dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22646759 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 09, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer -solutions architect, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 Petitioner did not 
establish that he received a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) or that 
he satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required for the requested classification. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N 
Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this 
matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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 , provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 the beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major , internationally recognized award) . If the petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then the petitioner must provide sufficient qualifying documentation concerning the 
beneficiary 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). The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable evidence if it is able to demonstrate 
that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the beneficiary'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 beneficiary 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 that he is chief executive officer (CEO) and solutions architect for __ 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received 
a major, internationally recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he must satisfy at least three of 
the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for four of the regulatory criteria, specifically the criteria found at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (viii), and (ix), which includes membership in an association requiring 
outstanding achievement, published material about him or his work, performing in a leading or critical 
role for an organization with a distinguished reputation, and commanding a high salary. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the criteria 
found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director applied the 
regulations incorrectly and ignored evidence in the record that he claimed demonstrates eligibility. 
After reviewing all of the evidence, the record does not reflect that the Petitioner meets at least three 
criteria. We will discuss each of the four criteria that the Petitioner claims in detail. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based 
on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements 
in the field for which classification is sought. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2) appendix, 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 (providing an example of admission 
to membership in the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals 
to be nominated by an academy member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon 
recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original research). 
2 
Associations may have multiple levels of membership, and the level of membership afforded to the 
foreign national must show that in order to obtain that level of membership, the foreign national was 
judged by recognized national or international experts as having attained outstanding achievements in 
the field for which classification is sought. Id. The Petitioner asserts that his professional membership 
with the Young President's Organization (YPO), a global organization of chief executives with local 
chapters across the world, fulfills this criterion. 
The record contains information from the YPO website listing the membership criteria as follows: 
• Under 45 years old. 
• President, CEO, Chairperson of the Board, Managing Director, Managing Partner, 
or Equivalent title. 
• 50 full-time employees, or at least 15 full-time employees and a minimum of $2 
million in annual employee compensation. 
• Minimum revenue by company type, or enterprise value. 
• $13 million for sales, service, manufacturing corporations. 
• $10 million for an agency-type businesses. 
• $260 million, including assets under management. 
• $20 million enterprise value. 
The record also includes a printout of frequently asked questions from the YPO website that states, 
"Meeting the specific quantitative requirements does not automatically guarantee admittance into 
YPO. There are other important, less easily defined requirements that also need to be met. These are 
qualitative in nature and are at the discretion of the current chapter's executive committee." 
The Petitioner also submitted the bylaws of his local chapter inl !Brazil. The bylaws state 
that, in addition to the above membership criteria, a candidate must be recommended by two members, 
and requests for admission of candidates will be examined and approved by the membership director 
of the chapter. 
In support of his membership in YPO, the Petitioner submitted a letter attesting to his membership 
since 2001 and his board membership in various positions at different times, meeting minutes 
identifying the Petitioner as a membership director, and an email announcing the Petitioner as a new 
member of the YPO Board in August 2021, one month after the petition was filed. 1 
The Director acknowledged that YPO requires professional achievements of its members and requires 
nomination by other members. However, he noted that the chapter bylaws do not state that YPO 
requires outstanding achievements or uses recognized national or international experts to determine 
membership qualification. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the minimum 
requirements for membership in YPO meets the plain language requirements of the criterion. He also 
concluded that the Petitioner did not provide documentary evidence demonstrating that his 
representation ofYPO is a level of membership that requires outstanding achievements as an essential 
1 A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 l&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
3 
condition for admission as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines 
or fields. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director improperly imposed a requirement not in the 
regulations, that an organization's outstanding membership qualifications be expressed in its bylaws. 
He further asserts that YPO does use recognized or international experts to determine membership and 
requires outstanding achievements for admission. He states that the Director did not consider his level 
of membership in his position as a member of the I I board as one requiring outstanding 
achievements. 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that YPO's membership criteria requires outstanding achievements 
of its members. The record reflects that YPO's requirements for membership are based on age, job 
title, level of experience and general professional status based on the size and income of the employer. 
Although the Petitioner asserts that additional qualitative requirements apply, the record does not 
identify these additional requirements or establish that they are based on outstanding achievement. 
While we agree that there is no regulatory requirement that the YPO bylaws identify these qualitative 
requirements, no other evidence was submitted to support this assertion or elaborate on these 
additional criteria to show that selection was based on outstanding achievement. Relevant factors that 
may lead to a conclusion that the foreign national's membership in the association was not based on 
outstanding achievements in the field include, but are not limited to, instances where membership was 
based solely on a level of education or years of experience in a particular field. 2 Here, the requirements 
for YPO membership identified in the record are possessing a certain age, title, and level of experience. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not support his assertion that recognized national or international experts 
judge outstanding achievements. On appeal, Counsel for the Petitioner identifies YPO as a "peer to 
peer organization where board members determine another's membership, meaning that only 
professional [sic] who have already demonstrated national/international acclaim in the business area 
will judge other members' eligibility." He further asserts that "[m]embers are evaluated by the board, 
according to formalities including proficiency exam, and other writing samples ... " We acknowledge 
that holding a senior executive position for a qualifying company relatively early in one's career is a 
significant professional achievement. However, the Petitioner's assertions are not supported by the 
record. The bylaws state that candidates for membership require recommendation by two members 
and that admission of candidates is approved by the membership director. However, neither the 
bylaws or other evidence in the record demonstrates that candidates are judged on outstanding 
achievements, nor is their evidence of the requirement of an exam or writing sample. Assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 1988) (citing 
Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements must be 
substantiated in the record with independent evidence, which may include affidavits and declarations. 
The Petitioner points to his position as member of the I I board of YPO as evidence of a level 
of membership for which he was judged by recognized national or international experts as having 
attained outstanding achievements in the field of business. However, the bylaws state that the YPO 
chapter is managed by an executive council elected by the majority of members present at the annual 
meeting. No other criteria for election are set forth or described elsewhere in the record. Receiving 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) appendix. 
4 
the majority vote among other members ofYPO does not demonstrate that the candidate was selected 
based on qualifications alone and is insufficient to establish eligibility for this criterion, as the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that all members are nationally or internationally recognized experts. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he fulfills 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). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material. 3 
The record reflects that the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on the following 
published material: 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I 
in Est ado de Sao Paulo (2012) . 
e Sao Paulo (2004) . I in Estado d 
in Folha 
I in Gazeta Mer 
de Sao Paulo (1997) . 
cantile (2004) . 
Lin Gazeta Mercantile (2004) . 
I in Propmar k (2004) . 
in Folh a de Sao Paulo (2004) . 
e Sao Paulo (2003) . in Folha d 
l in ClientSA Magazine (2003) . 
I publication and date not 
provided. 
• I ________________ in Valor Economico (2004). 
The Petitioner also submitted media data for four of the publications, including Estado de Sao Paulo, 
Folha de Sao Paulo, Gazeta Mercantile, and Propmark. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), notifying the Petitioner of several deficiencies, 
including that: 
• The article title oes not indicate the 
name of the publication in the English translation. 
• The Petitioner is not the subject of the article titled 
• The Petitioner is not the subject of the article titled ' and 
the author's name is not provided. 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) appendix. 
5 
• The article titled ___________________ does not 
include the author's name and no information about the publication was provided. 
The Director further stated that the record did not include sufficient information about the publications 
to demonstrate that they qualified as a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
In response to the RFE the Petitioner submitted the same articles and media data. In a brief submitted 
with the RFE response, counsel for the Petitioner also highlighted quotes from three of the articles 
specifically mentioning the Petitioner. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. He noted the following about the published material: 
• The article titled did not include _________________ 
the author's name in the English translation and does not qualify because it is an 
interview with the Petitioner. Petitioner. • The article titled ________________ does not list the 
author's name and the Petitioner is not the subject of the article. 
• The article titled! I does not include the 
author's name. 
• The article titled does not include the _______________ 
author's name. 
• The article titled ___ is not primarily about 
the Petitioner and his work in the field. 
• The article titled does not include the author's name. 
• The article titled does not ___________________ 
include the author's name. 
Additionally, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not submit independent, objective evidence 
of the circulation statistics of any of the publications to demonstrate that each qualifies as a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
On appeal the Petitioner does not submit additional evidence regarding this criterion. Counsel for the 
Petitioner states "as a result of the extensive documentation submitted on this topic, it is clear that [the 
Petitioner] has been a major figure in the specialized media as a reference and highly accomplished 
businessman, with published material about [him] in professional or major business publications or 
other major media." 
The Petitioner did not include the authors' names for nine of the eleven total articles in the record. 
The inclusion of the title, date, and author of the material is not optional but a regulatory requirement. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Therefore, we will consider only articles that include the author's 
name, identified as: 
• in Folha de Sao Paulo (2004). 
• I in Folha de Sao Paulo (2003). 
6 
These articles are not about the Petitioner. Instead, the articles are about the outsourcing industry in 
Brazil and a government employment program. Articles that are not about the foreign national do not 
fulfill this regulatory criterion. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) appendix; see also, 
e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). Relating to the Race for a Space article, 
the material mentions a single comment from the Petitioner involving language barriers in 
employment; the article does not discuss the Petitioner and is not about him. Likewise, regarding the 
I I article, the material mentions a single comment from the Petitioner about a 
social project to employ young people in Brazil; the article does not discuss the Petitioner and is not 
about him. We also note that, even if the remaining articles had included the author and publication 
details, only one represents material about the Petitioner. The _______ article includes 
an excerpt from an interview with the Petitioner discussing his views on business success, and also 
includes a summary of his experience as an entrepreneur and executive. However, the remaining 
articles are brief announcements about the Petitioner's career progression or about projects and 
business developments with the Petitioner's employers. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that any of the publications represents a professional or 
major trade publication or other major medium. 4 Although the Petitioner provided media data for 
Estado de Sao Paulo, Folha de Sao Paulo, Gazeta Mercantile, and Propmark, we note that the evidence 
does not demonstrate that any of these publications represents a professional or major trade publication 
or other major medium. The media kits for Estado de Sao Paulo and Folha de Sao Paulo are dated 
2021 and 2017, respectively, nearly 10 years from the dates of the articles provided. Similarly, the 
publication data for Gazeta is from 2018, 14 years from the publication dates of the material provided. 
Further, the Petitioner did not support the record with independent, objective evidence corroborating 
the publications' claims. USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See 
Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C.D.C.A. July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) 
(concluding that self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not 
reliant evidence of a major medium); see also, e.g., Victorov v. Barr, No. CV 19-6948-GW-JPRX, 
2020 WL 3213788, at *8 (C.D.C.A. Apr. 9, 2020). Additionally, the data submitted for Propmark is 
undated and no data was provided for ClientSA Magazine or Valor Economico. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his documentation satisfies 
all of the elements of this criterion, and we withdraw the Director's decision for 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). 
To meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have 
performed in either a leading or critical role, and that the role has been for an organization or 
establishment ( or a division or department of an organization or establishment) having a distinguished 
4 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) appendix (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 
reputation. If a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is or was a leader. A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 5 
The Petitioner asserts that he erformed in critical roles for various or anizations including as a founder 
and partner of in Brazil, and as CEO 
in the United States. The Director concluded that the record demonstrates the Petitioner's leading or 
critical role at ___________ but the evidence is insufficient to establish the 
distinguished reputation of the organization. The Director further concluded that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's leading or critical role in the other claimed organizations, or the distinguished 
reputations of those organizations. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not provide new or additional evidence to demonstrate the distinguished 
reputation of any organization, or his leading or critical role with other organizations. Counsel for the 
Petitioner states in the brief on appeal that the Petitioner "created an impressive portfolio of companies 
through several acquisitions" while with 
The Petitioner has not established that __________ has a distinguished reputation, 
with "distinguished" defined as "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence or befitting an eminent 
person." 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. 
While the record includes evidence relating to various acquisitions within the portfolio ofl I I this evidence does not discuss the reputation of The record 
does not include evidence demonstrating that I lhas a distinguished reputation. Nor 
does the record include evidence concerning the reputation of any other organizations with which the 
Petitioner is associated. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 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 order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that their salary or remuneration is high 
relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. The burden is on the petitioner to 
provide appropriate comparative evidence. Examples may include, but are not limited to, geographical 
or position-appropriate compensation surveys. Persons 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. 6 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on his salary as CEO and Managing Partner 
for I The Petitioner submitted his 2019 tax return, and data from two 
salary report websites, Payscale and Glassdoor, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The salary 
reports reflect the average salary data for CEO positions in Brazil and the United States in 2019. 
5 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) appendix (noting that Meniam-Webster's online dictionary 
defines "distinguished" as "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence or befitting an eminent person"). 
6 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra. at F.2(B)(2) appendix. 
8 
The Director concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's salary is 
high relative to others working in the field, as the salary reports are representative of base salaries and 
do not provide a review of salary information of members of the field with more experience. The 
Director also noted that the salary reports reflect the average wages of CEOs, rather than CEO­
Solutions Architects, as described on the petition. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not provide new or additional evidence to establish that he commands 
a high salary relative to the compensation paid to others in his field. In the brief on appeal, counsel 
for the Petitioner asserts that the Petitioner's salary derives from his role as CEO and Managing Partner 
and states that actual salary information of other CEOs is not openly shared and available for 
comp an son. 
We note that the Petitioner asserts that his total remuneration includes salary, bonuses and stock option 
compensation. He compares his total remuneration to the base salary earnings of others, which is not 
an accurate and persuasive comparison. 
Further, the Petitioner compares his salary as the CEO and Managing Partner to that of salaries of 
CEOs, without the duties and responsibilities of Managing Partners. He did not establish that he 
commands a high salary in relation to other CEO and Managing Partners performing both roles. Both 
precedent and case law support this application of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). See Matter of Price, 20 
I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other 
PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th 
Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others 
in the field); Crimson 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, the Petitioner 
did not show that the comparison of average and median salaries of single-role positions reflects his 
commandment of a high salary in relation to other multi-role CEOs. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not show either a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) 
or demonstrate that he satisfies three of ten initial criteria. Specifically, he did not demonstrate that 
he met the criteria relating to memberships, published material, leading or critical role, or high salary. 
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 conclusion 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. Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance 
9 
of his 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 he 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 experience in business 
and as an executive, the record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the 
upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
10