dismissed EB-1A Case: Administrative Services And Facilities Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 28, 2025 In Re: 34294187 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an administrative services and facilities manager, 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 )(1 )(A). This first preference (EB-1) 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 petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification, as required. The matter is now before us on appeal. 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 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 their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated she worked in several positions at ________ in Afghanistan, 
including as a customer service agent for A-W-U- from 2007 to 2011, assistant clinic manager at G­
M- from 2012 to 2014, human resource manager with S-S- Services during 2015, local linguist 
operations specialist with M-E- from 2015 to 2018, and operations specialist for the same company 
during 2020 and 2021 . The Petitioner indicated that from 2022 to the present she worked as a medical 
transportation specialist in New York, and she planned on continue her studies in a master of business 
administration program. The Petitioner asserted that "with over 16 years of dynamic experience as an 
Administrative Services and Facilities Manager" she had "thoughtfully developed a well-structured 
and forward thinking professional plan." 
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). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets the 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3) evidentiary criteria relating to awards (i), judging (iv), and leading or critical role (viii). 
She does not assert her eligibility on appeal under the following criteria: membership (ii), published 
material (iii), original contributions (v), authorship (vi), display of work (vii), high salary (ix), or 
commercial success (x). Therefore, we deem these issues to be waived and will not address these 
criteria in our decision. See, e.g., Matter ofM-A-S- , 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). While we 
may not discuss every document in the record, we have reviewed and considered each one. Based on 
our de novo review, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she meets the requirements 
of at least three criteria. 
Documentation ofthe alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) . 
2 
The Petitioner claimed to meet this criterion based on her receipt of "certifications" from her previous 
employers, including one for "exceptional performance" to customers and "outstanding support she 
provided to the A- Europe Team during in 2011. The 
Petitioner also pointed to a "certificate of appreciation" she received in 2018 from her former employer 
M-E- "for her dedication and support to the employees and staff" as well as another she received from 
her employer A- Europe for "outstanding service and support to the ___________ 
during 2009 and 2010. In addition, the Petitioner emphasizes yet another certificate 
of appreciation she received from her employer G-M- "presented to her by the Vice President of 
Operations of G-M- in Afghanistan." 
In concluding that the Petitioner did not establish this criterion, the Director stated the submitted 
evidence indicated that the prizes and awards she received were local or regional in nature, related to 
her job performance, and not nationally or internationally recognized. The Director also indicated that 
the Petitioner did not articulate or document the criteria used in selecting individuals for these claimed 
awards. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again points to the previously asserted certifications of appreciation and 
contends that these demonstrate her eligibility under this criterion. More specifically, the Petitioner 
asserts that her former employer A- Europe is the I !largest retailer, making it 
a "well known national institution," establishing that the awards she received from this employer were 
nationally recognized. Likewise, the Petitioner further contends that her other former employer M-E­
is also a "well-known national institution" since it provides critical global support for U.S military 
operations and is recognized as an "organization for excellence." 
Upon review, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility under this 
criterion. As noted by the Director on the denial, the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to 
establish the criteria for being selected for the certificates of appreciation she received from her former 
employers. Further, the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that the certificates of appreciation 
she received were prizes or awards for excellence in her field of endeavor, but rather, only recognition 
from her employers for performing her job well. For instance, it does not appear that individuals 
working outside the Petitioner's former employers, including others working in the field, would have 
been eligible to receive these certificates of appreciation. As such, the Petitioner provides little support 
for a conclusion that the certificates of appreciation she received from her former employers were 
nationally or internationally recognized awards reflecting excellence in the field of administrative 
services and/or facilities management. In fact, the awards themselves provide little indication that they 
were awarded specifically for excellence in these respective fields. 1 
1 The USCIS Policy Manual states the following with respect to eligibility under the prizes and awards criteria: 
Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the 
field include, but are not limited to: 
• The criteria used to grant the awards or prizes; 
• The national or international significance of the awards or prizes in the field; 
• The number of awardees or prize recipients; and 
• Limitations on competitors. 
3 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that she fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge ofthe 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which class[fication is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner asserted that she had "extensively" participated in judging the work of others while 
working as a human resources manager with a former employer in Afgahnistan, indicating that she 
oversaw 275 security personnel "assessing their compliance with the U.S. government's CAAMS arming 
requirements." Further, the Petitioner emphasized her employment with M-E- as an operations specialist 
where she was tasked with "manag[ing] the __________ Program," "evaluat[ing] the 
linguistic operational capabilities of canidates," and providing "rigorous evaluation of canidates' 
qualifications and their subsequent monitoring and assessment." In denying the petition, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner's former work assigrnents did not meet the definition of judging the work 
of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought, as required in 
the plain langauge of the regulation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner points to the USCIS Policy Manual and asserts that the definition of a judge is 
a broad designiation including peer review and "review of commercial, professional, or academic 
efficiency, competance etc., by others in the same occuption." The Petitioner contends that her review 
and monitoring of subordinates, secruity personnel, and linguists while employed with previous 
employers qualifies her under this criterion. 
"A determination as to whether a petitoner has acted as the judge of the work of others requires it be in 
the same or an allied field of specification. The petitioner must show that the petitioner has not only been 
invited to judge the work of others, but also that the person actually participated in the judging of the 
work of others in the same or allied field of specialization. 2" 
Here, the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner's work with her former employers 
meets the criterion ofjudging the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. The Petitioner was performing job duties and assessing the performance of 
subordinates and colleagues, as well as the qualifications ofcandidates for different positions and projects, 
but not judging the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification as intended by this 
criterion. For instance, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her asserted work as a judge came within 
one specific allied field of specification. The Petitioner vaguely indicates that she holds exceptional 
ability in the field of administrative services and facilities management. However, the evaluations she 
performed as a part of her former job responsibilities appeared to be in the fields of military security 
For example, an award available only to persons within a single locality, employer, or school may have little 
national or international recognition, while an award open to members of a well-known national institution or 
professional organization may be nationally recognized. Similarly, national or international recognition is most 
often associated with awards given to individuals at the highest level in a given field. 
See 6 users Policy Manual F.2(B)(l). 
2 6 users Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
4 
compliance and in the latter case linguistics, rather than her asserted field of expertise, also left 
insufficiently generic. 
To illustrate, the criterion requires that the Petitioner be invited to judge the work of others in the same or 
an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. Id. However, there is no indication that 
the Petitioner's asserted assessments and evaluations were within a specified field as the evidence 
presented reflects that she was performing evaluations of employees within varying fields of 
specialization. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner meets at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria 
discussed above. As such, the Petitioner has not met the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Therefore, detailed discussion of the remaining asserted criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(viii) cannot change the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, we reserve and will not 
address this remaining criterion. 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 unnecessary to the 
results they reach); see also Matter ofD-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n.10 (BIA 2022) (declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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 criteria. As a result, we do not need to provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the material in the aggregate, concluding that while the Petitioner has achieved 
some success as an administrative and facilities management employee, the record does not support a 
conclusion that she established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive immigrant classification, intended for individuals already at 
the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward that goal. Here, the 
Petitioner has not shown the significance of their work is indicative of the required sustained national 
or international acclaim or that it is consistent with 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 has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and they are one of a small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5