dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF R-M-G- DATE: NOV. 15, 2018 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMlGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(])(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who 
can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and 
whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not shown that he met any of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he meets three criteria . 
. 
Upon de novo 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
.
Maller of R-M-G-
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
_at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneur. As he has not established that he has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director held that he had not established that he met any of these criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the criteria for awards, membership, published 
material, judging, contributions of major significance, scholarly articles, display, and high salary 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 1 For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the record 
does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien ·s receipt o,llesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or award5for excellence in the field <fendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner claims to meet this criterion based on his being awarded the 
2010." The Director noted that this award was issued by the 
for Colombia but held that the evidence in the record did not establish that this 
award has national or international recognition or that it was awarded for excellence in the field. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states that this award resulted from a national contest that was situated in 
the capital city of Colombia. He asserts that although the Mayor of presented the 
award, the contest is national in scope in partnership with several entities led by Colombia's 
which governs the contest. 
1 The Petitioner does not address the leading or critical role criterion on appeal under 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) . 
2 
.
Matter of R-M-G-
To support the national recognition of the award, the record contains a letter from 
the Director of the General Division of Public Service of the stating that 
"[t]he winners will receive a medal of recognition ... and their success story will be published to 
strengthen their national projection." Additionally, the 2010 
Contest Guide': (Contest Guide) states that one of the benefits of winning an award in this program 
is the national dissemination of the winner's success case by being published in the MisionPyme 
magazine. The record contains an article published in MisionPyme about the contest indicating that 
the Petitioner received the Award. The Petitioner references this evidence 
and claims that MisionPyme is Colombia's leading business magazine and that it has 100,000 
readers across the country. While the circulation details of MisionPyme have not been translated 
into English,2 we find that the statement of a government official and the Contest Guide indicate that 
this is a nationally recognized award. 
The Director also held that the record does not establish that this award was issued for excellence in 
the field, quoting the Contest Guide which states that the award is issued 
for being an "entrepreneur with an innovative idea" or an "original business idea" that is "proving 
itself as a successful company." 3 The Petitioner cites the Contest Guide requirements, indicating 
that he qualified in one of two categories: first, as an entrepreneur "with an innovative idea or who is 
in the process of creating and/or developing a company;" and second, as an employer "who founded 
and/or [ran] stratified companies . . . of any kind ... with a minimum operating time of 18 months." 
It appears that the Petitioner's award falls in the first category, as the requirements of the 
award demonstrate that an individual could win for having an innovative 
idea or an original business idea, not for excellence in the field. Accordingly, the record does not 
establish that the Petitioner's award was based on his excellence in the field. Therefore, he has not 
demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
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 !heir disciplines orjields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion through his membership in the 
4 The record contains a letter from the 
secretary of ______ indicating that this is a "non-profit organization created with the 
2 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(6)(3). 
3 We note that there are additions or omissions of words in some of the translations in the record. Here, it appears that 
the translation refers to having a successful business whereas the original text refers to ideas with the potential of 
becoming a successful business. The word "potencial" has been omitted from the translation. The Petitioner must 
resolve this issue in any further filings. 
4 In a request for evidence (RFE) , the Director also addressed the Petitioner's membership with the 
the Professional Council of Business 
Administration, the Chamber of Comm~rce, and as a graduate of School of Marketing. 
The Petitioner did not address these issues in response to the Director's RFE and has not raised them on appeal. 
3 
.
Matter of R-M-G-
purpose of identifying and promoting the best business _marketers in Colombia." 
states that the Petitioner has been an active member since 2014. The Director stated that he had not 
provided primary evidence of his membership in such as a membership card, 
noting that the letter from was unacceptable because it does not provide the 
signatory's address. We find that it is not a regulatory requirement that must include 
his address on this letter in this instance, and the evidence in the record has established the 
Petitioner's membership in the 
Moreover, the Director found that the record did not establish that requires 
outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international experts 
in their fields. On appeal, the Petitioner states that the evidence in the record demonstrates that 
requires prospective members to have won an award in business marketing and 
be approved by the board of directors plus one honorary member." We note that the bylaws for this 
organization identify four requirements for membership. These are that an individual must "[bJe an 
independent businessperson, and [h ]ave won a regional, international award in marketing, and 
[p ]rovide a portfolio of achievements, and [b ]e approved by 50% of the directors plus I of the 
honorary member[s]." The Petitioner has not established that winning such an award in marketing 
constitutes an outstanding achievement. Due to the variety of awards that may be given in 
marketing, it is unclear that an award which meets the requirements stated above would necessarily 
equate to an outstanding achievement. The record also does not establish that these achievements 
are judged by recognized national or international experts in their field. The bylaws state that a 
· prospective member must be approved by half of the directors and one of the honorary members, but 
it is unclear whether all of these individuals are recognized national or international experts in the 
field. The record contains a certificate from identifying five of the judges and 
listing their qualifications, which indicates that these individuals have significant experience m 
marketing, but the record does not establish that they are nationally or internationally recognized. 
The Petitioner states on appeal that he became a member of in June 2014 and that 
35 marketing executives "who are part of or affiliates of' the organization "evaluated [his} 
candidacy and offered [him] membership." He states that these marketing executives wrote, "[h]is 
achievements demonstrate that he is one of the top marketing managers in the country." We note 
that here he is citing the letter from However, the letter from 
contradicts the Petitioner's claims because his letter states that five directors of marketing granted 
the Petitioner membership in the organization , whereas the Petitioner asserts that 35 executives 
offered him membership. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
record by independent objective evidence . See Maller of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988), 
The Petitioner has not established that membership in required outstanding 
achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international experts in their field. 
Therefore, he has not established that he meets this criterion. 
5 The Director also stated that the Petitioner had not identified his level of membership. Here, we note that the 
bylaws do not indicate different levels of membership. 
4 
.
Matter of R-M-G-
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relating lo the alien's work in the field.for which classijicalion is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, dale, and author of the material. and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director considered evidence in the record of articles published in Publimotos, Esquire 
Colombia, Gente, and MisionPyme, and held that the Petitioner had not met this criterion. On 
appeal, the Petitioner states that he meets this criterion based on the publications in the record from 
Genie, Publimotos, and MisionPyme. 
The Director held that the article entitled in Genie magazine did not contain a 
· full translation of the cover and that the date of the publication on the cover is illegible. On appeal, 
the Petitioner states that this article was published in 2011 and that it is about his work as a 
businessman and author of a book that discusses a marketing strategy he developed. While we find 
that this article is about the Petitioner and relates to his work in the field, the record does not 
establish Genie magazine as major media. In addition, the record does not contain a full translation 
of the cover or the circulation data as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). See also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3) (requiring that any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full 
English language translation). The Director noted this translation issue, and it has not been resolved 
on appeal. 
With respect to the article published in Publimotos, the Director concluded that the record does not 
contain circulation information for this magazine or other evidence that establishes it as a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. The record contains the Facebook 
homepage for Publimotos that includes a description of the magazine as well as copies of the covers 
from previous issues. While we find that Publimotos appears to be a professional publication, we 
conclude that the article in the record is about the Petitioner's business and not about him. The 
article is entitled, and while it mentions the Petitioner briefly 
as the owner, the focus of the article is about the customer-service aspects of the dealership . 
The evidence in the record does not establish that this article meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Regarding the article in MisionPyme, the Director held that it discusses the history about the 
Award rather than focusing on the Petitioner and his work. We disagree with this 
conclusion. This article notes that he won the Award and that he is the 
owner of several companies including which it states "is one of the largest motorcycle 
dealers in Colombia." The article then indicates that "[he] offered a proposal to position Colombia 
as the main point of manufacture of motorcycles and similar vehicles for all of Latin America." The 
article further discusses his background, noting that "his studies in marketing, viability and 
sustainability called the attention of the jury and awarded him with the 
Award While we find that this article is about the Petitioner and is 
related to his work in the field, we note that the record does not establish MisionPyme as a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. Apart from the actual article, the other 
evidence in the record about MisionPyme has not been translated into English under 8 C.F.R. 
5 
.
Matier of R-M-G-
· § 103 .2(b )(3), including the cover and circulation details, as noted by the Director. This issue has 
not been resolved on appeal. Because the record does not establish that the articles ~bout the 
Petitioner appeared in qualifying publications, he has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence <~lthe 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 5pecification for which c/ass(fication is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion for having served as a judge for the 
The record contains a certificate from the 
Chamber of Commerce, verifying that the Petitioner participated as a panelist and judge in this 
conference for small and medium businesses in 2014. The Director held that the Petitioner's field of 
expertise is in business, specifically in the motorcycle/automotive industry, and that the record does 
not demonstrate that his role in judging the work of others in fashion businesses relates to his field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that this conference "consisted of grading the best new fashion 
product launch marketing plan among 30 fashion businesses" and that he was chosen for the position 
due to his academic background and his nationwide reputation as one of the best business marketers. 
The certificate from the Chamber of Commerce indicates that the Petitioner's role as a 
panelist and judge required that he "[i]dentify the companies· with (the] best business opportunities," 
the "[m]ost economic growth," the [i]mprovement of productivity," the "[d]evelopment of products 
· and services with [the] best quality," and the "strategy that garners [the] most revenue." We note 
that the criterion requires that he judge the work of others "in the same or an allied field of 
specification for which classification is sought" and that marketing is an allied field to business . See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Therefore, the Petitioner has established that his participation as a judge 
for the conference discussed above constitutes judging in the same or an allied field as business, and 
he has demonstrated that he meets this criterion .6 
Evidence <~l the alien's original scienftfic, scholarly. artistic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions of mcrjor sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner states that he meets this criterion on account of his publication 
which he identifies as one of his most significant contributions to the business industry . He asserts 
that his book "has proven to be a major success across Colombia's marketing industry ." The record 
contains the patent of literary invention for this book, letters supporting the use of this book at 
universities, and one letter discussing its implementation in business endeavors. The record reflects 
that the Petitioner's book was co-published and certified by the . 
The Director held that although this book appears to have been added to the 
6 While the Petitioner has established that he meets this criterion, we note that the translation of the certification from the 
Chamber of Commerce of about this judging experience omits a word "textil" from the original and adds the 
words "with best quality" into the translation. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of course, lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Maller of 
Ho, 19 l&N Dec. at 591-92. 
6 
.
Mauer of R-M-G-
list of required reading at several universities, the record did not contain evidence of citations to it 
outside of the university setting or other evidence sufficiently establishing it as a contribution of 
. major significance in the field. The Director indicated that most universities offer numerous courses 
that typically require several textbooks as required reading, noting that it does not follow that every 
author of academic textbooks has made a contribution of major significance in the field. 
On appeal , the Petitioner states that three of Colombia's largest universities teach his marketing 
theory and that many other universities use aspects of it in their instruction. The record contains 
several letters from those who have utilized his book in the university setting or who can attest to its 
use. In a letter from , the director of marketing specializations at 
he states that he uses the Petitioner's book "as a source of study" and notes that it has 
been used in three semesters of marketing specialization. Similarly, a certification from the 
president and the secretary general of the indicates that the Petitioner's 
book "is utilized as a source of study in semester 5 in the division of sales in the School of 
International Business and Marketing." In a letter from the Deputy Director of 
Marketing for the he states that the Petitioner's book "is used as a 
required academic text for the capstone semester for graduation" and that it "is considered by our 
university as one of the best contributions in marketing." He further notes that it has had 65,000 
visits online and that every six months 150 marketing students are instructed with it. 
marketing professor at , states that his book "was a resounding success" 
and that it had 50,000 consultations online · at the university's main library to date. While the 
numbers of between 50,000 and 65,000 online visits as described in these letters are notable, the 
.record does not contain sufficient evidence demonstrating how this has impacted the field of 
marketing as a whole apart from these universities discussed above. 
The record contains a letter from the Minister of National Education, 
stating that "[t]he impact of the contribution has been so great that 85% of public university 
marketing courses use the content of the in some way in their curriculum." We note 
that this statement "in some way" makes it unclear as to what extent the book is used in public 
universities apart from the ones that use it as required reading. 
The Petitioner states that the large companies of and 
have applied the principles from his book. The record contains a letter from 
the National Sales Manager of the who 
states that after having implemented the Petitioner's principles in each of his companies he has 
experienced growth of up to 33 percent in income . While we find this to be a positive consideration 
here, the record does not contain evidence demonstrating that his book has influenced the marketing 
industry such as to represent a contribution of major significance. Therefore, the Petitioner has not_ 
established that he meets this criterion. 
'7 
.
Matter of R-M-G-
Evidence of !he alien's awhorship o,f scholarly articles in the field. in pro,fessional or mqjor 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion due to his book We agree. 
As stated above, the record reflects that this book has been used in university curricula and 
represents the authorship of scholarly material. Therefore , the Petitioner has established that he 
meets this criterion. 
Evidence qf the display qf the alien 's work in the field al artistic exhibitions or 
showcases . 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h).(3)(vii). 
The Petitioner claims that he meets this criterion for having had his book 
display at the 29th International Book Fair at the 
contains several photographs of the Petitioner ' s book on display and a letter from 
on 
The record 
the Director of the Counsel of Literature at inviting the Petitioner to display his 
book. The Director held that the record reflects that this occurred after the petition was filed and 
could not be considered toward meeting this criterion . The record demonstrates that this book fair 
took place at the end of April 2016 , but the petition was filed in January 2016. While we note that 
this evidence does not establish eligibility under this criterion, this evidence of display would be 
considered under a final merits determination regarding his acclaim in the event the Petitioner had 
estab~ished that he met three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(i)-(x) .7 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign(ficantly high 
remuneration/or services . in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Director held that the evidence in the record did not establish that the Petitioner met this 
criterion . The record contains his 2013 revenue tax declarations sheet for Colombia , which states 
that he received$ I 01,564 ,280 Colombian pesos (COP) in that year, but does not indicate the sources 
of his income . The record also contains a survey of salaries in marketing for Colombia , published 
by Merca2.0 , and an article from MisionPyme which references a survey regarding salaries for 
different industries , stating that a general manager chief marketer earns $4,115,804 COP per month 
in guaranteed pay. The Petitioner also references a Project Management Institute (PMI) document 
entitled , "Earning Power : Project management Salary Survey ," which indicates that marketing 
protessionals with-10 to 15 years of experience earns approximately $44,850 and that those with 20 
years of experience earn $56,550 per year. 8 
The Petitioner states that based upon the Merca2 .0 survey , his salary is comparable to the five 
highest paid marketers in Colombia in 20 I 4. He then notes that his salary is higher than the salaries 
.) 
7 The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied at the time 
ofthe filing. 8 C.F.R. § l03.2(b)(I) . 
8 We note that the Petitioner did not provide any evidence of the conversion of Colombian pesos to the U.S. dollar to 
support the accuracy of his statements about the conversion of currencies. 
I 
I 
8 
Matter of R-M-G-
of marketing general managers and sales executives as the survey published by MisionPyme 
indicates. Finally, he states that the evidence from the PMI document shows that his salary of 
$54,283 is high in relation to the marketing professionals with the large range in years of experience 
noted above. 
The Director held that the evidence in the record discusses positions in marketing generally but does 
not provide a sufficient comparison in relation to the Petitioner's specific field, which in this case is 
as a business owner in the motorcycle/automotive industry. We agree with this conclusion. The 
Petitioner must submit evidence of earnings in comparison with those performing similar work. 
Matier of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 955 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994); see also 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). Accordingly, the Petitioner must compare his income with 
income earned by those in his field as a business owner in the motorcycle/automotive industry 
during the same time period. We find that the evidence in the record is insufficient to demonstrate 
that he has commanded a high salary in relation to others in his field. Therefore, the Petitioner has 
not established that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement, or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or comparable evidence establishing his eligibility. Thus, we do not 
need to fully address the totality of the materials in a final merits determination. 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 estal;>lished the acclaim and recognition 
required for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller of R-M-G-, ID# 1708436 (AAO Nov. 15, 2018) 
9