dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 09, 2023 In Re: 27032687 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a plant accountant, 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. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish the Petitioner qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability either as the recipient of a 
one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award, or at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 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). 
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 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not established she received a major, internationally recognized award, she 
must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). The 
Director found the Petitioner met two of the ten evidentiary criteria, that of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), 
related to a leading or critical role performed for distinguished organizations and that of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix), related to high salary or other significantly high remuneration. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts she meets two additional evidentiary criteria, that of (iv), related to judging others' 
work and (v), related to original contributions of major significance. 1 For the reasons described below, 
we withdraw the Director's finding that the Petitioner has established eligibility under (viii) and (ix). 
We instead conclude that she has established eligibility under only one criterion, that of (iv). While 
we do not discuss each piece of evidence individually, we have reviewed and considered each one. 2 
1 On appeal, the Petitioner does not dispute the Director's finding that she had not established eligibility under criterion 
(i), related to lesser-known prizes or awards, and (ii), related to membership in an association requiring outstanding 
achievements. Additionally, the Petitioner did not claim eligibility under criteria (iii), (vi), (vii), or (x) before the Director 
or on appeal. As the Petitioner provides no evidence or arguments addressing these six criteria on appeal, we consider 
these issues to be abandoned. See Matter of R-A-M-. 25 l&N Dec. 657. 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing 
party fails to appeal an issue addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also 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. 1998); 
Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding plaintiffs claims 
abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required 
to specifically address each claim a petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the 
petitioner presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 
(1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2009); Casalena v. U.S. INS, 984 
F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
2 
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). 
This regulatory criterion requires the petitioner to show that they have not only been invited to judge 
the work of others, but also that they actually participated in the judging of the work of others in the 
same of allied field of specialization.3 The Petitioner asserts that her employment as an accountant 
and in various accountant related positions involved duties to review others' work. She provided 
examples of how she reviewed a subordinate's draft of a request for proposal and another coworker's 
draft of a standard operating procedure. On appeal, she provides a letter and a price quote document 
for the sale of seeds to the government of Fiji. The Petitioner asserts that she judged and reviewed 
these materials on behalf of others and at their request, which establishes she meets this criterion. 
The Director determined the Petitioner did not satisfy this criterion, explaining: 
[T]he phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a 
panel or individually. . . . Regardless of broad dictionary definitions of the words 
"judge" and "work," the final determination of whether evidence meets the plain 
language requirements of a regulation lies with USCIS. . . . [E]vidence must 
demonstrate that the beneficiary is "recognized in the field of expertise," so the 
regulation cannot be read to include every informal instance of evaluating employees 
or products. Incidental evaluation responsibilities inherent to your employment or 
product validation position do not establish that you served in an official capacity, 
either individually or on a panel, as "a judge" of the work of others .... 
The Director points out relevant considerations concerning the quality of the Petitioner's evidence. 
While we agree with the qualitative analysis, we conclude it more appropriately belongs in a final 
merits determination. For instance, the plain language of the criterion does not mention that the 
judging must be in an "official capacity," nor does the criterion require the evidence to demonstrate 
"recognition in the field of expertise." While this analysis is certainly relevant to our overall 
determination of eligibility for the extraordinary ability classification, it appears that in this particular 
instance, such qualitative analysis belongs in a final merits determination. The Petitioner has 
established that she judged the work of others in her field, thereby satisfying the plain language of the 
criterion. We withdraw the Director's finding that she did not meet this criterion and instead conclude 
she has met this criterion. 
However, were we to engage in a final merits determination, the Petitioner's evidence of her 
participation as a judge would not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or 
that she is among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of her field for reasons similar 
to those the Director articulated. The Director further noted the intent of Congress in implementing 
the regulations was to set a very high standard for the extraordinary ability classification, as reflected 
3 See generally USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 8 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 
by the requirement to present more extensive documentation than is required for lesser classifications. 
See 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). A review of coworkers' drafts and other similar 
instances of "judging" would not serve as strong or quality evidence of eligibility for the extraordinary 
ability classification. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish not only that 
they have made original contributions, but that those contributions were of major significance in the 
field. For example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented 
throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a 
level of major significance.4 
The Petitioner primarily relies upon numerous support letters from former employers and coworkers 
to establish eligibility under this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts the Director "DID NOT 
RECOGNIZE EVEN ONE SINGLE LETTER/TESTIMONY" (all capital letters in original). 
However, the Director's decision includes quoted content from eight different letters. As such, we do 
not find support for the Petitioner's assertion. The Director concluded: 
This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show that your 
contributions are considered to be of major significance in the field of endeavor. To 
successfully meet this criterion, you must establish that your original contribution[s] 
have impacted or influenced their entire field. The letters ... do not describe an impact 
that is sufficiently widespread. The term "original" and the phrase "major significance" 
are not superfluous and therefore have some meaning (internal citations omitted). 
Regardless of the field, the phrase "contributions of major significant in the field" 
requires substantial influence beyond one's employer, clients, or customers.... 
We reviewed the Petitioner's evidence and agree with the Director's determination quoted above. The 
letters support a finding that the Petitioner performed well at her jobs and offered her employers time 
and cost saving methods and tools. The letters' authors describe her work and the impact her work 
had on their business, including their sister and subsidiary businesses in other parts of the world. 
However, for the reasons the Director explained, this is not necessarily sufficient to establish eligibility 
under this criterion. 
In thel !letter, the author states they do not personally know the Petitioner but heard 
about her "bottom up" accounting methods and detailed cost analysis reports from their professional 
contacts. The author explained that they had never heard of the Petitioner's method before but when 
implemented, they were able to prepare the budget in less time and offer their board of directors a 
detailed report. Although the author describes a positive experience using methods and reports they 
attribute to the Petitioner's creation, this is insufficient to establish how the Petitioner's methods are 
"original" or of "major significance in the field." While a person may not have heard of a method 
before, this does not necessarily establish its originality. Likewise, simply because a method may be 
4 See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126 at 134. 
4 
new to a particular business or customized for a particular business, does not establish the method's 
originality. Furthermore, implementation of the method across one or even several businesses does 
not support a finding that such methods constitute "contributions of major significance in the field." 
Even if the Petitioner developed or created the tools and methods! land the Petitioner's 
employers used, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the contributions' impact or influence in the overall 
field.5 Further, even if the methods delivered cost/time savings, more detailed reports, and other 
benefits to the business, the content of the letters do not contain sufficient details supporting a finding 
of '"major significance. "6 
We conclude, the support letter authors do not sufficiently identify original contributions, nor do they 
provide specific, detailed information explaining how the contributions have been majorly significant 
in the field. Because the Petitioner has not established that her personal and professional achievements 
are original contributions which have been of major significance to the overall field of accounting, we 
conclude that she does not meet 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) 
A petitioner must establish that they have performed in a leading or critical role. For a "leading" role, 
we consider evidence establishing that a petitioner is (or was) a leader within the organization or 
establishment.7 For a "critical" role, we look to evidence that establishes a petitioner has contributed 
in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's 
activities.8 For a "distinguished" reputation, we refer to the dictionary definition of "distinguished," 
meaning "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence or befitting an eminent person."9 
The Director found the Petitioner met this criterion but provided no analysis to support this 
determination. We reviewed the Petitioner's employment history and experience, the letters from 
employers and coworkers, as well as the articles and press releases about the Petitioner's various 
employers. While we acknowledge this evidence, we conclude it does not establish eligibility under 
this criterion. 
To illustrate, the evidence ofl !distinguished reputation includes press releases about their 
partnerships, mergers, and acquisitions, as well as an organizational chart, and a Wikipedia printout 
about the company. It is not apparent how their organizational structure or press releases and articles 
about their business operations establishes I I reputation. Wikipedia is an online 
5 See generally USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 
(upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the 
field as a whole). ~---~ 
6 Additionally, thel !letter does not state for whom or where the author works, nor does the letter contain 
letterhead, a business email address, or website. As such, we question the legitimacy of the author's ability to comment 
on the impact of the Petitioner's methods on their business or the Petitioner's originality. Therefore, we place little 
probative value in this letter. 
7 See generally USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
8 Id. 
9 Merriam-Webster's Dictionary definition of "distinguished" can be found online at https://www.merriam­
webster.com/d ictionary/d isti ngu ished. 
5 
encyclopedia edited and maintained by any member(s) of the public. As such, we do not consider 
Wikipedia to be a reliable information source. In addition, the printout provides background 
information about I I but this information does not necessarily establish I I 
reputation. 
The Petitioner provided articles describing the I I another of the Petitioner's former 
employers, as a fast-growing United Kingdom-based cycling business that received! !funds 
to expand its o,erations. However, the Petitioner has not explained how this information establishes 
thel j has a distinguished reputation. Furthermore, the Petitioner provided a general job 
description of her position as "Finance Manager - International," but this job description does not 
supply sufficient information with which to determine whether the Petitioner performed in a leading 
or critical role for the I I 
The Petitioner provided several letters from and articles about thel IThe articles about 
the ,_______ _,size and new projects suggest that it may have a distinguished reputation; 
however, there is little evidence to establish how the Petitioner performed a leading or critical role 
within the organization. The support letters favorably discuss the Petitioner's work and the company's 
appreciation of her, but they do not discuss how she performed as a leader within the organization, nor 
do they offer sufficiently detailed explanations of how she contributed in away that was of significant 
importance to the outcome of the establishment's activities. 
The letter from provides more detailed information about the Petitioner's role at the 
than the other letters; however, thel !letter is undated, not on letterhead, 
~a-nd_i_n_cl-ud_e_s_a~personal Gmail address, rather than abusiness address. AlthoughI !describes 
herself as the former General Manager of Finance for the I I we question the credibility 
of this letter given its personal, rather than professional, appearance. Even if we accepted this letter 
as credible and probative, it would still not contain a sufficient explanation of how the Petitioner's role 
within thel Ior her specific division, would be considered "leading" or "critical." 
For the foregoing reasons, we withdraw the Director's finding that the Petitioner met this criterion and 
instead conclude the evidence does not establish her eligibility under 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.10 The Director found the Petitioner 
met this criterion but provided no analysis to support this determination. 
The Petitioner provided employment contracts and letters stating the salary various prior employers 
offered her, as well as a smattering of pay stubs from several of those positions; however, these 
documents do not show the actual salary the Petitioner earned. 11 For instance, the paystubs establish 
10 See generally USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
11 The evidence related to aprospective employment position in the United States and asalary proposed, but not yet earned, 
6 
the compensation paid to the Petitioner over the particular pay periods covered but do not clearly show 
the Petitioner's total annual salary. Likewise, the letters from employers proposing a salary or stating 
the Petitioner earned a particular salary does not sufficiently establish the actual salary the Petitioner 
earned. 
The Petitioner provided printouts of salary data reports organized by position; however, the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently established that these are position-appropriate compensation surveys. To illustrate, 
the Petitioner provided United Kingdom salary averages and ranges for "finance jobs." It is unclear 
what positions such a broad category includes, but we assume it could range from simple bookkeeping 
positions to chief financial officer positions. Therefore, it is not possible to ascertain how the 
Petitioner's specific position compensation compares to others in those same positions in that 
geographical area. Similarly, the Glassdoor salary surveys pertain to accountants with one to three 
years of experience, whereas the Petitioner asserted she has 10 to 14 years of experience in her field. 
As such, the Glassdoor printouts of entry-level positions are not appropriate comparisons to the 
Petitioner's positions. 
Both precedent decisions and case law support a pos1t1on-appropriate 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. U.S. 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); Grimson 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). 
Additionally, some of the salary data printouts cut off the date in which they were conducted while 
others state they are from 2022. However, the Petitioner's employment in such positions may have 
occurred years prior, such that 2022 salary data would not provide an accurate picture of the average 
salaries paid when the Petitioner held the relevant position. Finally, the employer letters and contracts 
offer insufficient information about the organizational justifications to pay above the compensation 
data provided. 
Accordingly, we conclude the Petitioner did not establish she commanded a high salary in relation to 
others in the same position. Therefore, we withdraw the Director's finding that she met this criterion 
and instead conclude the evidence does not sufficiently establish eligibility under this criterion. 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
The record reflects the Petitioner may have applied for 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS may approve an 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
does not establish eligibility for the benefit sought at the time the Petitioner filed her petition. USCIS regulations 
affirmatively require a petitioner to establish eligibility for the benefit sought at the time the petition is filed. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b){l). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after a petitioner becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). As 
such, we have considered the salary the prospective employer proposes to offer the Petitioner, but conclude it is insufficient 
to establish eligibility under this criterion, particularly as the regulatory criterion is written in past tense, e.g. "commanded." 
7 
petition on her behalf, an approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, and case law. Form 1-140 immigrant 
petitions are sometimes denied even after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q 
Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. US Dept. of Justice, 48 
F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F. 2d at 
41. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for a "rising star" or other individuals progressing toward the 
top. USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically 
meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of her work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in 
the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that she 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 eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8