dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-V-O-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 18, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETIT[ON FOR ALIEN WORKER 
. . 
The Petitioner, an insurance chief executive officer (CEO), 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. § 1153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 d_emonstrated 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. 
.
Matter of R-V-O-A-
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary's occupation . 
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. 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); R1jal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent 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). 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a CEO for in Azerbaijan. Because he has not indicated or 
established that he has 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). In denying the petition, the 
Director found that the Petitioner met only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, published material 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record contains 
an article posted on a major medium website about the Petitioner. In addition, the Petitioner served 
as a judge for a contest regarding young entrepreneurs. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner satisfied the published material and judging criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets four additional criteria, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. · 
2 
.
Malter of R- V-O-A-
Documemation of the alien ·s receipt r~f lesse·r nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner contends that his receipt of a meets this criterion. In order 
to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his prizes or awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 1 The record contains promotional material and 
two letters from CEO of the who described the 
history, purpose, and evaluation criteria for the :awards. For example, stated that 
"[a]ny person regardless of her or his age, gender, or social status may submit her/his request to 
participate" and "(t]he nominates about 50 potential laureates, 
selected by the jury among the applicants, based on our constitutional documents and practices." 
Here, the promotional material and letters do · not show that the arc 
nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field, nor does the record include other 
evidence demonstrating such recognition. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he 
fulfills this criterion. 
Documentation <~[ the alien's membership in associations in the field.for which class!fication i., .. 
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 claims eligibility for this criterion based on his memberships with the 
of the 
and the. In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must 
show that membership in the assoc1at1on is based on being judged by recognized national or 
international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is 
') 
sought.-
As it relates to the Petitioner presented a letter from ·, vice president of 
, who indicated that the organization's bylaws state that "an individual ... who meets and 
accepts the requirements of the Confederati?n Bylaw, paid a membership fee, engaged in 
entrepreneurial activities, and has achieved significant success in its field of entrepreneurship can be 
a member." Further, he offered a letter from secretary general of who 
stated that is an active member of the a self-governing 
public union, and membership "may be awarded only to a person, who has outstanding achievements 
in business and recognized expert in his field, determined by the Board of Trustees." Regarding 
the Petitioner provided a screenshot from website reflecting that it is also a public union 
organization and letters from ____ acting chairman of who mentioned the bylaws and 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaillation of Evidence Submiued with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions: Revisions to the Adjudicator 's Field Mamwl (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
h1tps://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTMUPolicyManual.html. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 6. 
3 
.
Matter of R-V-O-A-
stated that "[t]he main criteria for admission ... are deep knowledge and experience in the sphere of 
business development" and "significant contribution to the development of insurance business 
through the creation of demanded insurance products." 
In a request for evidence the Director instructed the Petitioner to submit the bylaws to corroborate 
the statements in the letters\ but he did not comply. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(14).(providing that the 
failure to submit requested evidence which prec\udes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for 
denying the benefit request). On appeal, the Petitioner argues that "[b ]ecause the translation of the 
bylaws of each association ... is a time-consuming and extremely bureaucratic procedure, the 
translations of the whole bylaws may not be provided." 4 Without the bylaws, the Petitioner has not 
met his burden of demonstrating that or requires outstanding achievements as judged by 
recognized national or international experts consistent with this regulatory criterion.5 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
' 
The Petitioner argues that he provided reference letters establishing his eligibility for this criterion. 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contribu.tions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. 
In reviewing his rec'ommendation letters, the authors make unsupported claims regarding the 
Petitioner's creation of various websites without providing detailed, specific information 
demonstrating the impact in the overall field.6 For instance, chairman of 
, stated that "attracted about a million regular user~ per year," and 
"became the most popular project among people who love an active lifestyle, nightlife and 
entertainment. "7 Moreover, CEO of indicated that 
"significantly influenced the increase in purchases of insurance products among the population; 
made people more protected and improved th~ir quality of life ." Jn addition, , 
' . 
3 Repeating the language of the statute or regulations does·. not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fee/in Bros. Co., 
Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990) ; Avyr Associates, IHc. v. 
Meissner, No. 95 CIV. 10729, * 1, *5 (S.D.N. Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Here, the submitted letters assert that the bylaws 
include language mirroring the language of the regulations, but the record does not include corroborating documentation. 
4 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). : 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra,iat 7 (stating that relevant factors that may lead to a conclusion 
that membership was not based on outstanding achievements include years of experience in a particular field, payment of 
a subscription fee, or employment in certain occupations).; 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005. l, supra, 'at 8-9; see also \lisinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterio~ because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
7 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
.
Matter of R-V-0-A-
managing paitner of . concluded' that the Petitioner's "projects have gathered around 
a million users and created a completely new Internet infrastructure." Here, the authors did not 
explain how they were aware of the influence of the websites , such as the asserted effect on overall 
sales of insurance products, nor did they reference any material to support their assertions. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide any corroborating evidence showing the significant 
effect of his websites on the greater field. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status m the field 
without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. See Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, ciff'd in par/ 596 F.3d at 1115. 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756 . Inc. v. The U.S. Alt ; 1 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). For these reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that he 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). 
Initially , the Petitioner provided a letter from chairman of the management 
board of ===:cc- , who stated that the Petitioner earned $84,615 per year while employed at 
from July 2012 to April 2014. 8 The Director found that the Petitioner 
did not submit supporting documentation, such as payroll records or income tax documentation , 
confirming his salary. On appeal, the Petitioner presents documentation from the 
under the reflecting that he earned 
approximately $40,000 from in ~013. He did not explain the inconsistency between 
his claimed earnings as reported by and those he reported to the Azerbaijan 
government. Moreover, in order to compare his salary to others in the field, the Petitioner offered a 
letter from acting chairman of the management board at who 
claimed that the yearly income of the deputy chairman is $24,000. The Petitioner did not explain 
how he purportedly earned $84,615/$40 ,000 as the deputy chairman of 
when the salary of the position is $24,000 per year. The Petitioner must resolve these 
inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). As there are conflicting reports of his salary as 
deputy chairman, the Petitioner has not established his earnings.') 
In addition, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient comparative data regarding the compensation 
of others in the field. The record contains letters indicating the actual salaries of deputy chairmen at 
s ndicated that : merged into in 2016. 
9 We note that the Petitioner provided a job letter from chief financial officer for who 
stated that the Pe~itioner's income is $55,000 per year as CEO; however, he did not present any supporting evidence of 
his income. 
5 
.
Matter of R-V-O-A-
two companies, ($41,000) and ($33,600). Furthermore, the 
Petitioner provided evidence reflecting the average salaries of deputy chairmen at other companies 
in Azerbaijan, such as ($24,700) and ($18,000 - $40,000). The submission 
of these average salary statistics, as well as a selective sample of positions, does not establish that 
the Petitioner commands a high salary in relation to others in his field. See Mauer of Price, 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other 
PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering 
NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforc~rs); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. 
Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). For 
these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies this criterion. 
Ill. 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 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 finding 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. USCIS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent \Vith 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 internation~I acclaim in the field, and he 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). - ; 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has n'ot shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-V-O-A-, ID# 1838345 (AAO July 18, 2018) 
6