dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

MATTER OF L-D-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
. Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 5, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
' 
The Petitioner .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. § l 1_53(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 docm;nentation. 
The Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-·140, .Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, concluding. that the Petitioner had· not shown that she met any of the ten initial 
evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three . 
. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that she qualifies as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 
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 m 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 
.
" 
· Matter of L-D-C-
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). 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 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. USC!S, 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); R(jal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp . 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is col)sistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined . not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality ," as well as the· principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value , and credibility , both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence , to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner intends to work as a financial advisor and asserts that she qualifies as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in business. As the record does not establish that the Petitioner has received a 
major, internationally recognized award , she must demonstrate that she satisfies at least three of the 
ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Acting Director held that the Petitioner did not meet 
any of these criteria . On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets the criteria for awards, 
membership, judging, original contributions of major significance, scholarly articles, display , 
leading or. critical role, and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), and (iv)-(ix). Upon 
reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the record does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 1 
Documentation of'the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards.for excellence in ihefield of endeavor. 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that she meets this criterion based on awards she received from the 
and from a barangay chairman in the 
Philippines. Specifically, the award certificates from indicate that she was nominated as 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in conducting the two step analysis set ·out in Kazarian. She 
states that under the approach in Buletini v. INS. 860 F. Supp . 1222, 1234 (E.D. Mich. 1994), once three of the regulatory 
requirements are met, she has met pri;,ia fa cie eligibility and the burden of proof shifts to USCIS to demonstrate by· 
"specific and substantiated evidenc e" why the petitioner is not qualified . Here, we need not address this claim because 
the Petitioner has not established that she meets three criteria under 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
2 
.
Matter of L-D-C-
the "Top Grosser of the Month," the "Employee of the. Month," and that she received the " 
. Apprentice I" award. The record contains certificates of recognition from other corporations, 
including one from for being the 2003 GOLD awardee - financial 
advisor level, and another from , for ranking fifth in regional sales in the region 
of Manila. The Petitioner also submitted a ''Certificate of Excellence" from the Chairman of the 
Barangay locality in Philippines, stating that this certificate was 
awarded .for her continuing excellence and contributions to the barangay. 
The record contains other award certifo;:ates, some of which appear incomplete. We note that one 
award contains signature lines and an individual's title but it is not actually signed and there is no 
indication of the company in which the award was given. Doubt cast on any aspect of the 
petitioner's evidence may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining 
evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter qf Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-592 (BIA 
1988). It is incumbent' upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsisteJ,?.cies in the record by 
independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, absent 
c?mpetent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice '. Id. 
Upon review of the record in totality, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence regarding the criteria 
for these certificates, and thus has not demonstrated that they are awards for excellence in her field 
of endeavor. Similarly , the Petitioner has provided proof that these awards receive national or 
international recognition. Therefore, she has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the fi eld.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 .· 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion on account of her · employment with 
She cites a letter from team leader, indicating that the Petitioner 
provides- "outstanding support" as a "finance experience advisor." This letter refers to the 
Petitioner's work performance but does not indicate that outstanding achievements are required for 
employment with The record does not contain evidence regarding the hiring practices of 
to demonstrate that it requires outstanding achievements as a condition of employment 
with the company as judged by "recognized national or international expe11s in their disciplines or 
fields." Therefore , the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
1 
Eviden·ce qf the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as ajudge of the work 
of others in the same or an allied field of spec(ficafion fhr which class(fication is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The record contains two letters inviting the Petitioner to judge events. invited the 
Petitioner to serve as a judge of a debate at School , and asked her to 
serve as a judge for the business development marketing campaign of . However, 
the letter from ~-- does not identify the subject of the student debate, and the record lacks 
3 
.
Matter of L-D-C-
other evidence demonstrating that this event involved judging the work of others in the same or an 
allied field. Furthermore, the regulation required evidence of participation as a judge, not simply an 
invitation to do so. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstrating that she actually 
performed as a judge at either of these events. 
In addition, the Petitioner references her participation in the "Outstanding Yoimg Achievers" everit 
in 2002, but the record does not establish that her involvement in this event entailed judging the 
work of others. We note that the Acting Director discussed the lack of supporting documentation for 
these events in the RFE and the decision, but the Petitioner has not submitted additional evidence to 
corroborate these claims. Therefore, she has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific. scholarly. artistic. athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[fzcance in the .field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner must satisfy. The 
contributions must be original and scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in 
nature. Next, the contributions must rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, 
rather than to a project or to an organization. The term "contributions of major significance" 
connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 
3d at 134. 
The Petitioner correctly notes that the Director failed to address her claim to this eligibility criterion. 
The Petitioner submitted a recommendation letter from who states that the Petitioner 
worked part-time for her company as an agent and finance officer. speaks highly of the 
Petitioner's dedication to her work, but this does not represent ·evidence of her original contributions 
and does not establish that any of her contributions are of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner .submits additional letters from former managers attesting to her dedication 
and positive attitude. President of the 
discusses the Petitioner's dedication to the organization, noting that "her contributions in [the 
company's] workplace over the years have been substantial" and were the main reason for the 
company ' s success. In one letter, states that under her leadership running a finance 
department, productivity increased by 25 percent while maintaining high standards of quality. 
Similarly, the letters in the record from the Petitioner's colleagues at discuss her customer 
service support, her knowledge of the company's products and operating procedures, and her 
·1eadership. 
We note that these letters identify· contributions to a particular company, and the Petitioner has not 
shown that they had an impact on the greater field. Letters from colleagues that do not specifically 
identify contributions or detail how those. contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 
Kazarian v. USCJS, 580 F.3d at 1036 : a.ff'd in petri 596 F.3d 1115. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion, 
4 
.
Matter of L-D-C-
Evidence of the alien's authorship o_f scholarly articles in the field. in pro_fessional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 CF.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
For the first time on appeal the Petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion based on her 
association with USA . and Philippines. She states that she has authored articles 
published in major media. 
Beyond her statement in the brief, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence related to the articles to 
establish that they are scholarly or that they were published in qualifying media. USClS need not 
accept primarily conclusory statements. I 756. inc. v. The US Atty Gen. , 745 F. Supp .. 9, 15 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). Therefore, these requirements have not been met. 
Evidence o_f the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases . 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner states that her webpage relating to her. products is sufficient to satisfy this 
criterion, but the record does not contain evidence supporting this assertion. She has not submitted a 
copy of this webpage and has not shown that this was displayed at an artistic exhibition.2 Therefore, 
the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1:formed in a leading or critical role .fiJr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is or was a leader.3 If a critical 
role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant 
importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. A supporting role may 
be considered "critical" if the petitioner's performance in the role is or was important in that way. It 
is not the title of the petitioner's role, but rather his or her performance in the role that determines 
whether'the role is or was critical. 4 · · 
The record contains a letter from who identifies herself as the head financial advisor of 
, indicating that the Petitioner "assumed a leadership role in finance 
' The Pe1;1;onec dies 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(4) whkh stat~s thaj comparable ev;denc< may be subm;tted to establ;sh 
eligibility if the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(iHx) do 7ot readily apply to her occupation. This regulation 
requires that a petitioner demonstrate why a criterion is not readily applicable to his or her occupation and how the 
submitted evidence is comparable to that criterion. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 . 1, Ewdumion <il 
Evidence Suhmirted wilh Certain Form 1-140 Pe1itions: Revisions 10 !he Adjudicator ·s Field Manual (A FMi Chapter 
22.2, AF/\,/ Update ADI /-14 12 (Dec . 22, 2010), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/i-
140-evidence-pm-6002-005-l.pdf. Here, the Petitioner has not discussed why this criterion does not readily apply to her 
occupation and does not submit evidence that is comparable to this criterion . 
3.See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1. Evahiutio11 c!fE videnc:e S11 b111i11ed with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisi<ins to the Adjudicatm<~ Field Aiunua/ (AFA.fJ Chap1er 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 10 (Dec. 22. 2010) , 
https :/ /www.useis.gov Is ites/defau lt/fi les/U SC I S/ Laws /Memoranda /i- I 40-evidence-pm-6002-005-1 . pdf. 
4 Id. . 
5 
.
Matter of L-D-C-
meetings, inspiring and motivating other employees and representatives of [the] organization." This 
letter does not specify the details of what leadership position the Petitioner held or how her work had 
a significant impact on the organization's activities. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence establishing that _______ has a distinguished reputation. 
The record also contains a letter from the head of the 
Philippines, stating that the Petitioner served as a financial advisor in her office. attests 
to the Petitioner's productivity, positive attitude, organizational skills, and diligence in the 
organization, but this does not demonstrate that she had a leading or critical role. The record does 
not contain evidence indicating she performed a leadership role in or otherwise performed 
activities that were critical t,o the success of the organization. The Acting Director noted that the 
Petitioner had not shown that she performed a leading or critical role for or 
and had not submitted evidence establishing that these)organizations have a distinguished 
reputation. The Petitioner has not submitted additional evidence about the group or her role in 
the organization on appeal. Therefore, the record does not demonstrate that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or · other signfficantly high 
remuneration.for services, in relation to o~hers in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). · 
The record contains a letter from manager at attesting to the Petitioner's 
salary, as a brand specialist, but this letter does not contain specific details of her compensation, 
using the phrase "more or less" and an approximation of amounts received in monthly incentives. 
The Petitioner also submitted documentation from payscale.com, providing details of salaries for 
finance and administrationmanagers in the However, she has not established that the salaries 
of finance and administration managers relate to her work as a brand specialist. Due to the lack of 
specific details regarding the Petitioner's salary, and without additional corroborating evidence, she 
has not established that she has had a high salary in relation to others in the field to meet this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because she 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 merits determination. Kazarian; 596 F.3d at 1119.:20. Nevertheless, w:e advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggreg<;1te, concluding thatit does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has .established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. ; 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
J . 
Cite as Matter ofL-D-C-, ID# 1956574 (AAO Feb. 5, 2019) 
6