dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-I-A-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 28,2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a Hookah Lounge Manager, 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 Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not shown that he met any of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 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 m 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 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 
.
Maller of M-1-A-
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 individuall y 
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 
The Petitioner is a hookah lounge manager. As the evidence in the record does not establish 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). The Director addressed awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) , 
membership at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) , and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)( viii), 
concluding that the Petitioner did not meet any of these criteria. Upon review , we conclude that the 
evidence in the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the plain language 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the fi eld of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record contains a Certificate of Achievement presented to the Petitioner for '' 
at the 
in 2006. The Petitioner submitted an Affidavit of Achi evement from who 
organized this indicating that the Petitioner won first place in the 
competltwn among total participants and received 200,000 Pakistani rupees as a 
result. We 
agree with the Director's finding that the record does not establish that this award was for excellence 
in the field or that it received national or international recognition. 
On appeal , the Petition er has submitted an Award of Excellence from 
recognizing him for food safety and preparation . The Petitioner has not presented evidence 
demonstrating that this constitutes a nationally recognized prize or award. Additionally , while the 
record contains a photograph of the Petitioner receiving a trophy , the significance of the event is not 
2 
.
Matter ojM-1-A-
explained. The evidence in the record, considered in its totality, does not demonstrate that the 
Petitioner has satisfied the plain language of this criterion. 
Documentation ofthe alien's membership in associations in the field for which classtfication 
is 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 has not submitted any documentation pertaining to this criterion. The Director noted 
that although an asterisk was placed by this criterion in the documentation presented, the record did 
not contain any evidence of membership in an association that requires outstanding achievements of 
its members. After a review of the record, we reach the same conclusion. Therefore, the Petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pelformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and through the 
role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the Petitioner's impact on the 
organization or the establishment's activities. The Petitioner's performance in this role should establish 
whether the role was critical for the organization or establishment as a \Vhole. 
The Petitioner submits a letter from stating that the Petitioner is employed at 
in Texas, and that he is a shift manager and the hookah expert, preparing hookah 
orders and food for the customers. states, "After hiring (the Petitioner] based on his expert 
skills and talent, my business has seen a lot of growth and my customers really like his work ethic and 
personality." The Petitioner also submits positive online reviews of the posted to 
While this letter demonstrates that the Petitioner 
has had a positive influence at 
in providing excellent customer service to its customers, the record does not establish 
what impact the Petitioner has had on the cafe. Additionally, while the record contains positive reviews 
of the establishment, the record does not establish that the organization has a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated to what extent has experience business grov.ih 
since he was hired. Therefore, the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted 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 fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have 
revie\ved the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 
3 
Matter of M-1-A-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-1-A -, ID# 1078894 (AAO Feb. 28, 20 18) 
4