
record includes articles published in and a 
publication, the Petitioner has not shown that these were professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. Rather, they are university-based publications. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
not presented published material about him in professional or 
major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to his work in the field for which classification is sought. He does not satisfy 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. 
The Director concluded that the submissions did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner 
does not specifically address the Director's reasoning or provide legal support demonstrating that the 
Director erred. Instead, the Petitioner states in a conclusory manner that his involvement in a 
possible embezzlement investigation meets this criterion. As he has not offered a basis for appeal, 
he has abandoned this issue. See Desravines, 343 F. App'x at 435; Tedder, 590 F.2d at 117. 
Moreover, although the evidence indicates that the Petitioner was a member of a commission that 
investigated "a possible embezzlement of budget funds meant for the acquisition of four lorries for 
the I 
" the record does not demonstrate that he judged the work of others in his or an allied field. 
The commission conducted an investigation and authored a report. The Petitioner, however, has not 
specifically documented what he 
did, or shown that in his role as a commission member, he judged 
the work of accountants, auditors or others in a related field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
submitted proof of his patticipation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an allied field for which classification is sought. He does not satisfy this 
criterion. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofN-M-A-
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 
The Director concluded that the submissions did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that he meets this criterion, but does not provide legal support to address the findings in the 
denial. As such, he has abandoned this issue, as he has not properly raised it on appeal. See 
Desravines, 343 F. App'x at 435; Tedder, 590 F.2d at 117. Moreover, although the record indicates 
that the Petitioner completed studies and has worked as an accountant and an auditor for a number of 
years, it does not demonstrate that the impact of his work is at a level consistent with a finding of 
original contributions of major significance in the field. The Petitioner has not shown that his work 
is original, such that he is the first person or one of the first people to have done the work in the 
field, or that his contributions are of major significance in the field, such that his work significantly 
advanced the field as a whole. As the Director noted, the lack of citation record to the Petitioner's 
thesis does not support a finding that he meets this criterion. Further, although the 
published the Internal Audit Manual for that country 
that it commissioned from the Petitioner, the record lacks confirmation of the impact of this manual 
in the field. Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major 
significance in the field" requires an impact beyond one's employer and clients or 
customers. 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 as a whole). Accordingly, 
he has not submitted evidence of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. He does not satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion. The record supports this finding. In a 
March 2005 letter, Dr. Head, _ 
confirmed that the Petitioner was employed as an Advisor/Head of Internal 
Audit in the , and he was "appointed by the to 
organize and develop the Internal Audit capacities of the Ministry of Planning and Finance" of 
The Petitioner authored 
_ that consisted of "generally accepted auditing principles, standards and 
procedures." In his 2005 employment appraisal, the Petitioner was noted to have "made major 
contributions to the mission and the govermnent" and that he was "a great asset to the 
Organization and the government." According to a Certificate of Service, between 2003 
and 2006, the Petitioner "effectively contributed to the capacity building of the 
.. through advisory services and capacity development activities." In 
light of the above, the Petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for an organization or 
establishment, namely the which has a distinguished 
reputation. He satisfies this criterion. 
(b)(6)
Matter ofN-M-A-
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field , in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 
The Director concluded that the submissions did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner 
indicates that he has filed relevant materials relating to this criterion. He does not, however, address 
the specific concerns in the denial. As such, he has abandoned this issue, as he has not properly 
raised it on appeal. See Desravines , 343 F. App'x at 435; Tedder, 590 F.2d at 117. Moreover, 
although the Petitioner has authored articles, including his Master's Degree dissertation, he has not 
shown that any of his articles have been published in a qualified publication or other major media. 
Accordingly, he has not submitted evidence of his authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. He does not satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign~ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion. The record shows between 2007 and 
2009, he earned an annual salary of $89,982, a yearly service allowance of $17,859, and a monthly 
Mission Subsistence Allowance of $4,920. On appeal, he states that these monetary figures meant 
that his compensation was $166,881. The record does not demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes that "it is not possible for [him] to compare the total remuneration 
earned by [him] with others who are employed in the same trade." Notwithstanding his assertion, 
the record has some information on others' earning in the Petitioner's field. The evidence provides 
the average annual wages for accountants and auditors, and for senior internal auditors. Earning 
more than the average, however, is insufficient to show that the Petitioner meets this criterion. In 
addition, according to Compensation Guide for Anti-Fraud Professionals, the total annual 
compensation for CFEs is $125,000 at the 75th percentile. The guide noted that, depending on the 
industry, income for CFEs ranges between $106,188 and $158,750 at the 75th percentile. The 
document, however, did not indicate of the elements that went into its calculation for these 
amounts, or demonstrate that they include items such as "service allowance" or "subsistence 
allowance." As such, a comparison between the figures and the Petitioner's annual 
compensation, which incorporated more than base salary, does not establish that he meets this 
criterion. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that earning more than 75 percent of those in his 
field constitutes either a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation 
to others in the field. 
Finally, the submitted evidence shows that between November 2014 and December 2015, he earned 
approximately $8,750 per month, which included "basic salary," "hardship," "oversea! [sic] 
allowance," "allowance [for] underage children," and "pension contribution." As this information 
relates to the Petitioner's income after he filed his petition in July 2014, it does not demonstrate that 
he meets this criterion. The Petitioner must rely on his earning at the time of filing to meet this 
criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Wing's Tea House, 16 
I&N Dec. at 160; Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175-76. Based on these reasons, the Petitioner has not 
(b)(6)
Matter ofN-M-A-
documented that he has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. He does not satisfy this criterion. 
B. Summary 
The Petitioner has been working as an accountant and an auditor for a number of years. He has 
worked for the and other international organizations. Based on the record, and for 
the reasons discussed above, however, we agree with the Director that he has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, documentation that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria. In addition , having considered all the filings, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown 
his eligibility for the exclusive classification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of an assertion of extraordinary ability must show that the 
individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner included the 
requisite material under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with the Kazarian 
opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the submissions in 
the context of whether or not he has achieved: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that 
the [Petitioner] has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have 
been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 
F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that he has not satisfied 
the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting initial evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless , although we need not provide the 
type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner has achieved the level of expertise required for the 
classification sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiend e, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-M-A- , ID# 15380 (AAO Jan. 28, 2016)