dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 15775769 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 6, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a business executive , seeks classification as an individual 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 . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria , as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals 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 pet1t10ner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
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 has worked for various .__ ___________ __. companies since 1996, starting 
as an engineer and rising to execrive porions. After serving as the chief executive officer (CEO) of 
I I in Saudi Arabia, in 2020 the Petitioner became the CEO ofi I 
which provides services to clients in the oil and gas industry. The Petitioner asserts that he "ranks among 
the top corporate executives in the world and is an internationally acclaimed expert in the field of 
managing international engineering and manufacturing enterprises in the energy industry." 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied six of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met one of the criteria, relating to a leading or critical role 
for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that he also meets the other five claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
2 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The Petitioner has served on the board of trustees of Saudi Arabia's National Power Academy (NP A), 
and ar---7representative at the American Petroleum Institute (API). The Director concluded that 
neithe~ositions constitutes a qualifying membership. On appeal, the Petitioner only discusses 
his role at the NP A, and therefore we consider him to have waived his claim regarding the APL 1 We note 
that materials in the record indicate that the API's members are companies rather than individuals. 
The Petitioner has not established that the NP A's board of trustees is an association in the field. Rather, 
according to its charter, the NP A exists to provide vocational training for the energy industry, and its 
board of trustees is its governing authority. The NP A's I I asserts that the 
Petitioner "was elected to the position of Board Member ... based on his extraordinary achievements in 
the field and his reputation as a leading expert," but the record does not support this assertion. The NP A's 
charter does not indicate that recognized national or international experts elect board members based on 
their outstanding achievements. Rather, the NP A's stakeholders, including! I appoint the board 
members who represent them, and the charter does not indicate how the stakeholders choose whom to 
appoint. The Petitioner's letter of appointment frortj I likewise does not say that the Petitioner's 
achievements were the basis for his appointment. This letter also shows that the decision to name the 
Petitioner to the board lay with his employer, rather than with the NP A. Given the responsibilities and 
authorities of board members, the Petitioner's position may qualify as a leading or critical role for an 
organization with a distinguished reputation under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), but the Director already 
concluded that the Petitioner has satisfied that criterion. 
The Petitioner has not established his membership in associations that meet the specified requirements. 
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 necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submits numerous exhibits intended to satisfy this criterion, but he does not submit 
evidence to establish that any of the materials appeared in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. Because the burden of proof is on the Petitioner, we do not begin with the assumption 
that the publications meet that requirement. On appeal, the Petitioner cites a previously-submitted letter 
from an executive of "J I multinational investment bank and financial services holding company, 
[who] confirms the publication of major media and trade articles regarding" the Petitioner. The bank 
executive states that "major media from around the world has reported on [the Petitioner's] 
accomplishments," but he does not establish how his background in finance gives him knowledge of trade 
publications in the oil and gas industry. 
1 See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att:v Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-
CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
3 
Many of the materials are deficient for other reasons as well. Several publications, such as Asian Oil & 
Gas, Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide, and Oil & Gas News, announced the Petitioner's appointment as 
CEO of1 I These articles include brief biographical sketches of the Petitioner, and we 
conclude that the articles are about him, relating to his work in the field. Nevertheless, these articles do 
not otherwise meet the regulatory reruiremen
1
s. They lack the required author credit, and the articles are 
either paraphrased or copied from a press release in the record. The record does not show that 
the Petitioner's appointment attracted media notice apart from the publication of materials copied or 
adapted froml lown promotional press release (which is not a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media). Promotional and marketing materials are not generally considered 
to be published materials about the individual. 2 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his "appointment as CEO ofl I was a direct result 
of his outstanding achievement ... and therefore, announcement of [his] appointment to this executive 
position is absolutely publi[ shed material] about [ the Petitioner] and his achievements." We acknowledge 
that the Petitioner's appointment as CEO o~ I is a significant achievement, however, 
the significance of such an appointment does not overcome basic deficiencies in the submitted evidence. 
As noted above, the regulation requires the published materials to identify their author. In this instance, 
the author of thd~ __ .....,bress release appears to be an unnamed publicist working at, or for,I I 
I I 
Many other articles, as noted by the Director, mention the Petitioner in passing but the articles are not 
about him, relating to his work. On appeal, the Petitioner contends: "Though these articles do not mention 
[the Petitioner] by name, they are written about contracts and projects successfully executed b~ I 
under his direction, and thus his business achievements." The regulation requires the published material 
to be "about" the Petitioner; references to his company and its projects do not meet this requirement. 
Some of the other submitted articles focus significantly on the Petitioner and his work, but, for the reasons 
discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown that these articles appeared in qualifying publications. 
The Petitioner has not established that any published materials about him, relating to his work in the field, 
appeared in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
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) 
In a statement submitted with the initial filing of the petition, the Petitioner stated that he "authored and 
delivered scholarly presentations at leading international conferences in the field," which deviates from 
the wording of the regulation. In response to a request for evidence, the Petitioner further deviated from 
the regulatory language, stating that he "delivered executive presentations." The submitted evidence 
confirms that the Petitioner spoke at two conferences in 2019 and participated in a panel discussion at a 
conference in 2020, but the Petitioner has not shown that his participation resulted in the publication of 
any scholarly articles in professional or trade publications or other major media. 
2 See Adjudicator's Field Manual 22.2(i)(l)(A) as revised by USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.L Evaluation of 
Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, 
AFM Update AD 11-14 7 (Dec. 22. 2010). https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner again describes his three conference appearances, and states that "the 
aforementioned publications and presentations" satisfy the regulatory requirements, but the Petitioner 
submits no evidence that his conference presentations exist in published form, disseminated through 
"media," as the regulations require. Furthermore, because the record does not document the content of 
his presentations in any detail, the Petitioner has not established that his unpublished remarks would 
qualify as scholarly articles if they were published. 
The Petitioner has not met the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Petitioner's base salary in his current position is $514,000 per year. To provide a basis for 
comparison to others in the field, the Petitioner submits printouts from the Glassdoor website, indicating 
that the average base pay for CEOs in thel I area is $162,645 per year, and the average base pay 
for CEOs at "Natural Power and Energy" is $282,237 per year. The Glassdoor printouts expressed "Low 
Confidence" in the latter figure, derived from only three samples. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the data presented "an average wage of CEOs in the natural 
energy sector rather than with similarly situated workers in the oil and gas sector." On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the comparison was apt because "oil and gas are considered natural sources of 
energy." The Glassdoor data, however, concerned not "the natural energy sector," but rather the CEO 
position at a company named "Natural Power and Energy." The Petitioner has not established that Natural 
Power and Energy engages in similar business activity tol lor that its CEO's salary is 
sufficiently representative of the field as a whole to serve as a broader basis for comparison. 
The other submitted CEO salary data is organized geographically. The regulation requires evidence that 
the Petitioner's salary is high in relation to others in the field, rather than others in the geographic area. 
While locality can affect pay scales, the Petitioner did not show that the surveyed CEO positions were at 
companies providing services to the oil and gas industry. Also, the Glassdoor printout indicated that, with 
only 17 survey respondents, there were "[ n Jot enough reports to show salary distribution" in th~ I 
area. 
For the above reasons, the submitted data is not sufficient to show that the Petitioner commands a high 
salary in relation to others in the field. 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner does not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Detailed discussion of the remaining criterion - relating 
to original contributions of major significance in the field, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)- cannot change 
the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve this issue. 3 
3 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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
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 lesser criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence establishing that the 
recognition of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or 
demonstrates 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 is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
Petitioner's status as the CEO of I I corporation carries with it a certain 
inherent degree of authority and prestige. The record, however, does not rise to the level required for the 
classification sought, and does not support the Petitioner's claim to be "among the top corporate 
executives in the world." Acknowledgment of expertise is not synonymous with sustained national or 
international acclaim among the small percentage at the very top of the field. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6