dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8396620 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 28, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, which acquires existing firearms manufacturing companies, seeks classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to 
those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the record 
established that the Petitioner satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements, it did not establish, as 
required, that the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is an individual in 
the small percentage at the very top of the field. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of their 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 
they 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable material if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) 
do not readily apply to the individual'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 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). 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 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has employed the Beneficiary as its chief controller officer since December 2017. 
Previously, the Beneficiary held high-ranking financial officer positions with several companies, 
mostly in Brazil. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary 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). The Petitioner claims the Beneficiary meets six criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
2 
The Petitioner also claimed to have submitted comparable evidence in the form of a letter from an 
attorney who worked with the Beneficiary on litigation involving the Petitioner. The Director declined 
to consider this evidence, noting that 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows consideration of comparable 
evidence only when the criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 203.4(h)(3) "do not readily apply to the 
beneficiary's occupation." The Petitioner does not reassert this claim on appeal, and therefore we 
consider the issue to be abandoned. 1 
The Director found that the Petitioner showed that the Beneficiary met the three evidentiary criteria 
numbered (iv), (vi), and (viii). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets all six 
claimed evidentiary criteria. 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has established that the 
Beneficiary meets only two of the criteria, numbered (iv) and (vi). 
Because the Director determined that the Beneficiary satisfies three criteria, the denial notice included 
a final merits determination. We disagree that the record warrants a final merits determination, but 
will address key issues further below, after addressing the individual criteria. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
The scientific director of the National Association of Business Administration Graduate Courses and 
Research (ANP AD) stated that the Petitioner "has been an associate with ANP AD ... since August 
2004." ANPAD's translated bylaws state: 
Professors, researchers and students of Administration courses and related fields, as well 
as other[] professionals with an interest in the activities of the Association, in accordance 
with the approved requirements by a Members' Meeting, may become ANP AD' s 
associated members divided by academic area. 
If associate membership is available even to students, as the above passage indicates, then associate 
membership does not require outstanding achievements. 
The Petitioner also submits information about the ANP AD Test, which is used as an admissions test for 
"graduate courses in Administration and Accounting Sciences." The link between ANP AD associate 
membership and the ANP AD Test is not explained, and in any case, qualifying for admission to graduate 
school is not an outstanding achievement. 
The Petitioner has not shown that ANP AD associate membership meets the regulatory requirements. 
1 See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att); Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 
F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. l998);seealsoHristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
3 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Beneficiary served as an assesse on an "l Jndergraduate Paper Defense Committee," evaluating 
papers submitted by four students at I University. The Director found that this 
activity suffices to constitute judging the work of others, and discussed the issue further in the context of 
the final merits determination. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
The record contains copies of several qualifying articles by the Beneficiary. The Director further 
discussed these articles in the final merits determination. 
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 necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submits copies of two scholarly conference papers, each of which cited an article by the 
Beneficiary among several bibliographical references. The Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary's 
"extraordinary business expertise has ... been highlighted and praised directly ... [ and] indirectly in the 
form of citation references in professional publications." Citations and brief references in scholarly 
articles do not necessarily mean that the articles are about the Beneficiary, relating to his work in the field. 
The Petitioner did not submit English translations of the Portuguese-language articles, as required by 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b )(3) and 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The Petitioner only submitted English translations of the 
one-paragraph abstracts for each article, and neither of those abstracts mentions the Petitioner. Without 
translations to establish the context of the citations, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that 
the articles are about the Beneficiary, rather than simply naming him as one of many sources of 
information. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role.for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Director found that the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary meets the requirements of this 
criterion. We disagree. 
The Petitioner's chief executive officer (CEO) states that the Beneficiary has authority over the 
company's financial functions including cash flow, budget, and taxes. The Director determined that the 
Beneficiary's role is critical for the petitioning entity. We agree with this determination, but the Petitioner 
has not shown that the company has a distinguished reputation. 
4 
The CEO acknowledges that the Petitioner "is a new company ... built from acquisitions" of companies 
that had already earned their own reputations. Some of those acquired companies may have distinguished 
reputations of their own, but the Petitioner has not established the extent to which the Beneficiary has 
authority over those subsidiaries, as opposed to the holding company that owns them. The CEO asserts 
that the Beneficiary is "the only Officer in the company after me," suggesting a minimal management 
structure rather than one that exercises direct and detailed authority over five different manufacturing 
companies. The Petitioner does not establish that the Beneficiary performs in a leading or critical role for 
any of the Petitioner's subsidiaries, and therefore the reputations of those companies are immaterial. 
"Reputation" is defined as "overall quality or character as seen or judged by people in general"; 
"recognition by other people of some characteristic or ability"; or "a place in public esteem or regard." 2 
These definitions show that a reputation, distinguished or otherwise, derives from outside perception, not 
from self-assessment. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot establish the reputation of an organization based 
only on statements from officials of that organization. Information about an organization's reputation 
must come, instead, from reliable and identified sources outside that organization. (If the sources are not 
identified, then we cannot account for possible bias or error in the descriptions offered.) 
The age and apparent size of the company do not, by themselves, prove or disprove that the Petitioner has 
a distinguished reputation, but the burden of proof is on the Petitioner to establish eligibility; there is no 
presumption of distinction. While counsel for the Petitioner has asserted that the Beneficiary's various 
employers have distinguished reputations, the assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter o_f Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980)). 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary performed in leading or critical roles for his earlier employers 
as well, but, as above, this claim relies entirely on letters from officials of those companies, with no 
corroboration that the employers have distinguished reputations. The Beneficiary generally worked for 
Brazilian subsidiaries of companies headquartered elsewhere. When counsel for the Petitioner discusses 
the reputations of the companies, that discussion focuses on the companies' headquarters outside Brazil, 
or on the multinational organizations as a whole, whereas the Beneficiary's roles appear to have been 
largely confined to subdivisions of those organizations. The Petitioner must establish that the 
organizations have distinguished reputations at the level of the Beneficiary's roles, rather than relying on 
the reputations of the employers' parent companies, holding companies, affiliates, etc. 
The Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
We agree with the Director's finding that the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
2 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reputation (last visited May 4, 2020). 
5 
The Petitioner documents the Beneficiary's pre-2018 earnings in Brazil, but does not provide any basis 
for comparison to show that the figures are high in relation to others in the field. 
In terms of the Beneficiary's compensation in the United States, the Petitioner paid the Beneficiary 
$162,360.61 in 2018. A March 2019 job offer letter from the Petitioner to the Beneficiary specifies a 
base salary of $145,000 per year plus benefits. 
The Petitioner cites three figures on appeal, all deriving from previously submitted documentation: 
National Average Salary for Chief Compliance Officer Beneficiary's salary 
Top Executives, according [to] average inl I Arizona, 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics according [to] Linkedin 
US$104,980 per year US$107,000 per year US$162,360.61 
The Petitioner asserts that the cited figures "clearly show[] that Beneficiary's annual salary of 
$162,360.61 is high compared to others who are performing similar work, have similar levels of 
experience, and who work in the same geographical location." These figures, however, are problematic 
for several reasons. 
The "Top Executives" figure comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Outlook 
Handbook, reporting that the 2018 median pay for "Top Executives" was $104,980 per year. The 
Petitioner does not adequately explain why this figure applies to the Beneficiary's position. The figure 
accounts for executives in "both small and large businesses," including "companies in which they are the 
only employee." The Petitioner does not explain how this very broad category limits comparison to 
"others who are performing similar work, have similar levels of experience, and who work in the same 
geographical location" as the Beneficiary. 
In contrast, the Handbook also has a listing for "Financial Managers," whose duties appear to more closely 
match those of the Beneficiary. The Handbook reports: "In May 2019, the median annual wage[] for 
financial managers in ... [m]anagement of companies and enterprises [was $]145,280," 3 an amount 
slightly higher than the Beneficiary's 2019 base salary. 
The Petitioner states that the sum of $162,360.61 represents the "Beneficiary's salary" for 2018, but his 
base salary was $145,000 as of March 2019. Either the Petitioner reduced the Beneficiary's salary after 
2018, or the higher sum includes additional non-salaried pay such as bonuses and benefits. This is a 
highly relevant distinction because, otherwise, comparing the Beneficiary's total compensation with the 
base salary paid to others would produce a result skewed in the Beneficiary's favor. 
The Petitioner derived the Linkedln data from printouts of private survey data from various websites. 
The data, however, are inconsistent, relying on non-random surveys with small sample sizes. Linkedln 
relied on "15 responses" to report that chief compliance officers in the I larea earn an average 
annual base salary of $101,000, plus an average $6000 in benefits. The same source reported that, in 
other U.S. locations, the median annual base salary is as high as $185,000. 
3 https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/financial-managers.htm#tab-5 (last visited May 5, 2020). 
G 
The other submitted sources conflict with one another. PayScale indicates that the national average salary 
for a chief compliance officer is $120,000. Dice indicates that a corporate controller with 15 years of 
experience could expect to earn a salary between $81,500 and $113,000 in the United States, with a 
somewhat reduced range of $77,500 to $107,000 per year inl I Arizona. Glassdoor reports that 
the national average base pay for a corporate controller is $130,226 per year. 
Indeed indicates that the average salary for a corporate controller is $91,245 per year in Arizona, and 
$152,806 per year i~ I If the latter figure represents base pay before benefits (as the word "salary" 
implies), then the Beneficiary's base salary is below average for the area. An accompanying distribution 
chart shows that local salaries range between $85,000 and $276,000 per year. But these figures derive 
from only 16 samples. 
The incomplete and conflicting data that the Petitioner has submitted are not sufiicient to show that the 
Beneficiary's compensation meets the requirements of the regulation. 
Also on appeal, the Petitioner cites an unpublished appellate decision from 2017. That decision has no 
precedential authority. Furthermore, the beneficiary's salary was not an issue in the cited case, and the 
Petitioner does not explain how it is otherwise relevant to the issue of compensation. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Because the Director determined that the Petitioner submitted the requisite initial evidence, the 
Director then evaluated whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the Beneficiary enjoys 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. A final merits determination involves analysis of a 
beneficiary's accomplishments and weighing the totality of the evidence to determine if their successes 
are sufficient to demonstrate that they have 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 The 
Director determined that the Petitioner has not shown the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
While we disagree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner has met three of the initial criteria, 
below we will briefly consider key findings from the Director's final merits determination. 
As noted above, the Petitioner documented two citations to the Beneficiary's scholarly articles. The 
Director concluded that the Beneficiary's scholarly articles have had minimal impact on his field. 
The Petitioner states, on appeal, that the "Beneficiary's Authorship of Scholarly Articles meets all the 
requirements under the plain language in the regulations." The Director agreed, and found the 
4 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 4 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda (stating that USCIS officers should then evaluate the evidence 
together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
7 
Beneficiary's scholarly articles deficient only in the context of the final merits determination. In that 
determination, unlike the initial review of the ten criteria, sustained acclaim is directly at issue. The statute 
directly requires "sustained national and international acclaim," and the regulations require the 
Beneficiary to have "risen to the very top of the field." These requirements do not disappear or become 
irrelevant because 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) does not repeat the phrases. A beneficiary's published 
scholarly articles may result in acclaim, but the act of publication is not, itself: an infallible and irrebuttable 
hallmark of that acclaim. 
In this instance, the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary's articles have had any impact or 
influence on his field apart from citations in two conference presentations. Because the Petitioner submits 
no translations to give context to those citations, we cannot determine why the other authors cited the 
Petitioner's work. And the Petitioner has not established that only influential writers accrue two citations 
to their work. 
While the Director acknowledged that the Beneficiary judged four undergraduate papers, the Director 
found that the Petitioner did not show that this activity reflects sustained acclaim. A former professor at 
University states that "[t]he judges were chosen based on their knowledge of the .__ _______ ___, 
subject, their academic qualifications and their professional background," but these traits are not 
hallmarks of acclaim or extraordinary ability. The Petitioner has not shown that the evaluation of 
undergraduate student papers is a privilege reserved for those at the top of the field. 
The record shows that the Beneficiary has had a successful and consequential career, to the benefit of 
his various employers. But the record does not show that he has met the very high threshold of 
sustained national or international acclaim as one among the small percentage at the very top of his 
field of endeavor. 
C. Other Issues 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the prior approval of a nonimmigrant petition for 0-1 status relied on 
"nearly identical" criteria, and that, therefore, the Director cannot justifiably deny the immigrant petition 
based on essentially the same facts. 
The earlier, approved 0-1 petition is not before us for review. An adjudicator's fact-finding authority 
should not be constrained by any prior petition approval, but instead, should be based on the merits of 
each case. 5 In this instance, the Director articulated the grounds for denial of the petition. The Director 
was not required to compare the immigrant petition to the earlier nonimmigrant petition and explain 
why the two petitions had different outcomes. Neither the Director nor the Administrative Appeals 
Office is required to presume that the earlier 0-1 petition was correctly approved. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director denied due process to the Petitioner, because the denial 
notice referred to deficiencies that the Director had not previously specified in a request for evidence. 
5 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0151, Rescission of Guidance Regarding Deference to Prior Determinations of 
Eligibility in the Adjudication of Petitions for Extension of Nonimmigrant Status 3 (October 23. 2017), 
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
8 
A request for evidence is, by nature, the result of a preliminary review of the record rather than an 
exhaustive evaluation thereof, and the issuance of such a notice is discretionary under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(8). Because the Director was not required to issue a request for evidence at all, the Director 
did not violate the Petitioner's right to due process by failing to incorporate a comprehensive list of 
every deficiency in the record. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for the Beneficiary, intended for individuals 
already at the top of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league 
level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 
953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of the 
Beneficiary's 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 Beneficiary is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very 
top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility as 
an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9