dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 28, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an air cargo services executive, 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. 
§ ll 53(b )(1 )(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 I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims that the Director erred in finding that three criteria had not been met. 
The Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence in support of his assertions. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
Matter of R-S-
(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 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. 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). 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was the chief executive officer of a United 
States subsidiary of.__ _________________ ___, As the Petitioner has not 
established that he has received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least 
three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As noted previously, the Director found that 
the Petitioner had not met any of the listed criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director 
erred in finding he failed to meet the following criteria: awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), published 
material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii); and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 1 
Upon review of all of the evidence, we conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
meets the requirements of at least three criteria. 
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). 
The record demonstrates that the Petitioner received the title of Senior Economist in 2010 from the 
based on his educational and professional '----------------------' achievement. The Petitioner asserts that he was awarded the title because he published "two business 
management related articles approved by national news and publication authority as the primary 
1 As the Petitioner does not contest the Director's findings regarding the other criteria discussed in the denial, we will not 
address them in this decision. 
2 
Matter of R-S-
author" and he contributed "adopted inventions, technical innovations, new technical applications or 
rationalization suggestions" in the field of civil aviation. 
As evidence of the significance of this title, the Petitioner noted at the time of filing that, in 2010, the 
I l"recognized 20 individuals as qualified senior economists nationwide[."] He further refers to 
al I document describing the review and approval conditions for conferring a title of "Senior 
Technical Professional in the Field of Civil Aviation Transportation Economy[.]" For example, the 
~-~I requirements for "Work Performances" range from having "rich experiences" in areas such as 
"production, technical and economic management" and having "the capability of solving important 
problems in the field" to winning one "national level achievement prize[."] Under the "Books and 
Papers" section, the I I requirements are met if an individual publishes one paper or book within 
certain parameters, such as citation record and form of publication. The Petitioner also refers to his 
assessment decision and that it noted the awarded the second prize "for Technical Advance" 
to his former employer for a ~---~Cargo System project on which he worked from 2000 to 
2006. While page four of the assessment document notes that the Petitioner was a "[k]ey leader of the 
project, in charge of decision making and monitoring[,]" it also indicated he was ranked 20th in the 
project. 
First, the record does not demonstrate that the field recognizes the senior economist title from I.__ _ __. 
to be a prize or award for excellence, as opposed to a certification of an individual's qualifications. 
We note that the record includes informational material from the I I Business Council 
indicating that I I is responsible for drafting and overseeing a variety of rules and policies for civil 
aviation, including in part "personnlel qualif cations" and "issuance of aviation enterprise licenses." 
In addition, as discussed above, the document describes an application and approval process 
indicating that an individual may apply for and receive the title based on possessing the requisite 
experience and qualifications. 
Further, even assuming the professional title constitutes a prize or award for excellence, the record 
does not include evidence, such as recommendation letters, articles, or other documentation, 
demonstrating the level ofrecognition that the Petitioner's title en·o sin the field. For example, while 
.__ _____ __., the chief marketing officer o ~-------~---~ states the Petitioner 
"obtained the qualification of senior economist" and the chairman and president of 
I I notes he "was certified as senior economist at I I" they do not indicate whether 
the title is widely known within the field as an award for excellence. For the reasons discussed above, 
the evidence does not establish that al lsenior economist title is nationally or internationally 
recognized as an award for excellence in the field. 2 Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that he satisfies this criterion. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 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. 
3 
Matter of R-S-
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). 
As evidence for this criterion, the Petitioner demonstrated that he had an article published about him 
in a professional logistics publication. Accordingly, the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
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). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the previously submitted letters from I land 
~----~I demonstrate his critical role during his employment withl r To demonstrate a 
critical role, the record must establish 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. 4 
I stated thatOwon "First Prize of 2012 IL_ _________ r-------l 
for its 1m lementation of the r 
.__ __ _.I project. .__ __ _.notes the Petitioner's work as the project's chief designer and describes 
how the project "started an air cargo sales model based on demand pricing, instead of product 
pricing[.]" He also discusses the Petitioner's work to improve customer service as the I I 
office and.__ _____ _. regional freight manager. However, the information he provides is not 
sufficient to establish how his contributions were of significant importance to the success o±O as 
a whole. 
I I the director of the I I region of International Air Transport Association (IATA), 
indicated that the Petitioner was the deputy general manager of the I O I branch and the 
"freight e-commerce project team led by him was the main force in the building of I I 
information technology which played a leading role in the rapid development ofl I cargo 
transportation." He also stated that the Petitioner's team "became a powerful vanguard, which 
promoted the comprehensive transformation of I I cargo production process" and his work 
helpedc=J become a member of the Cargo2000 international air cargo service quality standard and 
management system. However, the letter does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's experience, 
compared to his colleagues, qualifies as a critical role. While the Petitioner has adequately 
documentedc=] s reputation, such as its consistently high rankings compared to other airlines, he 
has not provided specific, detailed information or supporting documentation to demonstrate how his 
contributions were of significant importance to the organization as a whole to demonstrate the critical 
nature of his role. 
3 While the Petitioner's initial filing alternately asserted that he performed in a "leading" role for 0, he does not make 
this assertion on appeal, nor does the record demonstrate that hts positirs as deputy general manager ofl u I 
branch, general manager of~ _____ _. cargo area and office, and manager of the revenue management 
division of the cargo department were leading roles for the organization as a whole. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
4 
Matter of R-S-
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has failed to submit 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 folly address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20. 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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. 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 of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 
25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of R-S-, ID# 3132218 (AAO June 28, 2019) 
5