dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 30, 2024 In Re: 31282943 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an attorney and managing partner at a Brazilian law firm, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability in business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference classification makes immigrant visas 
available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
In the latest decision, the Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that 
although the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, he did not 
show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 1 The matter is again before us on appeal pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 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 
1 The Director denied the petition and dismissed the Petitioner 's subsequent motion to reconsider, concluding that the 
record established that the Petitioner had satisfied only two often initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least 
three. The matter came before us on appeal from the dismissal of the motion, and we determined that the Petitioner met a 
third initial criterion . We, therefore , withdrew the Director 's decision and remanded the matter for the Director to render 
a final merits determination in keeping with the framework set forth in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, iffulfilling the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits detennination). 
I 
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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or 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 that since 1989 he has been an attorney, founder, and managing 
partner at the 
Brazilian law firm ____________________ where he specializes in 
transnational corporate law involving complex transactions in the areas of commercial, tax, and labor 
law. He received his Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree from the ____________ 
I in 1996. During his employment with EBA, the record shows that he also served as 
Judge of the (2004-2005) and Judge of the _____ 
___(2006-2008), and he also claims to have worked as a law professor. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In her latest decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner met 
three of those criteria: judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vi), and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The record reflects that 
the Petitioner satisfies these three evidentiary criteria. The documentation submitted indicates that the 
Petitioner authored scholarly works in professional publications, satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record also shows he served as a member of multiple Ph.D. dissertation 
2 
committees that made the final judgment as to whether an individual candidate's body of work, within 
an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought, satisfied the requirements for a 
doctoral degree in Law, thus satisfying the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 2 Further, the record 
demonstrates that the Petitioner has held leading or critical roles with his current employer, and 
includes evidence of the company's distinguished reputation in its field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contests the Director's determination that he did not satisfy the criteria related 
to awards for excellence, published material about him, original contributions of major significance, 
and significantly high remuneration, and asserts the Director did not consider the totality of the 
evidence in the record in making her determination. Because the Petitioner has demonstrated that he 
satisfies three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence, including evidence submitted in 
support of those criteria, in the context of the final merits determination below. 3 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim, that 
he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. 4 
In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. As mentioned above, the 
Petitioner judged the work of others within his field, authored scholarly works, and performed in a 
leading critical role. We have also considered evidence related to awards he received for his work 
at published material that mentions him, his contributions to the field, and his salary and 
remuneration package with The record, however, does not demonstrate that his achievements 
are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
As it pertains to his service as a judge of others, an evaluation of the significance of his experience is 
appropriate to determine if such evidence is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this 
2 For example, the record indicates that the Petitioner served on a panel that evaluated Ph.D. candidates' thesis topics such 
as "The Import Tax Incidence Matrix Rule," "Participative Tax Law: Administrative Transaction and Arbitration of Tax 
Obligation," and "Typicity, Antijuridicity and Culpability in Tax Violations," and demonstrates that the work he judged 
in these instances falls within an allied field of specialization for which classification is sought. 
3 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (providing that objectively meeting the 
regulatory criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act). 
4 Id. at F.2(B)(2) (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in 
its entirety to dete1mine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of 
expertise of the immigrant classification). 
3 
I 
highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22.5 The Petitioner provided 
evidence showing that he served as a reviewer on a panel judging Ph.D. theses at I I most 
recently in 2010. The record also shows he served as Judge of the 
(2004-2005) and Judge of the (2006-2008). However, the 
Petitioner did not establish that his judging experience places him among the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
his judging occurrences contribute to a finding that he has a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress or indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. 
See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not establish, for 
instance, that he garnered wide attention from the field based on his work as a thesis reviewer or tax 
judge. The Petitioner did not establish that his work as a Ph.D. thesis reviewer or tax judge resulted 
in or reflects his sustained international acclaim in the field, was recognized outside of those 
organizations, or places him among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Likewise, the publication of research does not automatically place one at the top of the field. 6 Here, 
although the Petitioner presented evidence showing that he authored two law books and a law book 
chapter between 199 5 and 2005, he has not demonstrated that this publication record is consistent with 
having a "career of acclaimed work" or qualifies for this "very high standard." See H.R. Rep. No. at 
59 and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. In addition, he did not establish that his authorship of three published 
materials is reflective of being among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). Further, the Petitioner did not show that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim as his most recent published material, a book chapter, was last published in 2005. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of his publications can be an indicator 
to determine the impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and whether such influence 
has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the 
Petitioner may provide solid evidence that his work has been recognized and that others have been 
influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant 
to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the influence of his published 
work is evidenced by a letter he initially submitted from Justice Justice of 
the land founder of theI Justice 
I asserted the Petitioner's book I I(IOB 2003), "has 
introduced a new legal classification involving the taxation of electronic commercial transactions, 
which provoked widespread commentary among legal scholars, and has been cited extensively as an 
authoritative source in academic discussions as well as in legal cases." 
The Petitioner, however, has not provided corroborating evidence that any of his authored works were 
used as a reference or established his works have been "widely" cited or utilized, and therefore, 
5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l) (stating that an individual's participation should be evaluated 
to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
6 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual. supra, at F.2(B)(l) (providing that publications should be evaluated to determine 
whether they were indicative of being one of that small percentage who has risen to the ve1y top of the field of endeavor 
and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Further, the Petitioner did not show the 
application of his written work by the field and that it represents attention at a level consistent with 
being among small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner, 
for instance, did not compare his authored works to others in his field of endeavor that are recognized 
as already being at the top in his field. 
Next, the record reflects that the Petitioner performed in a leading role in his current position as a 
managing partner fore=] since 1989. However, the Director found that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that his employment in this role is reflective of, or has resulted in, widespread acclaim 
from his field or that he is considered to be at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). On appeal, the Petitioner highlights the above letter from Justice I I and a letter 
from I vice president of the board of legal and legislative affairs of the I I 
I I 
With regard to his previous employment with other entities, Justice I I letter indicates that based 
upon the Petitioner's "stature as a leader in his field" he was appointed to serve as the first coordinator 
of the Post-Graduate and Extension courses of _________ ___,between 2011 and 2014. 
Mr. I I indicates that I I supported the Petitioner's appointment to serve as Judge of the 
(2004-2005) and Judge of the ___________ 
(2006-2008). Neither Justice I I nor Mr. I I however, addresses how the Petitioner's 
positions were leading or critical to these organizations, nor did they provide details of how the 
Petitioner achieved national or international acclaim based on these positions. Apart from these letters, 
the record lacks other independent evidence, such as news articles or other relevant materials, 
demonstrating that the field has widely recognized the Petitioner's roles or contributions to his 
employers in a manner that evidences a "career of acclaimed work." The evidence does not show that 
his roles and achievements at these organizations are at a level that places him among "that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner satisfied, we consider additional documentation in the 
record in order to determine whether the totality of the evidence demonstrates eligibility. Here, for 
the reasons discussed below, we find that the evidence neither fulfills the requirements of any further 
evidentiary criteria nor contributes to an overall finding that the Petitioner has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage of the top of his field. 
As it relates to awards, the record reflects that the Petitioner and were recognized by Corporate 
INTL Magazine with a 20201 IAward for __________________ 
I I The evidence demonstrates that nominations are received from the readership of Corporate 
INTL Magazine, "all of which are either investors in business, leaders of companies or advisers of 
those businesses on a global level," and "other sources including our database[ s ]," and are made based 
upon "key work they have carried out for/with the person making the nomination over the past 12 
months." In addition, the record shows that Petitioner's firm was ranked among the topl I 
law firms from 2008 to 2015 by Analise Advocacia 500 legal profession yearbook. However, the 
record does not fully explain, or present sufficient evidence, regarding the selection processes for 
either award that would support the Petitioner's claim that they should be considered nationally or 
internationally recognized awards in the field, such as the number of competitors in the Petitioner's 
5 
_______________ __ 
category, or evidence of how colleagues select their top law firms, or evidence of the level of 
recognition associated with the awards. 7 Therefore, the documentation submitted does not provide 
sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include sufficient corroborating evidence, 
to show that the Petitioner's receipt of the awards established or contributed to his sustained national 
or international acclaim in the field. 
Regarding published material, the Petitioner provided copies of five articles. Two of those articles, 
published in the print version of the Brazilian publication Valor in 2006 and 2009, do not identify an 
author of the material. The inclusion of the author is not optional but a regulatory requirement. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The remaining articles were not about the Petitioner relating to his work 
but were about recent trends in the field. For example, a 2016 article from Bloombergnews.com about 
Brazilian investors having bid up stocks in anticipation of the country's recovery from recession, 
quotes the Petitioner, among several financial advisors, who opines that _ 
I A 2015 Washington Post article titled I 
I quotes the Petitioner who states, I 
I The Petitioner also provided a 2003 article from Valor which quotes 
him as confirming the ouster of t_h_e_fi_rm__of __________ from the legal consulting field 
and his firm's acquisition of l ______ 
Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that three articles, published in 2003, 2015, and 2016, are 
consistent with the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive 
classification. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner also did not show that his overall 
press coverage is indicative of a level of success consistent with being among "that small percentage 
who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not establish that the limited media reporting reflects a "career of acclaimed work in the 
field" or a "very high standard ... to present more extensive documentation than that required." See 
H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Further, the Petitioner provided expert letters from several individuals in the Petitioner's field. 8 In 
general, the letters summarize the Petitioner's professional accomplishments and work history. The 
letters, however, do not explain how the Petitioner's achievements have been considered by the field 
to be of major significance. Moreover, they do not contain detailed information showing the unusual 
influence or high impact his contributions have had on the overall field. For instance, in his letter, 
Justice! Iprovides that in 2013 the Petitioner successfully argued a case before the which 
resulted in a portion of a 1994 law being declared unconstitutional that had required the Petitioner's 
Although Justice I I asserts that the Petitioner "exercised significant influence in the 
Brazilian legal field" because the holding in the case applies "to all 26 Brazilian States and the Federal 
District," he does not address, for example, whether references to that case are indicative of its 
significant impact in the field, nor does his letter sufficiently support the assertion that the Petitioner 
7 For instance, according to the 2008 edition of its yearbook, Analise Advocacia 500 collected the names of the 1,263 most 
admired law firms according to the legal departments of the largest companies in Brazil. 
8 While we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
6 
I 
is considered among that small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor or how he has 
garnered sustained national or international acclaim. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter froml Ia labor law attorney. We note that 
Mr. I lletter is not on letterhead and does not include an address, a telephone number, or any 
other information through which he can be contacted, thus reducing its probative value. Mr.I 
states that the Petitioner in his law firm was "responsible for the conception and successful 
implementation of a highly innovative model for the large scale management oflawsuits across Brazil 
called He asserts that the Petitioner's model "was absorbed 
by software and legal technology companies, and today became the standard model used by law firms, 
companies and government (Judiciary Power and Executive Power)." He described the model as "the 
most revolutionary development involving large-scale case management in the Brazilian legal 
industry" which "has significantly influenced the Brazilian legal market for the past 20 years." 
However, the record does not contain any other evidence related to this model or the Petitioner's role 
in its development. As a result, we are unable to determine, for example, when the model was 
introduced, whether the model was regarded as novel or original at the time of its introduction, whether 
or how it impacted the field of complex case management, or whether and to what extent the Petitioner 
garnered sustained national or international acclaim or recognition as a result of his work on its 
development. 
The Petitioner also did not establish, as he asserts, that the above awards from C01porate INTL 
Magazine and the Analise Advocacia 500 legal profession yearbook were indicative of original 
business contributions of major significance in the overall field, for example, that they were awarded 
based on a determination that his contributions made a significant impact on the field; nor do they 
demonstrate that he is among that small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor or that he 
has sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner also claims that his extraordinary ability is reflected in his annual compensation 
package. The record reflects that he received total compensation of R$10,713,428 in 2015 (taxable 
income of R$55,965 and non-taxable, profit-sharing income of R$ l 0,657,463.) The Petitioner 
provided salary data for attorneys in Brazil from Salaryexplorer.com and Payscale.com. The Director 
found insufficient evidence to establish that he earns a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration in relation to other managing partners. While the Petitioner argues that his total 
compensation is considerably higher that the figures reported for attorneys by the above resources, the 
Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence that would allow a comparison between his total 
remuneration and that of other similarly employed workers in his geographic area. Therefore, the 
evidence does not establish that he receives total remuneration that is "significantly high" or that his 
earnings are comparable to those of individuals at the very top of the field. 
Considering the totality of the evidence and the Petitioner's arguments on appeal, we conclude that 
the record, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for 
the benefit sought. 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) ( concluding that even major league level athletes do not automatically 
meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) ( finding that the extraordinary ability 
designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal II), No. 
19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 
31, 2023) ( determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective 
immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 
2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a 
published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that 
"[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. 
Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous 
baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or 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 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). The record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the Petitioner 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. 
8