dismissed EB-1A Case: Administrative Services Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6798659 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL Y 22, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an administrative services manager, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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. 
After issuing a request for evidence in The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the initial 
petition. The Petitioner then filed a joint motion to reopen and motion to reconsider the Director's 
decision, which was subsequently dismissed . The Petitioner now appeals the Director's dismissal of 
these motions. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 classification's initial evidence 
requirements . First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide 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 submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we 
will then determine whether the totality of 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. 1 
1 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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
A motion to reconsider must ( 1) state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(3). 
In addition, the regulation specifies motion filing requirements, providing that a petitioner must submit 
"a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of 
any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." 8 
C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) requires that "[a] motion that 
does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director denied the Petitioner's initial petition, finding that she had neither demonstrated her 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or met any of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), as required. The Petitioner filed a joint motion to reopen and reconsider 
the Director's decision, which he subsequently dismissed. 2 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director erred in dismissing these joint motions. She also 
provides additional evidence to establish her eligibility for the classification sought. She submits an 
appellate brief, a copy of the brief filed with her joint motions, certificates of participation for her 
appearance as a guest speaker from the University of I ~ I College of 
Business Administration and for her role as a judge selecting the "best Management and Marketing 
Strategies" advertising forl I of the Philippines, and her Form I-797C, Notice of 
Action, confirming the Nebraska Service Center's receipt of her joint motion filing. The Petitioner 
also submits a supplementary a ellate brief alon with co ies of her certificates of excellence from 
'""F========="--'=I ====="-,l the.__ ____________________ ___, and 
Here we find that the Director's decision was not in error for the reasons discussed below and will 
dismiss her appeal accordingly. 
2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "trnth 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 trne." Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
2 In addition to the grounds addressed below, we note that these motions failed to meet the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(4) as they do not include the "statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or 
is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding" required 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C), (a)(4). 
2 
A. Motion to Reopen 
The Director dismissed the Petitioner's motion to reopen on the grounds that it was not accompanied 
by new evidence. As noted above, a motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by 
affidavits or other documentary evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts 
that the Director erred in his decision as she had provided the aforementioned certificates of 
participation as new evidence with her motion to reopen. However, the record reflects that the 
Petitioner previously submitted these documents as Exhibit 20 accompanying her response to the 
Director's June 2018 request for evidence (RFE). 3 Therefore, they cannot be considered documentary 
evidence of new facts, and providing them on appeal is not sufficient to overcome the Director's 
grounds for dismissing her motion to reopen. The Petitioner submits no other evidence demonstrating 
that the Director improperly denied this motion to reopen. We therefore find that the Director properly 
determined that the Petitioner had not complied with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that a decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). In dismissing the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, the 
Director noted that her motion did not "establish that the decision was incorrect based upon evidence 
of record at the time." 
On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that her motion "provided reasons for reconsideration and reopening 
supported by precedent decisions." She does not specify these reasons in her appellate brief: indicate 
which precedent decisions supported them, or identify errors of fact or law made by the Director in 
his decision. Upon review of the motion itself, we note that the Petitioner does not state the reasons 
why the Director should reconsider his decision in the brief accompanying it. Without this or other 
evidence demonstrating that the Director's decision was based upon an incorrect application of law or 
policy, the Petitioner has not established that her motion complied with the requirements for a motion 
to reconsider found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
In the alternative, we review the record to determine whether the Director's decision was in error based 
upon the evidence in the record at the time. 4 On motion, the Petitioner asserted that the Director erred 
in determining that she had neither received a major internationally recognized award nor established 
her eligibility for the evidentiary criteria related to lesser national or internationally recognized awards, 
membership, published material, judging, original contributions, scholarly articles, leading or critical 
role, and salary found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 5 
3 In June 2018, the Director issued a request for additional evidence establishing that the Petitioner would continue to work 
in her area of expertise; that her entry would substantially benefit prospectively the United States and; that she met the 
criteria related to awards, membership, judging, display, and leading or critical role pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i),(ii),(iv),(vii), and (viii). 
4 We note that the Petitioner did not address this ground on appeal, but rather "pray[ ed] for reconsideration and reevaluation 
of the previously submitted pieces of evidence." 
5 The Director also determined in his denial that the Petitioner had not met the criterion related to display found at 8 C.F .R. 
204.5(h)(3)(vii). On motion, the Petitioner does not contest this finding. We therefore deem it waived and will not address 
it in our analysis. 
3 
As it relates to receipt of a one-time major internationally recognized award, the Petitioner asserted on 
motion that she had received such an award as demonstrated by the certificates of excellence from 
,__ _____ __. D and I I she submitted with her response to the Director's RFE. She 
argued that these awards she received qualified as international as they were was issued by an 
international company and "on its face [it] appears to be a Top Achievement relating to the field." 
However, the regulation provides that a qualifying award must be a major, internationally recognized 
one, not that it should be issued by an international company. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The 
Petitioner does not provide evidence, such as media articles or other appropriate materials, showing 
that these awards were internationally recognized in her field. Without this evidence, she does not 
show the significance of these awards or how they rise to the level of a one-time major internationally 
recognized award. 
The Petitioner further claimed that these awards "appear[ed] to be a Top Achievement relating to the 
field." Given Congress' intent to restrict this category to "that small percentage of individuals who 
have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor," the regulation permitting eligibility based on a 
one-time achievement must be interpreted very narrowly, with only a small handful of awards 
qualifying as major, internationally recognized awards. See H.R. Rep. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990), 
reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 1990 WL 200418 at *6739. The House Report specifically 
cited to the Nobel Prize as an example of a one-time achievement; other examples which enjoy major, 
international recognition may include the Pulitzer Prize, the Academy Award, and an Olympic 
Medal. The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time achievement 
must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The selection of Nobel 
Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media internationally regardless 
of the nationality of the awardees, reflects a familiar name to the public at large, and includes a large 
cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably constitute a one-time 
achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example provided by Congress 
that the award must be global in scope and internationally recognized in the field as one of the top 
awards. 
Although the Petitioner asserted on motion there is "International [sic] media coverage regarding the 
winners," she did not provide materials demonstrating this coverage as it was "unavailable to [her] at 
the time of filing." She further claimed that these awards were posted in social media in a manner 
"similar as the announcement of Nobel Prize winners, Grammy, Golden Dove, Oscar etc." but did not 
provide evidence corroborating this assertion. The Petitioner did not submit other evidence 
demonstrating that these awards are global in scope and recognized internationally in the field as the 
top awards, or otherwise establishing that they are a major internationally recognized award. Without 
this evidence, she has not shown that she received such an award. Accordingly, we find the Director 
correctly determined that the Petitioner had not received a one-time major international award based 
upon the evidence in the record before him. 
As the Petitioner had not 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 
Director found that the Petitioner met none of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
On motion, the Petitioner asserted that the Director was in error, and that she met at least three of these 
4 
criteria, an argument which she repeated on appeal. For the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate on appeal that the Director erred in dismissing her motion to reconsider. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) 
As it relates to this criterion, the Petitioner provided a;:;:n:....:a::...;.w.:...:a=r-=d:....:c:....:e:.:..rt:c:i=fic.::.c=-at=-=e:....:f:.:..ro.::cm::.:;.:.J==-----------' 
I I a certificate of achievement from .__ __________ ____. a certificate of 
contribution from I I certificates of participation and recognition from I I I I and an achievement award from I I She also 
submitted a certificate statin that she was selected as a finalist for the People Manager of the Year by 
the '------------------------~ and the nomination form for this 
award. 
In his decision the Director acknowledged these certificates but concluded that she did not meet this 
criterion because thel I award was not granted in her field of endeavor. Rather, he determined, 
it was granted in the field of human resources, a field "not related to the area that the [Petitioner] is 
applying for as an administrative service manager." On motion, the Petitioner asserted that the 
Director erred in deciding this as "this award was intended not only for Human Resources but also for 
Administrative manager [sic]" and is to "recognize excellence in human resources, administrative and 
~r." However, the evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not corroborate her assertion. The 
L___J award nomination form states that it "recognizes the HR practitioner who has imbibed and 
modelled the strategic role of human resources" and requires that "the awardee continues to make 
significant contribution to the development of the HR profession." The Petitioner does not provide 
evidence establishing that the field of human resources management is the same or allied with the field 
of administrative management such that she would meet this criterion. It is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the benefit sought at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Absent 
evidence demonstrating that this award is given in her field of endeavor, the Petitioner has not provided 
documentation sufficient to demonstrate that she has received a nationally or internationally 
recognized award for excellence in the field of administrative management. 
As it relates to the remainder of the awards, the Petitioner does not submit documentation sufficient 
to establish that these awards are nationally or internationally recognized in her field of endeavor, as 
required. The certificate from is presented to the Petitioner for "her 
involvement in th_,_ ___________ __.' but the Petitioner does not provide information 
about this network and the record lacks other evidence establishinJ that it is in her field of endeavor 
or an allied one. The certificate froml is for the Petitioner's work in 
"volunteering to be one of the facilitators in our team building program" while one of the I I I I certificates confirms that the Petitioner "successfully participated and passed 
our Sales and Collection Training Program." However, the Petitioner does not provide evidence 
demonstrating that facilitating a team building program or participating in sales and collection training 
are in the field as administrative management, and therefore that these awards are given for excellence 
in her field of endeavor. Further, while the second I I certificate and thel I I ) achievement award recognize the Petitioner's effort and achievement, they do not 
indicate for what or in which field this recognition is conferred. For example, the certificate from 
D merely states that the certificate is awarded "for [the Petitioner's] Outstanding Effort and 
5 
Achievement." The Petitioner does not provide additional materials clarifying why or for which field 
of endeavor she received these awards. As we noted above, the Petitioner bears the burden of 
establishing eligibility for the benefit sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Without additional 
information identifying the field of endeavor, she has not established that she received awards in this 
field. Accordingly, she has not met this burden. 
As an additional matter, the Petitioner does not provide evidence, such as news media articles or other 
relevant documentation, showing that any of the awards discussed above are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in her field. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner 
has not shown that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require 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 Director noted in his decision that to demonstrate that she met this criterion, the Petitioner 
provided certificateg· bership inl I I I and i as well as a certificate establishing her completion of a two-day training 
program sponsored b . 6 
On motion, the Petitioner asserted that the Director erred in determining that there was no evidence in 
the record showing that she was a member of association! requirilg outstanding achievements of their 
members. She referenced her memb~rshi]is in both and D but focused on her ~ 
membership. The Petitioner asserted tha is "an association limited to individuals/persons of good 
moral standing in the community" and that the prerequisites for membership include "outstanding 
contributions and knowledge and highly skilled expertise in Management." While the aforementioned 
D certificate confirms that the Petitioner is a member oO the record lacks documentation, such 
as bylaws, membership requirements, or other appropriate evidence, corroborating her claim that the 
organization requires outstanding achievements of its members. Similarly, the Petitioner did not 
provide evidence demonstrating that I I requires outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by national or international experts in administrative management. It is the petitioner's burden 
to establish that she is ergible 
1
or the benefit sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Without evidence 
establishing thatc=]or requires outstanding achievements of its members, the Petitioner has 
not provided documentation sufficient to demonstrate that she met this criterion. 
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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
6 We note that the Petitioner provided a certificate of membership in the organization~-------~ rather 
than one in.c=:::J as stated by the Director. However, evidence in the record is sufficient to establish that she is also a 
member ofL_J Specifically, thee=] nomination form states that eligibility for this award is predicated on being a 
member in good standing. 
6 
The Petitioner claimed that she met this criterion for the first time in her response to the Director's 
RFE and provided an article titled I I published in Working Mom magazine and a letter 
from the article's author confirming its publication with her response. The Director determined that 
this documentation was insufficient to establish that she met the requirements of this criterion. On 
motion, the Petitioner argued that the Director erred as he had overlooked the fact that this article 
included a title, date, and author, and was about her work both in the field of management and as a 
mom. 
As the Petitioner argues on motion, the article includes the title, date, and author, as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). However, this regulation also provides that the published 
material must be about the Petitioner relating to the work in the field in which classification is sought. 
Here the published material focuses on the Petitioner's experience as a working mother rather than her 
role as an administrative manager. While one paragraph contains glowing accolades from her 
colleagues about her ability to encourage employees to work together as a team, it concludes with "A 
great mom and awesome boss is what she is," and does not address her role as an administrative 
manager beyond this praise. 
Even were we to consider this article in the light most beneficial to the Petitioner, she does not provide 
evidence, such as on-line circulation statistics or other relevant data, to show that Working Mom's 
circulation is high relative to others, and thus is a major medium. 7 The record farther lacks information 
about the magazine showing that it is a professional or major trade publication or other major medium, 
as required. 8 Accordingly the Petitioner has not submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate that she 
meets 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 specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
In his denial, the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of multiple certificates of 
participation and appreciation recognizing her work on speaking panels, as well as one confirming her 
participation on a judging panel for I I products. He noted that "[ t ]he phrase "a judge" implies 
a formal designation in a judging panel.. . rather than a presenter or contributing to marketing 
strategies" and concluded that this evidence did not meet this criterion. On motion, the Petitioner 
pointed to a letter of appreciation from I . !University for her work as a guest speaker and 
to a certificate of participation froml IBrojdcastinglfor serving on a panel of judges selecting 
the "best management and marketing strategies of products" as evidence that she met this 
criterion. She asserted that she was "one of three paid judges" on this I I panel and that this 
"judging is related to management." She asserts that, as management is an allied field of 
administrative management, this demonstrates that she had participated as a judge of the work of others 
in the same or an allied field of specialization. 
7 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
8 Id., at 7. 
7 
With respect to the letter from I I University, this document thanks the Petitioner for her 
work as a guest speaker on a panel, while the certificate of appreciation from the same organization 
thanks the Petitioner "for giving an enlightening and insightful talk" in a seminar on entrepreneurship. 
The Petitioner does not provide evidence, such documentation of additional duties performed in this 
role or other relevant information, showing that being a guest speaker equates to participating as a 
judge of the work of others. Accordingly, the certificate and letter are not sufficient to establish that 
the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Regarding her role as a paid judge for the I I panel, the Petitioner provides only the 
aforementioned certificate acknowledging her participation as a judge selecting the best 
"'Management and Marketing Strategies' in making advertisement for I I 
.__ ___ ..... ~-" She does not submit additional information about the event or the duties she performed 
in this role, a description of the marketing and management strategies she judged, or other relevant 
information necessary to determine whether this activity qualifies under this criterion. Further, while 
she asserts that this judging was related to managing and thus is in the same or an allied field of 
administrative management, she does not provide evidence establishing this. It is the burden of the 
petitioner to establish her eligibility for the benefit sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Here the 
Petitioner has not done so as the submitted evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that she has 
participated as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization to 
administrative management. Accordingly, she has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. 
The Petitioner asserted that she met this criterion as shown by certificates of appreciation and reference 
letters from former employees in support of this assertion. The record reflects that she provided a 
Certificate of Recognition from thel • • I Bureau of Internal Revenue for her 
work in "surpassing her Collection Goal," and a certificate of excellence from.__ _______ ~ 
.__ ______________ __. recognizing her "outstanding performance throughout the 
year." While these awards are indicative of the quality of her work, they do not identify how the 
Petitioner's contributions to these entities are original in nature. Without this information, we cannot 
determine if these awards sufficiently establish that she has made original contributions in her field. 
Further, the Petitioner does not provide evidence of or discuss how these contributions have been 
widely implemented or impacted the field in a manner reflective of major significance in the field. 
With respect to the letters of recommendation in the record, while they identify the Petitioner's 
contributions, generally they do not provide specific examples demonstrating the impact of these 
contributions on the field as a whole. For example, the letters of certification and of recommendation 
froml I head of finance at I I praise the Petitioner for 
"developing many sales plan [sic] leading to an increase in our sales revenue" and for how her 
8 
"excellent leadership and management dedication have helP.ed this com an meet its sales targets for 
an entire year within three months." In her correspondence Phili ine School of 
BJJsiness Management, discusses a manuscript titl~d I = ~ : j an~d-s-ta-t-es-th_a_t_t_h-is_r_e_s-ea_r_c_h_i_s_'_'o_n __ g-in-al_a_n_d_h_a~s 
not been published elsewhere at this time." However, she does not provide examples of how this 
original research has significantly impacted the field. 
I I I University, notes that the Petitioner's presentation on the subject of 
~-------------------~twas "highly appreciated," and praises her for 
her "views on developing an efficient marketing strategy." I I continues, "[ w ]e will 
definitely take your words into practice," but does not offer specific examples of how these views have 
already impacted or been widely implemented in the field. Letters that specifically articulate how the 
alien's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add 
value. Letters that lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic language do not add value and are not 
considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 9 Without the 
inclusion of specific examples of how the Petitioner's work is of major significance in the field of 
administrative management, this correspondence is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner met this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
On motion, the Petitioner argued that the Director should consider materials that "research ... 
conducted for proprietary purposes such as industrial research and product development pose special 
issues" as comparable evidence of the authorship of scholarly articles in her field, as petitioners who 
might publish their findings in these areas cannot publish in the public domain. She referenced a 
"Letter of Employee Commendation' from a previous employer as comparable evidence of her 
publication of scholarly articles. Upon review of this letter, we note that it does not discuss the 
Petitioner's publication of any materials, instead commending her for excellent work in management 
support, rather than research conducted for proprietary purposes. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not 
readily apply to her occupation. A petitioner should explain why she has not submitted evidence that 
would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the evidence 
she has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown why she cannot offer evidence that meets at least three of the criteria. General assertions 
that any of the ten objective criteria do not readily apply to an occupation are not probative and should 
be discounted. The fact that the Petitioner did not submit documentation that fulfills at least three is 
not evidence that an administrative manager could not do so. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not 
show that she fulfills this criterion through the submission of comparable evidence. 
As noted above, the record also contains correspondence from I I discussing the possible 
publication of the Petitioner's original work in the Journal of Innovative Business Studies. However, 
the Petitioner does not provide evidence that this work was published, as required at 8 C.F.R. § 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
9 
204.5(h)(3)(vi). See also 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(l) (requiring a petitioner to establish eligibility at the 
time of filing.) 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
In order to establish that she met this criterion the Petitioner rovided certificate.,_s ..,.o.,__f_..a=--=>==......., 
and 
well as letters of recommendation from mana er at 
from.__ _____ ~ payroll officer at.__ _____ ~-------' The Director acknowledged 
these certificates and letters in his dismissal but stated that they were insufficient to demonstrate that 
she had served in a leading role for establishments that have a distinguished reputation. On motion, 
the Petitioner argued that the Director's decision was in error as the letters contained "detailed facts 
about petitioner's leading and significant role in every organization she has worked with." As we 
discuss below, we agree that the letters contain facts regarding the role that the Petitioner performed 
at these establishments. 10 
As it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 11 Regarding 
a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the 
title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. 12 In addition, this criterion requires that the organizations or establishments must be 
recognized as having a distinguished reputation, which is marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence. 13 
Regarding a leading role, neither the certificates nor correspondence provide a title and matchin 
duties, or other details that might help to establish that the Petitioner's role a ......... ------~ 
~ LI Jandl I L=1orl I was a leading one. The Petitioner does not prov1 e ot er 
materials, such as organizational charts or other appropriate evidence, showing that she served in a 
leading role for these institutions. Without this evidence, the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated that she has performed in a leading role for these entities. 
As it relates to performing in a critical role for these companies, the certificates discussed above lack 
descriptions of the Petitioner's contributions tol ID I I and I I They farther lack, and the Petitioner does not provide, 
information on how the Petitioner's contributions were of significant importance to the outcome of 
the respective establishments' activities. 
10 The Petitioner does not explicitly state whether she submits evidence intended to demonstrate that she served in a leading 
role or in a critical role for these organizations, so we review the evidence as it relates to both. 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
12 Id., at 10. 
13 Id., at 10-11. 
10 
Regarding the correspondence froml I and I I we note that this contains 
statements describing the Petitioner's cont;ihutions to thej; resn:ctive companies. I I notes 
"[the Petitioner] brought great value tol ~ ~ Jby consistently exceeding quotas and 
selling in the top 15%" of her peers." .__ ____ ___. writes that the Petitioner has "embraced 
leadership opportunities" and that "when a project came up from a particularly difficult client the 
Petitioner] was there to step forward and lead the team and to coordinate the pro;:.,pi:...o::..:s:..:a:;:.l.:...."--'=====r-,----,, 
states that the "proposal was accepted on the first try." However, neither I I nor 
I ]provide detailed examples of how the Petitioner's actions were of critical importance to the 
outcomes of their respective companies. Letters from individuals with personal knowledge of the 
significance of the alien's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful as long as the letters 
contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the petitioner's role for the 
organization or establishment was leading or critical. 14 As the correspondence provided by the 
Petitioner does not contain this detailed information, these materials are not sufficient to establish that 
she has served in a critical role for these companies. 
Moreover, even had the Petitioner demonstrated that she performed in a leading or a critical role for 
the establishments discussed above, she does not provide evidence demonstrating that they enjoy a 
distinguished reputation. She therefore did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
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) 
In her response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner new 1: claimed to meet this criterion and submitted 
a salary certificate froml I and a printout from payscale.com titled 
"Average Administrative Services Manager Salary" providing salaries for administrative services 
managers in the United States. The Director did not address this criterion in his decision. The 
Petitioner notes the Director's lack of analysis on motion, and points to evidence from glassdoor.com 
and from salary.com showing comparative salaries for administrative services managers in the 
Philippines that she asserts was provided with her RFE response. 15 
On appeal, the Petitioner again asserts that she meets this criterion based upon the evidence in the 
record. The burden is on the petitioner to provide appropriate evidence, including, but not limited to, 
geographical or position-appropriate compensation surveys and organizational justifications to pay 
above the compensation data, demonstrating that she meets this criterion. 16 Further, a petitioner 
working in a different country must be evaluated based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence 
in that country. 17 Here the salary certificate in the record reflects that from March 2004 through June 
2006J lpaid the Petitioner a gross salary of 35,000 while she was working 
in the Philippines. 18 Therefore, appropriate evidence may be compensation surveys reflecting the 
wages for administrative service managers in the Philippines, or other appropriate materials. 
However, the printout from payscale.com provides the average administrative services manager salary 
14 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 supra, at 10. 
15 We note that the record does not contain the documentation from glassdoor.com and salary.com regarding salaries in 
the Philippines as asserted. 
16 Id., at 11. 
17 Id., at 11. 
18 We note that this document did not indicate the currency in which the Petitioner was paid. 
11 
for those working in the United States rather than the Philippines. A petitioner must establish that 
she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Without 
appropriate evidence of the average salary earned by administrative service managers in the 
Philippines, the Petitioner has not provided documentation sufficient to establish whether she has 
commanded a high salary in relation to others in her field. Accordingly, she has not demonstrated that 
she meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Director erred in dismissing her motions to reopen and 
reconsider, nor does the record establish her eligibility for the benefit sought. We will therefore 
dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and alternate 
basis for the decision 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
12