dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 18, 2024 In Re: 33564231 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a CEO/manager/entrepreneur, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in business. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
show that the Petitioner meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director determined that while the Petitioner provided evidence showing that she performed in a 
leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), she did not establish eligibility under any 
other criteria. Furthermore, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that she is 
coming to the United States to continue working in her area of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). 
The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
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 petitioner can demonstrate a one­
time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then they 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 they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual'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. 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 
Upon a thorough review of the record, 1 we conclude that the Petitioner has not overcome the 
Director's denial. On appeal, the Petitioner states that she will continue working in her area of 
extraordinary ability and asserts that she meets three of the initial evidentiary criteria: Participation as 
a judge, performing in a leading or critical role, and commanding a high salary in relation to others in 
the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (viii), and (ix). Since the appeal does not address the Director's 
conclusions regarding any of the other criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we consider those issues 
to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021) ( citing Matter ofR­
A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012). 
In order to establish eligibility for the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), petitioners should show 
that a person's salary or remuneration is significantly high in comparison to that of others working in 
the field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Relevant evidence may include tax returns, pay statements, or other evidence of a person's 
remuneration, as well as comparative wage surveys in the person's field. Id. When assessing whether 
a person's comparison between their wages and wages from surveys is accurate, we consider factors 
such as the survey's description of the relevant occupation, the salary rate being measured, the location 
of the survey, and the survey's validity. Id. 
To establish eligibility for this criterion, the Petitioner submitted evidence including salary information 
for nurses in I I Brazil, salary information for health services managers and technical 
responsible nurses throughout Brazil, and employment verification letters stating her wages in 
1 While this decision does not name all of the documents the Petitioner submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
2 
positions in Brazil and Utah. 2 The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not provide salary 
documentation for comparable workers in her field, and so did not demonstrate that her remuneration 
was significantly high in comparison to such workers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner concedes that the positions for which she provided her salary information 
included managerial responsibilities, and so are not comparable to regular nursing positions, but 
contends that she nonetheless provided probative evidence for this criterion which the Director 
overlooked. Upon review, the wage evidence provided is insufficient to establish eligibility, for the 
reasons below. 
The letter from the Petitioner's employer from 2016 
to 2018, states that her "most recent remuneration" as a health services manager was R$ 16,748.15. 3 
On appeal, the Petitioner quotes Brazilian nursing regulations to assert that this position was that of a 
technical responsible nurse and states that her underlying evidence establishes that she received a 
significantly high salary froml IThe record includes a printout from glassdoor.com indicating 
that technical responsible nurses in Brazil were paid an average of R$ 3,000 to R$ 5,000 a month as 
of January 2024. However, the printout also states that this statistic is based on only 20 submitted 
wages. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l) (noting that "user-provided salary 
data ... may not be a valid comparison if, for example, too few users reported their salaries"). 
Furthermore, the printout does not differentiate between different regions of Brazil, employee 
experience levels, or employer types. Therefore, regardless of whether the I I position was 
comparable to that of a technical responsible nurse, the glassdoor.com salary survey is insufficient to 
provide a valid point of comparison and establish that the Petitioner's remuneration was significantly 
high. 
The letter from _____________________ the Petitioner's employer 
from 2013 to 2015, states that she was employed as a nurse in charge of primary health care/primary 
health/family health/public health, and that her monthly remuneration was R$ 9,825.09. The Petitioner 
states on appeal that this position is that of a health services manager. The record includes a printout 
from salario.com stating that Brazilian health services managers were paid an average ofR$ 7,123.75 
in January 2023. First, we note that the provided survey is for workers employed eight years after the 
Petitioner left her position at I I which limits its viability as a point of comparison. Second, the 
survey does not differentiate between different geographical regions, employer types, or worker 
experience levels. It therefore does not establish the wages of workers who are specifically 
comparable to the Petitioner. Id. Finally, while we acknowledge that the Petitioner's remuneration 
was higher than the average salary shown in the survey, the survey does not provide salary ranges, 
percentiles, or other means of establishing whether this difference was sufficiently significant to 
qualify for this criterion. The Petitioner therefore has not established eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) by showing that she received a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
for services in relation to others in her field. 
2 Because the Petitioner does not address her Utah wages on appeal, we consider this issue to be waived and will not 
address it further. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at 336 n.5. 
3 We note that the letter does not specify whether this remuneration was for one month of work or whether it was calculated 
on some other basis. 
3 
We will reserve the issue of whether the Petitioner qualifies for the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) since adjudicating this criterion would, at most, establish eligibility for two criteria, 
which is less than the required three. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We therefore need not reach this issue 
or the issue of whether she will continue to work in her area of expertise, and will reserve them. See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not provided the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The petition will remain 
denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4