dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10320150 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 19, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business executive, seeks classification as an individual 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
established that she met only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for the requested classification, 
of which she must meet at least three. 
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)(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 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 
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). 
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 indicates her most recent employment as president and CEO of 
D al I company that provides consulting services in real estate an~d_c_a_p-ita_l_m_a_n_a-ge_m_e_n~t 
and investment. The evidence submitted also indicates that rior to her arrival to the United States in 
2010 she w m naging partner of the law firm of resident of the fashion 
comp<,i.u..>'-'----...J....UJ....LIJ..:i.wci::.i~·d in some capacity with on the construction 
of the.___ ______ ___.amusement parks in 
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 denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled one of the initial 
evidentiary criteria, leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). We find the evidence 
sufficiently establishes that the Petitioner, as the president and CEO of I I 
plays a leading role for that company. Further, the record establishes that the Petitioner's company 
enjoys a distinguished reputation as a consulting company, as evidenced by its work withl I I I representing major U.S. companies such asl I 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets four additional criteria, relating to lesser awards, 
published materials, original contributions of major significance, and high salary. After reviewing all 
the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish that she satisfies the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the individual'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) 
2 
The Petitioner ar ues that she meets this criterion based on a runner-up prize in the Season 
1
agazine I 
2000 competition, and a certificate of recognition from the 
at their 20151 !ceremony. In '----------------~ order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that she received the prizes or awards, 
and they are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor.1 Relevant 
considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field 
include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or 
international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize 
recipients as wel I as any I imitations on com etitors. 2 Althou h the Petitioner documented her receipt 
of a runner-up prize in the 2000 competition and a certificate of 
recognition in 2015 from.___ _ ____. the supporting evidence is insufficient to show that these are 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
Regarding the,___ _________ ~competition in 2000, the evidence submitted included 
two articles dated 2000 from the event's s onsor Season ma azine. The first article titled 
indicates that the Petitioner is the president of the Italian fashion boutique,___ ___ ~in ........,_ _ _. 
and is pursuing a degree in management and marketing. The second article, announcing the winners 
of the competition, states that the "main criterion is the success of a woman, her achievements in the 
professional or public arena." The article indicates that the terms of the competition "do not limit the 
participants to age, territorial, professional, national or any other bounds," with the main goal being 
"to increase the status of a businesswoman in Kazakhstan." The article explains that past winners 
included a ballerina and the director of an international botanical company. The article further 
provides that for the 2000 competition a "huge number of applications for participation were 
submitted," and the participants were divided in categories including services, culture, tourism and 
sports, healthcare, education, jurisprudence, and trade. Among the 6 finalists the jury chose two 
runners-up and one winner. Captioned photographs accompanying the article indicate thatl I I I was the chairman of the jury. The runners-up, one of whom was the 
Petitioner, received a gift from the retailer Butya of items from Christian Dior and Decleor, 
commercial sponsors of the event. The winner of the competition, ~----------~ received a statuette of the mythical bird Simurg and a trip to Bali. The record also contains 
photographs showing the winner receiving her trophy and the two runners-up, including the Petitioner, 
receiving gift bags. 
The record also contains several letters relevant to this award. 
of Season magazine, states that the I lcompe~ti-ti-on-h-el_d_n_o_m_i-na-t-io_n_s _fo_r_t_h_e_m_o_s~t 
outstanding women of the country in business, sport, culture, music, trade, policy, charity, and social 
projects." She indicates that "the winners from each nomination were selected amongst thousands of 
"SEASON" readers, nationally and internationally, and from a jury consisting of the most well-known 
and authoritative executives and political figures of Kazakhstan" and that "[t]h _______ __, 
, and the popular votes of our readers" determined the recipients of that award. '---------~ She states that the Petitioner was the winner in the~category of the competition, and "the story 
1 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 AD11-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/po I icymanual/HTM L/Po I icyManual. htm I. 
2 Id. 
3 
behind [her] business success" was ~ublished in the aforementioned 2000 Season article.I 
I I wesident of Kazakhstan l ] a co-sponsor of the competition '-w-it_h_t_h....,e 
Kazakhstan I I states that the Petitioner's award in the category ~ I was 
presented by! I who also chaired the jury panel and determined the 
award winners. She indicates that the award "was open to all female citizens, without any restriction," 
and that all award winners "were recognized in Season magazine." 
I I a formerl lot Kazakhstan, indicates that "for her achievements in 
the cultural and business spheres" the Petitioner received "official acknowledgement as the recipient 
of the! I in Kazakhstan Award, a national award presented to the male and 
female Kazakh citizen with the greatest impact on the economic development of our nation." 3 The 
aforementioned documentation contains apparent inconsistencies. The article and letters fromD 
I I an..Q.J'----------'~ate tha~ ~ was the jury chair who chose the 
winner in the all-femalE!'.__ _____ ~ _ __.of the Year competition, whilel !indicates 
a competition which included male and female competitors and does not discuss his role in thee=] 
I !competition. Inconsistencies in the record must be resolved with 
independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-
92 (BIA 1988). 
Notwithstanding the above, the limited evidence of the media coverage of the I I I laward is insufficient to establish the level of national or international recognition associated 
with the award. The evidence submitted does not demonstrate, for example, that the award winners 
receive a level of media coverage associated with a nationally or internationally recognized award in 
the field of business. The one article that mentions the Petitioner's receipt of a runner-up prize, an 
announcement of the winners of the competition from the event's sponsor, does not support the letters' 
claims that the award is nationally or internationally recognized. The other Season article, while 
noting the category in which the Petitioner was nominated, does not specifically mention her winning 
a runner-up prize. While one article and the aforementioned letters reflect information about the 
competition, this documentation does not demonstrate the recognition that the award received beyond 
the awarding entity. For example, the record does not contain media coverage of the Petitioner's 
receipt of the award in the trade or general media. In addition, although the authors describe the award 
as a nationally or internationally recognized award, the authors did not support their assertions with 
detailed, specific, and objective information explaining how the overall field views the prize beyond 
the sponsors of the competition. Further, the letters and articles do not provide detailed, specific, and 
objective information explaining the criteria used to grant award or the selection process. 
As it relates tol I the Petitioner provided a copy of the certifi9ate she received at the 2015 award 
ceremony for .... l ____________ ____.I in honor of l I and 
3 We further note tha s letter identifies an additional award, that the Petitioner "several years ago" received 
"a national honor" from the former of Kazakhstan, I I for her company's creation of the 
.__ __________ _. i .___ ..... Kazakhstan; however, the Petitioner did not present any supporting 
evidence of her receipt of this award. The record contains an article from www.neweurasia.info that discusses the 
ceremonial events surrounding the official presentation by I I of the new capital city ofc=] in 1998, 
includin~ning of the second I f built by thel I company, the first 
being inL___J However, that article does not mention the Petitioner. 
4 
photographs of her receiving the certificate, which indicates it is in recognition of the Petitioner's 
',__ ___________________________ ~' The evidence 
submitted does not establish that the basis for granting the prize was excellence in the field. Rather, it 
appears that the award is local in sea e. The program for the event indicates that the annual award, a 
celebration j""""'"------,__ _ _J initiated in 2011 by thel pf the Republic of 
Kazakhstan is intended "to celebrate the commitment of women throu hout the 
many immigrant communities in~---.· ... " Similarly, a letter from notes 
that the award is given to "20 local luminaries," "women leaders ... throughout the ____ ____, 
who, while hailing from 20 different countries, reflect both the talent and multiculturalism "possessed 
by all I I." 
In addition, as noted by the Director, the Petitioner did not establish that thel I award recognized 
the Petitioner's achievements in the field of business.I Is letter notes that the award is 
not restricted to the field of business, but included recipients "ruling in the courtroom, designing 
skyscrapers, penning best-sellers, putting out fires, caring for patients, patrolling our streets, teaching 
our children [and] serving in our governments." Although the Petitioner's biography from the event 
program highlights her employment as an entrepreneur, a letter from I I the 
I lot Kazakhstan, asserts that the Petitioner received the award for what 
appears to be her charitable work with the I I of Kazakhstan "focused on issues that 
involved the basic education, protection of children's rights, and awareness campaigns concentrated 
on domestic abuse and violence against women." 
Further, the limited evidence of the award's media coverage is also insufficient to establish the level 
of national or international recognition associated with the I I award. The Petitioner provided a 
press release for the 2015 event posted on the website of its host and organizer, the I I 
of the Slovak Republic! 14 The record also contains a transcript of a brief television 
segment on the award ceremony and screenshots indicatin= it was posted on the Kazakh websites 
I VkhabarTV I 7user/khabarAZ, L lkhabar.kz, Khabar.kz, 
Kaztube.kz/kz and .... ~----Vi<habartv. The transcript indicates the award is an initiative of 
the of Kazakhstan, and that the winners included the Petitioner, Croatianr-7 
.====-=1...,;l:..:....:n-=.donesian producer I I Romanian..,..._ _______ _,. Mexicanc==] 
~--~ and representatives of fifteen other countries. The coverage includes the Petitioner's 
comment accepting the award on behalf of the women of Kazakhstan, a brief biography noting that 
she is a~~-------' U.S. investment company, and the opening comments ol I I I The press release and transcript are brief announcements of the winners of the annual award 
ceremony and do not demonstrate, for example, that the award winners receive a level of media 
coverage associated with a nationally or internationally recognized award in the business field. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification 
4 The record further contains press release~s....!.fl:!.!oJ!::==::::::!....ll c""'eLS:rell.m,onies in 2016 and 2Q18 from resqectively, event partner 
,__ ______ ____,and event host I ~ the Czech Republic I~ ____ _,.J 
5 
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 Director determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate published material about her in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, including the author of the material and 
any necessary translation. 5 The Petitioner provided several articles about the Petitioner from the print 
edition of the monthly women's magazine Season. 6 An article dated 2000 provides that she is the 
president of the I I in I I and is pursuing a degree in 
management and marketing. An interview with the Petitioner dated 2007 indicates it is authored by 
her neighbor, contains photographs of the Petitioner wearing different designers, and states that she 
closed her fashion boutique and is now the head of a legal services company. Although information 
about Season from the website resurz.kz indicates it is "the leader in terms of sales of advertising 
among glossy publications," it does not provide circulation statistics. A screenshot from a 2000 
edition of Season magazine indicates its "coverage" includes Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan 
and it is "[a]n edition of 10,000 copies." However, the record lacks relevant information such as how 
this circulation figure compares to other print magazines in Kazakhstan, and therefore the evidence is 
insufficient to establish that this publication qualifies as major media. 
A listing titled "International Women of Entrepreneurshi - Kazakstan" on the website I 7 
contains the Petitioner's biography indicatin she is th ofl rTn I I and was managing partner atL...r-------,.....---_J founder of a design and construction 
firm, and president of the fashion busines ~--~ Further, a 2005 listing of members of the 
Kazakhstan Association of Businesswomen on www.businesswomen.kz contains a brief biography of 
the Petitioner indicating she provides business and legal services as the director o~ I 
However, this article does not include the required author of the material. The record also lacks 
circulation statistics for I ~ and www.businesswomen.kz and therefore does not demonstrate 
that either website is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
The Petitioner also provided the aforementioned transcript of a 2015 television segment which was 
posted on the websites I l/khabarTV, I ~user/khabarAZ, 
I ~khabar.kz, Khabar.kz, Kaztube.kz/kzQandl Vkhabartv. As discussed 
previously, the transcript reports the winners of the W1f I awards and is about that ceremony 
and is not about the Petitioner. Articles that are not about the petitioner do not meet this regulatory 
criterion. 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). In addition, the Petitioner 
provided insufficient evidence to establish that those websites are considered to be major media in 
Kazakhstan. Although the Petitioner provided information about Khabar I I indicating it 
is the parent company of three state-owned TV channels, Khabar, Kazakh TV, and Khabar 24., and a 
portion of a 2013 report titled ·1 I from the Open Society Media 
Program, stating that the Khabar media agency is a Kazakh state media holding "accessible to 98.3 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
6 In her aforementioned letter.I lstates that Season magazine suspended operations sometime after 
celebrating its twentieth anniversary in December 2018. 
7 We note that the co-founder of EPN (Entr
1
preneu7 and Professionals Network).! I was also the Mistress 
of Ceremonies at the aforementioned 2015 awards ceremony, where her company was a partnering organization. 
6 
percent of the population," these sources do not establish the online circulation statistics for the above 
websites. Moreover, while a letter from of I I 
states that "[a]s of 2012,~ ___ ____. has also maintained a YouTube channel which has in excess 
of 200 million views," he did not submit independent, objective evidence supporting his claims.8 
USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 
06 5105 SJO (C.D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that self­
serving assertions on the cover a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliant evidence of major 
media). Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance of "200 million views" or explain 
how such information reflects status as a major medium. 
The Petitioner submitted several additional articles under this criterion. An article titled 'l._ ___ ____. 
from Kapital.kz is not about the Petitioner; it examines different 
.... in_v_e_s-tm_e_n_t_s-ec_t_o-rs_a_n_d_q_u_o_te~s the Petitioner, her partners atl I and several other 
entrepreneurs regarding factors that favor and disfavor investing in the country. An article about 
Kapital from 24.kz indicates there are print and digital editions of the publication and quotes the 
president of thel I its parent company, as stating that "[a]bout 1.5 million people visit [the 
website] per month." Again, the Petitioner did not submit independent, objective evidence supporting 
the article's claims, or demonstrating that 1.5 million visits per month reflects status as a major 
medium. 
The Petitioner also provided an article from the print magazine Forbes Kazakhstan titled I~ __ __. I t which is not about the Petitioner but quotes her in describing the consulting 
services provided by her company, I I An additional article published on 
hommes.kz contains an interview with the Petitioner and the other founders of I I 
~------~ and I I discussing the educational consulting services they offer. 
The articles from Forbes Kazakhstan and hommes.kz do not include an author. A 2019 media kit 
from hommes.kz indicates the digital publication covers "[s]tartups, business projects, interesting 
cases, extraordinary people from all over the world and talented people of Kazakhstan," and that the 
site receives 70,840 viewers per month. A 2016 media kit from Forbes Kazakhstan provides that the 
circulation of the magazine is 10,000 per month. The record lacks comparative circulation statistics 
for that magazine and website, demonstrating that they are a major trade publication or other major 
medium. 
Based on the above, the Petitioner has not established that she meets the regulatory requirements of 
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). 
As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted several letters of support discussing her work 
as an entrepreneur. The Director considered this documentation but found that it was not sufficient to 
demonstrate that the Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major significance in the 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
7 
field. In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that 
not only has she made contributions that were original but that they have been of major significance 
in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented 
throughout the field, have remarkably impacted the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in determining that the letters of support from 
colleagues in the field were insufficient to meet this criterion.9 However, as discussed below, the 
letters do not offer sufficiently detailed information, nor does the record include adequate 
corroborating documentation, to demonstrate the nature of specific original contributions that the 
Petitioner has made to the field that have been considered to be of major significance. 
For example.I I a property broker and consultant inl Indicates that he has worked 
with the Petitioner an~ I to provide property investment opportunities "to an 
exclusive group of net-worth individuals." He states that her "partnerships with leading U.S. real 
estate development entities" and her understanding of the economies in the United States and 
Kazakhstan make her "an excellent liaison between Kazakhstani investors and the U.S. market." He 
describes her as "a person of influence in positioning Kazakhstan as an attractive investment 
destination." 
Kazakhstan to Mexico. states that the Petitioner ._is_a_w_e-11--r-eg-a-rd_e_d_b_u_s_in-e-ss_w_o_m_a_n_i_n_K_a_z_ak_h_s_ta_n_a_n__,d the United States. I I 
I I of the Association of Businesswomen of Kazakhstan, asserts that the Petitioner, a former 
member of the association, is "a highly celebrated businesswoman" in Kazakhstan who furthered 
women's entrepreneurship in that country "through her participation as a speaker at various 
international forums and conferences." 
In her aforementioned letter.I I asserts that the Petitioner was the foundin member and 
developer of the I I inl I and that "has had a 
substantial positive impact" on national economic growth and development. 
former mayor I I indicates that he "witnessed [the Petitioner's] intensive involvement in the 
planning, construction, and oversight of~ _______ __,and that the work of the Petitioner's 
team on thatl l"had a substantial impact on building the new face of 
'-:-------,--------:,------=-' 
of Kazakhstan." While this evidence indicates that the Petitioner contributed to the construction of 
the.__ __________ ___, in~-----~· it does not provide detailed information 
explaining the nature of her contribution or the unusual influence or high impact of her work in the 
overall field beyond those projects. 10 
Here, the letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high 
impact the Petitioner's work has had on the overall field. Letters that specifically articulate how a 
petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add 
9 While we discuss a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
8 
value.11 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value, 
and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion.12 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The U.S. Att'y Gen., 
745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually 
and collectively, the Petitioner has not shown that she has made original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
111. CONCLUSION 
We find that although the Petitioner satisfies the leading or critical role criterion, she does not meet 
the criteria regarding lesser awards, published material, and original contributions of major 
significance. While she argues and submits evidence for one additional criterion on appeal, relating 
to high salary at C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), we need not reach this additional ground. As the Petitioner 
cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we 
reserve this issue.13 Accordingly, 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)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner has served in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization, the 
record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that she is among the upper echelon in her 
field. 
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 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
12 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
13 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n.7 {BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
9