dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11971419 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a finance minority business coach, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of the requested classification 
through either the receipt of a major, internationally-recognized award or meeting three of the 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, 
asserting that in addition to the two evidentiary criteria which the Director found she met, she also met 
an additional five criteria. The Director granted the motion but found that the Petitioner did not meet 
any of the additional criteria claimed. She now appeals from the Director's decision. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 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 implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
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). 
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 
The Petitioner was a finance executive for many years in her native country, rising to the level of 
Finance Director for the subsidiary of a large multinational corporation. In recent years she has been 
employed as a small business consultant, and states that she intends to offer these services to minority­
owned businesses in the United States. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In her decision on motion, the Director found that the Petitioner met the 
same two the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) as in her previous decision, relating 
to her participation as a judge of the work of others and her leading role for an organization having a 
distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets five additional 
evidentiary criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that while we disagree 
with the Director in part, the Petitioner has not established her qualification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
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 includes evidence of the following awards received by the Petitioner: 
I Plaque and letter from the University I I confirming that she earned the highest grade 
point average in her graduating class of economics majors in April 1987. 
2 
I Award of restricted stock units (RSUs) from~----~~~-_..,...as part of the 
Exceptional Contributor Program (ECP) or Long-Term Incentive Program (L TIP) award in 
2009,2011and201.-3_. ________ _,, 
I Certificate from ',__ _________ ___. acknowledging the Petitioner as "the 
reference point of the organization for her "integrity" and "compliance with standards and 
policies," dated November 2010. 
I I !service pins recognizing the Petitioner's employment with the company for 5, 15, 20 
and 25 years. 
In his decision, the Director found that the evidence did not establish that any of these awards were 
natiolnally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor. On appeal, regarding her RSU awards 
from the Petitioner asserts that because the company is a large and well-known multinational 
corporation, her status as one of a "select few" recipients is sufficient to establish her eligibility under 
this criterion. She also refers to letters issued by company officials at the time of the award which 
indicate that the Petitioner was "part of a selected group of people who were recognized for their 
valuable contribution to the corporate results" and that the awards are "based on substantial 
contributions well above the expectations of the Company." This evidence confirms that the RSUs 
were given for excellence in the Petitioner's field of endeavor, but does not show that the awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized in the fields of finance or minority business coaching. 
Although they were granted by a large, well-known multinational corporation, there is no record in 
the evidence of recognition of these awards from others in the field of finance. And an email from an 
official of the current! !Company confirms that it does not have "public announcements, 
photos or certificates documenting these awards," making it unlikely that others in the Petitioner's 
field recognized or were even aware of the RSU awards. 
Regarding the other awards froml I the record does not include evidence which shows that the 
certificate the Petitioner received in 2010 and her service pins were awarded for excellence in her 
field, as opposed to satisfactory job performance and number of years of employment, respectively. 
Finally, the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner was recognized by the University ~I---~ 
as having achieved the highest grade point average in her graduating class in economics, and an article 
in what appears to be a local newspaper covered the graduation ceremony and documents the 
Petitioner's speech on behalf of the class. Although this award shows that the Petitioner excelled 
academically, it does not establish that she was recognized for excellence in the fields of finance or 
business coaching. In addition, the single article which does not explicitly mention her award is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that it was recognized at the national or international level. 
For all of the reasons given above, we find that the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
3 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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 bases her claim to this criterion upon her membership in three1 associations: 
I Controllers of I I G.-ro_u....__ ____ _, 
I Economists Association of 
I The,___ ______ __.Chamber of Commerce and Industry d.._ ____ ___.,D 
As evidence of membership in the Controllers of I I Group, the Petitioner submitted a letter 
from a branch manager forl I an insurance company which counted I I I I as one of its clients. The branch mana er, who states that he worked with 
the Petitioner for more than 20 years, indicates that coordinated lunch meet
1
ings of I 
comptrollers from companies in the state '------~ and that the Petitioner represented 
I lat these lunch meetings. In addition, a brief paragraph and photographs from what appears 
to be a local newspaper's account on an online photo-sharing platform describes a meeting of this 
group in 2012, but does not mention the Petitioner. 
We first note that the evidence indicates that these meetings were an informal gathering of I I I !clients, and does not establish the existence of an association in the field of finance or 
business coaching. The name of the asserted association, "Controllers o~ I Group," does not 
appear in either document, nor is there any official documentation, such as a membership card or 
certificate, that she was a member of such a group. Further, even assuming that such evidence was 
present, the record also does not include evidence that this group required outstanding achievements 
of its members. Both documents indicate that this was a meeting of comptrollers from companies in 
the I larea, but there is no other evidence regarding how the members were selected or invited 
to attend. We will not assume, without evidence to support such an assertion, that the status of being 
a comptroller meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Turning next to the Petitioner's membership in the Economists Association ofl I she 
submitted a certification stating that she has been an active member since 1988. The certification also 
adds that she has complied with all of the association's requirements and paid all dues. In his previous 
decision, the Director noted that Article 6 of the bylaws and rules of this association states that active 
members "are those professionals referred to in Article 18 of the Economist's Profession Practice Law, 
who request their registration and are admitted ... " and found that this evidence did not show a 
requirement for outstanding achievements. On appeal, the Petitioner acknowledges this, but asserts 
that the document "establishes that all potential member candidates must be reviewed and approved 
by the School's Board of Directors which are all Economists." However, the Petitioner does not refer 
1 The Petitioner also submitted evidence regarding her membership in The Professional Association of Business Credit 
(APOCRE), but does not challenge the Director's decision regarding this association on appeal. We therefore consider this 
claim to be abandoned. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 
09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiff's claims to be 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
4 
to a specific article in the bylaws which includes this requirement, nor has it been established that the 
board members are recognized national or international experts. In addition, this assertion does not 
address the Director's finding that the bylaws do not indicate that aspiring members should have any 
achievements beyond being active economists. Therefore, the Petitioner's membership in this 
association does not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
Regarding the Petitioner's membership inl I she asserts on appeal that her membership 
on the Corporate Finance committee of this association qualifies under this criterion. The Petitioner 
submitted a copy of an email from the association welcoming her to the Corporate Finance and Capital 
Market committee, which states that the committee's goal is to offer updated information and focuses 
on gathering company leaders into work groups. In a document titled "Rules of the Work and Services 
Committees," it is stated that members of committees should be nominated by the key contact of the 
I !enterprise member, and that the candidate's curriculum vitae and other documents 
are sent to the committee president for review. Another document, which appears to be from the 
association's website but does not include the webpage address, states that the committees "bring 
together professional executives of different positions," and indicates that the Corporate Finance and 
Capital Markets committee is "formed by 103 members that work as General Managers and Finance 
Directors" for member companies. It goes on to state that each member company may appoint up to 
two executives to participate in each committee. A third document, titled "Requirements and Profile 
of Executives in Order to Join the Committees," repeats the requirements noted above, and adds that 
the member of the Corporate Finance committee should occupy "the highest position of your 
company" in that functional area. 
This evidence shows that the membership rules of I ts Corporate Finance and Capital 
Markets committee requires a candidate to have reached a certain level of professional achievement, 
namely the highest finance position within their company. However, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that reaching a certain position within a company's hierarchy is considered to be an 
outstanding achievement. Further, there is insufficient information regarding the requirements of a 
committee chairman or president to establish that such an individual is inherently a nationally or 
internationally recognized expert within the field of finance. 
Upon review, we find that the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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) 
The evidence submitted in support of the Petitioner's claim to this criterion is of several different 
types, including articles in corporate newsletters or magazines as well as local newspapers, radio 
interviews of the Petitioner, and images of her on posters, billboards and in other formats. On appeal, 
she asserts that the evidence submitted "was written about [the Petitioner] or alternatively did cover 
her contributions in the field." However, the plain language of this criterion requires that both 
conditions be met: qualifying published material must be about the Petitioner and must relate to her 
work in her field of expertise. In addition, published material that focuses on the Petitioner's employer 
or a larger event in which she participated is not about her and does not meet this regulatory criterion. 
5 
See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding 
a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). For example, the article appearing in El 
Caraboneno o~ 11987 was about the graduation of economists from the University of 
I I and includes only a single sentence mentioning that the Petitioner spoke on behalf of the 
graduating class and thanked the professors. Just as an article about a circus show is not about one 
actor who is briefly mentioned, so this article is not about the Petitioner. 
Similarly, an article appearing the newspaper Notitarde is about~----~s Christmas party, 
and the inclusion of the Petitioner in a captioned group photo does not make the article about her. In 
addition, although a reader can assume that she is an employee of~--------' there is no 
discussion of the Petitioner's work in the field, nor is her job title mentioned. 
Two additional written articles were published inl !Magazine, a corporate publication. 2 One 
of these articles describes the annual internal financial controls audit conducted at ~-----~ 
and includes a photograph of the Petitioner and two other individuals who it can be assumed 
participated in the audit. Although this article is about the Petitioner's work, she is not mentioned or 
identified anywhere in this material, and it is therefore not about her. The second article describes the 
company's "Special Donations Program," and again the Petitioner appears in an uncaptioned group 
photograph and is not mentioned by name. Further, although it can be surmised that she participated 
in this charitable program along with others, the article does not discuss her work in the field of 
finance. 
In addition to finding that none of these articles are about the Petitioner, we also note that, despite the 
Director's specific request for such evidence in his request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner has not 
provided evidence of circulation figures or other evidence to establish that any of the publications 
discussed above are qualifying media under this criterion. Although we note that she mentioned some 
statistics in her response to the Director's RFE and later repeated them in her motion to reconsider, 
these assertions are not supported by evidence in the record, and are not accompanied by evidence 
pertaining to comparable media. The record is therefore insufficient to establish that these publications 
are professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Another type of evidence submitted in support of this criterion was the transcript of an interview of 
the Petitioner during a radio program called ,___ __ ~ ___ _.' which took place two months 
after the Petitioner filed her petition for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
interview is about her and her work as a small business coach or consultant. However, as with the 
publications described above, the Petitioner did not submit evidence to establish that this radio 
program is a qualifying medium for purposes of this criterion. 
The Petitioner also reiterates her assertion on appeal that the appearance of her image on billboards 
and posters outside of thel I administration building should be considered to be 
qualifying under this criterion. The sole evidence in support of this claim is two photographs of the 
same poster, showing the Petitioner and another individual, attached to an exterior wall of a building. 
2 The evidence does not indicate whether this Spanish-language magazine is distributed only among~employees in 
Latin America, or whether the same issue is translated into several languages and distributed across all countries where 
the company does business. 
6 
The Petitioner is not identified on the poster, nor is there any accompanying text that discusses her 
background, career or work in the areas of finance or business consulting. 
Finally, the Petitioner provided a presentation including information about a webinar given by the 
Petitioner, which the presentation indicates concerned setting up a business in the United States. This 
material provides information about the results of marketing for this webinar from a company called 
I I' No evidence concerning the publication of this presentation was provided, and it is not 
about the Petitioner but about marketing efforts for her webinar. The Petitioner also provided a link 
to the webinar on YouTube, and asserts that she was the only speaker concerning business and finance. 
However, the plain language of this criterion requires evidence of published material about the 
Petitioner, not published material authored by her, which is addressed under the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). In addition, the Petitioner does not assert that I Is YouTube 
channel qualifies as a professional or major trade publication or other major media, nor does the 
evidence support such a finding. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of performance reviews she completed for several managers who 
reported to her in her role as finance director atl I As such, we agree with the Director 
and find that she meets this criterion. 
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) 
"Contributions of major significance" connotes that a petitioner's work has significantly impacted the 
field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions 
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 the field. 
As an initial matter, we agree that the Director erred in his initial decision in referring to the Petitioner's 
"scientific" contributions, and compounded this error in his motion decision by failing to recognize 
that the regulations state that business is a separate field from the sciences for purposes of this 
classification. However, the Petitioner does not assert, nor do we find, that this error affected the 
Director's decision in a material or significant way. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that the Petitioner's contributions of major significance are not 
represented by the copies in the record of presentations she made at business meetings, "but in the 
impact and effect of such lectures and presentations which produced concrete results of major 
significance in the field of business." She first refers to an "$8 MM dividend foreign sup~yment 
approval" made tol lin June 2011. As evidence of this contribution, she refers to aL__JWorld 
~ers memo dated July 20, 2011, which when discussing the financial situation of the 
L___Jsubsidiary, states that "With much fanfare, the dividend payment of $8.5MM was approved 
7 
and has been received." However, the Petitioner does not provide further evidence of her role in 
I Is receipt of this dividend, or of the impact it had on the overall field of finance or business. We 
note that she submitted several reference letters from her former colleagues atl land 
others who worked with her during this period, but none mention this dividend payment or its 
contribution to an organization (let alone the overall business or finance field) whose sales in the same 
month in the "ROW Region" were $87.5 million and whose global sales in fiscal year 2014 approached 
$11 billion. 
In addition to her assertions regarding the dividend payment, the Petitioner also bases her claim to this 
criterion upon her leadership of projects while atl I The evidence shows that she 
played an important role in implementing financial and operational controls to comply with Sarbanes­
Oxley (SOX) legislation for her employer, that she led the financial aspect of important software 
system installations inl subsidiaries in Venezuela, Mexico and Costa Rica, and that she helped 
to guide the company through challenging economic conditions in I I However, while this 
evidence is sufficient to demonstrate her leading and critical role for I I and that she 
made important contributions to the company, it does not establish that her contributions were of 
significance to the broader fields of finance, small business coaching or, more broadly, business. As 
previously noted, she submitted several reference letters from former colleagues with I I I I but did not submit reference letters or other evidence to show how she impacted her field 
beyond her employer. 
As such, we find that the evidence does not establish that 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) 
The Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion, but did not specify the basis of his decision. 
The evidence establishes that beginning in 1988, she held a number of increasingly responsible 
positions tori I reaching the level of Finance Director when she left the company in 
2013. It also shows that she played a critical role in the design and implementation of financial 
controls and systems for the company and affiliates in Latin America, and advised senior leadership 
regarding strategic acquisitions in the region. In addition, the record sufficiently demonstrates that 
~----~has a distinguished reputation. We therefore agree with the Director and find that 
the Petitioner 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) 
In support of her claim to this criterion, the Petitioner submitted several different types of evidence. 
As evidence of her salary and remuneration, she primarily relies upon letters froml I 
A letter dated June 18, 2018 states that at the time of her departure from the compan¥-,l!J,2013, she was 
earning a "basic monthly salary" of 071,271.00, and an annual salary at the rate ofLJ 1,313,524.53. 
A second letter, dated April 2011, explains her salary and benefits in greater detail, indicating that her 
"total annual fixed remuneration" as of May 1 was D 660,705.20, and that she would receive a 
variable performance-based bonus of anywhere between 0-50% of her "annual base salary." In 
addition, the letter stated that her "non-cash benefits" included a company car, along with maintenance 
and repair expenses; health, auto and life insurance; a mobile phone, and a pension plan. The Petitioner 
8 
also submitted a number of receipts and other documents relating to these non-cash benefits, and 
asserts that when considered together, her total remuneration in 2013 was the equivalent of 
$336,165.64. 
On review, we first note that the Petitioner also submitted copies of Form DPN-99025, Income Tax 
Final Statement and Payment for Resident Natural Persons and Unvested Inheritances, issued by the 
government ofl I These forms indicate that in 2011, 2012, and 2013 the Petitioner earned 
"Salary, Wages & Other Similar Income" of O 308,675.840405,144.00 and □ 475,768.00, 
respectively. The Petitioner did not explain, or provide evidence to show, why these figures differ 
substantially from those in the letters from her employer. 
In addition, the employer letter regarding the Petitioner's 2013 salary does not explain the difference 
between the basic monthly rate, which when annualized is equivalent to D 855,252, and the annual 
salary rate ofDl,313,524.53. The Petitioner also does not explain whether the "total annual fixed 
remuneration" figure shown in the 2011 employer letter is an annualized basic monthly rate or 
equivalent to the annual salary figure listed in the 2018 letter. Further, related to the point made above, 
neither letter explains whether the benefits listed in the 2011 letter (and presumably carried over to the 
same position in 2013) were already figured into the annual figures given in both letters. 
For the purpose of comparison of her salary and total remuneration to that of others in her field, the 
Petitioner submitted salary surveys from a number of sources. As a general rule, individuals working 
in different countries should be evaluated based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence in that 
country, rather than by simply converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that 
salary would be considered high in the United States.3 In addition, average salary information for 
those performing work in a related but distinct occupation with different responsibilities is not a proper 
basis for comparison. Rather, a petitioner must submit documentary evidence of the earnings of those 
in his/her occupation performing similar work at the top level of the field. See Matter of Price, 20 
l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering 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 enforcers); 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). 
Here, several of the surveys the Petitioner submitted do not provide relevant data for comparison to 
her salary. For example, what appears to be a slide presentation from a company called Mercer 
provides the "base salary for a director" in U.S. dollars for several Latin American countries in 2014, 
obtained from "the 2014 TRS survey." However, I I is not one of those countries, and the 
salaries range from $10,202 in Argentina to $15,609 in Chile, a difference of more than 50%. There 
is no evidence which indicates which of these figures, if any, accurately represents director salaries in 
I I at the time. In addition, this evidence does not provide information about the number, 
industry and size of the companies included in this survey, or describe the duties or relative level of 
responsibility of a "director," and therefore is not an accurate basis for comparison to the Petitioner's 
salary. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14. (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/po I icymanual/HTM L/Po I icyManual. htm I. 
9 
In addition, three other surveys, from the websites glassdoor.com and payscale.com, as well as the 
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Outlook Handbook, provide the wages for executives 
working in the United States, and provide salary data for periods after 2013. Therefore, as they do not 
reflect the compensation of finance executives inl lin 2011 or 2013, none of these surveys 
include relevant information to provide an appropriate basis for comparison to the Petitioner's salary 
and total remuneration. 
Another salary survey, partial results of which are included in and summarized by a slide presentation 
from "the PGA Group" and an article in a magazine called Business I I was conducted by 
I lin May 2013. The slides indicate that 187 companies were surveyed, and the results 
were grouped by five position levels, three company sizes, and eight functional areas. As for the 
article, it differentiates between basic monthly salary and total annual salary or compensation, which 
includes commissions, bonuses and other performance-based incentives, as well as benefits such as 
"direct paY.ments, com
1
any profit sharing, paid vacations and other sundry variable payments." It also 
states that I workers essentially receive "around 19 or 20 (monthly) salaries per year," 
which appears to account for the difference in the monthly versus annual amounts stated in the article 
as well as the Petitioner's 2013 employer letter. Although the article does not specifically indicate 
whether other benefits received by the Petitioner such as a company car and insurance premiums are 
typically received by directors, we note that the ratio of her stated salary to her total compensation is 
close to the expected ratio indicated in the article. Therefore, due to the ambiguity in both the employer 
letters and the data provided in tha I survey, we will consider the annual salary listed 
in the 2013 letter to represent the Petitioner's total remuneration for purposes of comparison to the 
survey data, and not consider the values suggested by the receipts.4 
The relevant data from this survey indicates that directors, identified as those executives below the 
chairman or general manager level but above the mana
1
eria
1
1 level, in large companies such a~ I I I earned an average total compensation of 948,000 in 2013. In comparison, the 
Petitioner's total compensation rate5 in 2013 wasD 1,313,524.53, or approximately 138% of the 
average. However, the survey data does not provide a range of salary and total compensation figures 
from low to high, and therefore does not provide a complete picture of the compensation received by 
others in the Petitioner's field. While her total remuneration was above the average in relation to others 
in her field, she has not established that it was "significantly high" as required by the plain language 
of this criterion. Therefore, we find that the Petitioner has not met the requirements of this criterion. 
4 We also note that the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the value of some of the services shown by the receipts 
was received by her, as the receipts for car maintenance and mobile phone services are not in her name. In addition, the 
Petitioner has not shown that under I [tax law, the value of benefits such as repairs and maintenance to company 
vehicles, mobile phone services, and insurance premiums are considered as part of an individual's total compensation, or 
how the value of those benefits is calculated. Further, regarding the RSUs awarded to the Petitioner based upon her 
performance, a fact sheet regarding the award program notes that in most countries, "the value of RSUs at vesting is 
reportable as taxable income," and she has not demonstrated that the value of her vested RSUs should be considered in 
addition to the values reported in her tax returns or in the letters from.__ ____ _. As previously noted, there is a 
large difference between the salary and wages reported on the Petitioner's income tax forms and those stated in the letters 
from her employer, and this difference has not been explained. 
5 We consider the rate at which she was paid in 2013, as the Petitioner states that she left! I at some 
point in that year after the company was acquired. 
10 
111. 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 her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with 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)(1)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that she is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
11