dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-G-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 25, 2015 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an individual, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S. C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A). 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
The appeal will be dismissed. 
The classification the Petitioner seeks makes visas available to foreign nationals 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 
determined that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which requires a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief with additional material. 
For the reasons discussed below, we agree that the Petitioner has not established her eligibility for 
the classification sought. Specifically, the Petitioner has not submitted a one-time achievement 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or documentation that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory 
crit~ria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of endeavor, 
and that she has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 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, 
Matter of R-G-
(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim 
and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this documentation, then 
she must provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)- (x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. US CIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (discussing a two-part review 
where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered 
in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. 
Wash. 2011) (affirming our proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that users examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria1 
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. 
The Petitioner provided numerous articles in both a foreign language and in English. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. We conduct appellate review 
on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 2012); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). For the reasons 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence and will address those criteria the Petitioner claims to meet or for which the 
Petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-G-
outlined below, a review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the Petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence establishing 
that she meets the plain language of this criterion. 
While the Petitioner provided documentation of published material that is about her and related to 
her work in the field, the record does not contain evidence to establish that these articles appeared in 
a professional publication , a major trade publication , or other major media as required. For example, 
the Petitioner did not include circulation and distribution information about the 
newspapers and 
magazines or the viewership of the websites . Accordingly, we withdraw the Director 's favorable 
determination as it relates to this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishment s that have a distinguished reputation. 
The Director determined the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The Petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, including information relating to The Family, the entity for which she 
worked as Creative Director and Executive Producer/Coordinator. Therefore, she has established 
that she meets this criterion . 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign~ft c antly high remunera tion 
for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The Petitioner initially included a letter from Executive Producer of 
in Italy, explaining that his company intends to pay the Petitioner at the rate of $13,750 per 
project, which he stated is equivalent to the rate of $165,000 per year. did not indicate 
within his letter how he is guaranteeing the Petitioner will complete exactly twelve projects per year, 
which is the number the Petitioner must complete to equal $165,000. The Petitioner also initially 
provided pay information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ' {BLS) website relating to art 
directors, showing a median salary of $104,630 for art directors in the motion picture or video 
industries. The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting corroboration ofthe figures 
presented in the initial petition filing. In response, the Petitioner offered some of her bills; receipts 
and invoices relating to payments by two Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) 
printouts; a check made out to the Petitioner; her Canadian lease and checks reflecting payments to 
her landlord from and banking statements for that company. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the 
Petitioner lists the documentation accompanying the response to the RFE and asserts it meets the 
definition of remuneration. 
The Director correctly determined that the regulation requires evidence that the Petitioner has 
already commanded a high salary or significantly high remuneration . Therefore, the letter from 
regarding future pay is not sufficient. The Petitioner 's name is not depicted on the receipts to 
establish that she is the intended recipient or that the payments cover her personal expenses. The 
invoices are billed to in Italy and only contain the Petitioner 's email address under the 
heading for without specifying that the Petitioner was the supplier of 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of R-G-
the services represented. Regarding the CRA printout, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner's 
name is not printed on the document; instead it is handwritten along with the month. The Petitioner 
does not respond to this concern on appeal with CRA forms identifying the Petitioner in the 
preprinted information. 
While the check lists the Petitioner in the "PAY to" portion, and her employer's company name is 
handwritten on the item, the Petitioner has not offered corroboration that this check was processed or 
cancelled, which would show she actually received the stated funds from her employer. Further, the 
purpose of the payment that could be listed in the "RE" portion of the check is left blank. As such, 
the Petitioner has not established that this check represented her salary rather than the employer 
reimbursing her for a business expense or some other reimbursement. Assuming that the Petitioner's 
lease and checks from to her landlord represent remuneration other than salary, the 
record does not contain information about other remuneration in the field for similar services to 
which we can compare these payments. The employer's banking statements do not correspond with 
payments on the above invoices, and, as discussed, the receipts do not reveal that they represent the 
Petitioner's personal expenses. Finally, the banking statements do not reflect that the employer paid 
any salary to the Petitioner. 
None of the evidence the Petitioner offered confirms the salary or wage provided by her employer 
after her commencement of services for them in October 2011, such as tax documentation that 
identifies her or pay statements. Moreover, wages above the median wage are not necessarily high 
in relation to others in the field. With respect to any remuneration other than salary she received, she 
has not demonstrated that it was significantly high in comparison with other remuneration, such as 
typical relocation and overseas housing reimbursement, in the field. As a result, the Petitioner has 
not satisfied the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, while the Petitioner is an experienced creative director for a 
distinguished company, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite 
initial evidence, in this case, documentation that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner submitted the 
requisite documents under at least three evidentiary categories, in accordance with the Kazarian 
opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the 
context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," 
and (2) that the foreign national "has sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see 
4 
Matter of R-G-
also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the Petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is that 
the Petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting material that 
satisfied the initial requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) and (4). Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced 
in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not 
shown the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 2 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-G-, ID# 14580 (AAO Nov. 25, 2015) 
2 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 3 81 F .3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(J)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(l), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.1(t)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions). 
5