dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 16, 2024 In Re: 32825647 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a small business entrepreneur, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1 l 53(b )(1 )(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 Petitioner did not 
establish that he meets the initial evidence requirements for this classification, either through his 
receipt of a major internationally recognized award, or, in the alternative, by submitting evidence that 
satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The matter is now 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability immigrant classification under section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act if: 
• They have extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which 
has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and their achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation; 
• They seek to enter United States to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• Their entry into the United States has substantial prospective benefits for the country. 
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 two-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then they must provide 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; Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 391-392 (5th Cir. 2022); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, who was last admitted to the United States in E-2 nonimmigrant status as a treaty 
investor, is the co-owner and operator of al IColorado-based coffee shop and cafe business 
he acquired in 2012. The Petitioner indicates he intends to continue operating this business if granted 
lawful permanent residence in the United States. He claims eligibility for this classification as a small 
business owner and entrepreneur with extraordinary ability in business. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Petitioner does not claim to qualify for extraordinary ability classification based on a one-time 
achievement. Accordingly, he must submit evidence meeting at least three of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Here, the Director acknowledge that the Petitioner submitted 
evidence relating to five of the ten criteria, but concluded that he did not demonstrate that he meets 
any of them. The Petitioner claimed to meet the criteria summarized below: 
• Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence, under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i); 
• Published materials about him in major media, relating to his work in the field, under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii); 
• Judging the work of others in the same or allied field, under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv); 
• Original business-related contributions of major significance in the field, under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v); and 
• Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation; under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he submitted "evidence supporting more than three categories" 
and contends that the Director improperly discounted "virtually every single piece of evidence 
provided." He specifically emphasizes his submission of more than 50 letters of support and asserts 
that the Director's decision was "both discriminatory and prejudicial in nature." However, the 
Petitioner does not address the Director's specific findings with respect to each of the five claimed 
criteria. 
2 
For the reasons provided below, we conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he satisfies the 
requirements of at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
l. Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence in the 
field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In evaluating this criterion, we must first determine whether the person was the recipient of an award 
or prize. Second, we determine whether the award is a lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award which the person received for excellence in the field of endeavor. See generally 6 
USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (discussing evaluation of 
initial evidence extraordinary ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)). Relevant considerations 
regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field may include: 
the criteria used to grant the awards or prizes; the national or international significance of the awards 
or prizes in the field; the number of awardees or prize recipients; and limitations on competitors. Id. 
The Petitioner claimed eligibility under this criterion based on the following awards: 
• Cafe of the Year, Awards 2023; 
• I IAward 2023; 
• Best Family-Owned Community Coffee Shop 2023 - Colorado, _________ 
Awards; 
• Best Local Coffee Shop 2023 -I ICounty, and 
• A "financial gift" awarded by _____ 1 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not meet his burden to demonstrate 
that he has been the recipient of national or internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence 
in his field of endeavor. 
With respect to the Award, the Petitioner submitted a 
copy of an email from a representative of the awarding entity to his business, advising that the business 
had been selected as the winner in the "Cafe of the Year" category. The email states that winners 
would be featured in the _______________ which would be distributed to 
"businesses and professionals around the world" but the Petitioner did not provide a copy of this guide 
listing his business as a recipient. The Petitioner also submitted an excerpt from the I I 
I !website which provides some information regarding the nomination process and indicates 
that this entity has several different awards programs including I !Awards" and I I 
Awards" in addition to the ________ Awards." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the email notification provided 
insufficient evidence of his company's receipt of the award, and further informed him that the limited 
1 The record also contains evidence that the Petitioner's business received I !awards for Best Atmosphere 
in and Best Cafe in in 2023, as well asl !Awards for the years 2020-
2023. In addition, the Petitioner received an of the Year award in 2018. The Petitioner 
did not pursue his initial claim that these are qualifying awards when responding to the Director's request for evidence and 
has not addressed these awards on appeal. Accordingly, we will not discuss them fmiher in evaluating whether he meets 
the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
3 
information provided from the awarding entity's website did not demonstrate that the award is a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the Petitioner's field. In response, the 
Petitioner stated that "further confirmation" related to the award could not be 
provided but emphasized that the initial evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that the award satisfies 
all elements of this evidentiary criterion. 
We agree with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) based on the award. First, as noted, the Petitioner did not provide 
the published list of 2023 _______ __,Award Winners to corroborate the submitted email 
notification regarding its receipt of the award. Further, it is necessary to consider the level of 
recognition the award holds to determine whether it is "nationally or internationally recognized," 
consistent with the requirements of the criterion. I l according to its website, 
appears to be a print and digital magazine with an unknown number of subscribers and readers. While 
its various awards programs appear to accept nominations from anywhere in the world, the limited 
information submitted from the awarding entity's website does not demonstrate that a "Best Cafe 
Award" from this entity is a "nationally or internationally recognized" prize or award for excellence 
in the Petitioner's field. The record does not contain evidence demonstrating the level ofrecognition 
associated with this award, such as, for example, evidence that the award garners any type of media 
coverage, or other evidence that the award is recognized in the field at the level required by the plain 
language of the regulation. 
Regarding the 2023 I I Award, the Petitioner provided a photograph of the trophy awarded to 
his business. The Petitioner also submitted a screenshot from thel !Award website which 
provides a very brief explanation of the awards process, noting that it uses "advanced AI technology 
to help find the best food spots in America" and relies on a "panel of judges" who "determine if a 
restaurant is the best in its class." We agree with the Director 's determination that this limited 
information falls short of establishing that this award is a nationally or internationally recognized 
award for excellence in the Petitioner's field, as the supporting evidence does not sufficiently 
demonstrate the criteria used to grant the award, its national or international significance in the field, 
the level of recognition association with it, or the number of awardees or prize recipients. 
We have also considered the Petitioner's claim that the _________ Award qualifies 
as an internationally recognized award. The Petitioner provided information about the awards 
program from the -website , which states that "businesses around the world are 
welcome to participate and achieve well-deserved recognition." The evidence indicates that self­
nominations are accepted and that all who accept a nomination are shortlisted and evaluated by an 
"internal panel." All award announcements are made digitally, and the winners can select "the level 
of coverage that suits them," apparently referring to options to purchase additional promotional 
packages. 
Thel !website indicates that "its main coverage takes the form of a digital winners' 
magazine." The record does not establish that the Petitioner was included in this magazine or that it 
received any recognition beyond having its name listed among winners on the awards section of the 
magazine's website. As with the award discussed above, the evidence does not 
demonstrate that a __________ A ward or A ward is a nationally or 
internationally recognized award, as it does not contain sufficient evidence of the level of recognition 
4 
associated with the award . ______ according to a submitted "media pack" is free digital 
lifestyle magazine, based in the United Kingdom, which is distributed bi-monthly to its subscribers in 
various countries. The evidence does not establish, for example, that it is a major media publication 
or contain other independent evidence to support the Petitioner's claim that its restaurant and 
hospitality awards programs have reached the level of national or international recognition. 
In his response to the RFE, the Petitioner asserted that the Director attempted to undermine the 
significance of this award by observing that had bestowed this award on many 
restaurant and bar establishments in 2023. He noted that there are over 700,000 food and drinking 
establishments in the United States alone, and that awarded only 1,445 awards to 
restaurants located worldwide. Based on these facts, the Petitioner asserted that the awards were 
issued to fewer than 0.2% of all possible candidates, and receipt of this award "would denote an 
individual being in the small percentage of restaurants at the very top of the field." The Petitioner's 
claim appears to be based on the proposition that every restaurant in the world was nominated and 
considered for receipt of this award, a premise that is not supported by the information in the record. 
While the Petitioner emphasized that awards program accepts nominations 
internationally, we note the Petitioner was named Best Family-Owned Community Coffee Shop in 
Colorado and Best Local Coffee Shop in Colorado. We do not consider the 
geographic descriptors associated with these awards to be immaterial, as limitations on competitors 
may be a relevant factor in evaluating this criterion. The record does not contain information regarding 
these specific award categories, the number of nominees in each category, or how geographic location 
impacts the categories and the selection of award winners. Based on the evidence submitted and the 
awards bestowed, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner's business competed against a national or 
international pool of nominees in the same restaurant category. Regardless, as noted, the record does 
not contain evidence that the ______ awards are nationally or internationally recognized 
awards for excellence in the Petitioner's field. 
Finally, we note that in response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter from I ____ 
Director ofl I He states that his organization, described as "a Christian 501c3" offered 
10 financial gifts to business owners participating in their ministry and received 923 applications. He 
states that the Petitioner and his spouse applied and were "accepted ... based on the criteria of [their] 
Christian faith and business ownership." The Petitioner asserted that "[t]his grant put [the Petitioner] 
... in the top percentage within his field." While it appears there was significant competition for this 
monetary award, the letter from Mr. is insufficient to establish that this financial gift or grant is 
a nationally or internationally recognized award or prize for excellence in the Petitioner's field. 
For the reasons discussed, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not meet his 
evidentiary burden to establish that he has received nationally or internationally recognized awards or 
prizes for excellence in his field of endeavor. 
2. Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field for which classification 
is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
5 
The Petitioner submitted copies of five articles that were published online or in print b by newspapers
and magazines, including articles in World magazine (w ww. wng.org), 
(www.l lcom), I I (wwwl I.com), and
I I The Petitioner also indicated that he was interviewed by FOX news in 
I I Colorado, onl I2023, but noted that there was no archived recording of the televised 
interview. He provided an undated Instagram post from the verified account of a FOX □ news 
weatherman who mentioned meeting the Petitioner at his business, as well as al 2017, article 
posted to the FO:xDwebsite which mentions that the Petitioner's business would be hosting a I I I I event on 12017. Finally, he provided information regarding World magazine,D
I Ifrom these entities' websites. 
In the RFE, the Director discussed this evidence and advised the Petitioner that he did not meet his 
burden to demonstrate that the articles were published in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. In response, the Petitioner claimed that World magazine and I I a 
newspaper, qualify as major media based on their circulation data, which was 
included with his submission. He further stated that although no circulation data was available for 
I I it qualifies as major media because it targets the I !metropolitan area, which is 
"home to millions of individuals." He did not pursue his initial claim that he satisfies this criterion 
based on the articles published in or 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim 
that the submitted articles were published in major media. In evaluating whether a submitted 
publication qualifies as major media, relevant factors include the relative circulation, readership or 
viewership of the source that published it. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual). 
We agree with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner did not meet his evidentiary burden to 
establish the submitted articles were published in major media; he has not claimed that any of the 
articles appeared in professional or major trade publications. Further, he has not specifically addressed 
this criterion on appeal, other than noting that the Director should have given more weight to the 
above-referenced Tnstagram post from a verified account. 
While the Petitioner provided circulation information for World magazine and I he did not 
provide relative circulation data or rankings showing that these publications enjoy a circulation, 
readership or viewership that places them among "major media" publications. The circulation 
numbers alone, without context or comparative data, are insufficient. Further, the fact that I I 
I !targets a major metropolitan area is not sufficient to demonstrate that this magazine, for which 
no circulation data was provided, qualifies as major media. Finally, while the record contains some 
support for the Petitioner's claim that he was interviewed on a local television news station inl I 
I I the record does not include a transcription of the interview, evidence of the date on which it 
was aired, or evidence that this local television station qualifies as major media. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
6 
3. Participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or 
allied field of specialization for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner initially claimed eligibility under this criterion based on his "invitation to volunteer as 
a judge and mentor of other small businesses" with which is described as "an 
organization dedicated to providing training, coaching, and support to small businesses." A letter from 
a representative of ______ states that the Petitioner leads a "weekly small group for 
business training," and identifies six participants in these small group sessions. The letter states that 
the Petitioner provides "invaluable mentorship and guidance to local entrepreneurs." 
In the RFE, the Director informed the Petitioner that the letter from did not 
sufficiently document his activities as a judge or his claimed work with the participants named in the 
letter. In response, the Petitioner submitted letters from two business owners named in the initial letter 
from ______ One letter is addressed to the Petitioner, references the ______ 
meetings, and thanks him for offering "excellent information concerning the operations, marketing, 
strategizing, HR, etc. of running a successful business." The other participant's letter states that he 
attended a ______ class led by the Petitioner. The author indicates he learned "valuable 
aspects of entrepreneurship" and "benefited greatly from the wisdom shared by a seasoned veteran in 
the business world." 
The Petitioner also submitted letters from five current and former employees of his cafe business. 
These letters uniformly praise his leadership, integrity, dedication to customer service, the professional 
and personal mentorship he provides to employees, and the "learning environment" he creates in his 
shop, with several employees elaborating on the specific business-related skills he taught them during 
their tenure with the business. 
The Director acknowledged the content of the letters, and the authors' relationship with the Petitioner, 
but concluded that the evidence did not establish that his training activities with I 
or as a business owner satisfied the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The 
Petitioner does not directly address this criterion on appeal, other than generally claiming that most 
evidence submitted in support of the petition was erroneously deemed insufficient. We agree with the 
Director's determination. 
While the Petitioner indicated that his work with ______ involved serving, in part, as a 
"judge" of other small businesses, the evidence does not support this statement. Rather the evidence 
indicates that his volunteer role with that company was to offer small group training sessions to several 
small business owners, during which he shared his knowledge and experience and provided guidance. 
The letters from I I and the participants in the training sessions do not demonstrate 
that his role involved ''judging the work of others." Further, the letters from the Petitioner's own 
current and former employees merely corroborate his provision of standard on-the-job training and 
guidance to ensure that his staff successfully performed their duties; they do not document his 
participation as a judge of other entrepreneurs in his field of specialization or in an allied field. 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
7 
B. Summary and Reserved Issues 
The record does not establish that the Petitioner meets any of the three evidentiary criteria discussed 
above. Because the Petitioner cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), detailed discussion of the remaining two claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (viii) cannot change the outcome of the appeal. Therefore, we reserve and will 
not address these remaining issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 ( 1976) (stating that, 
like courts, federal agencies are not generally required to make findings and decisions unnecessary to 
the results they reach); see also Matter ofD-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77n.10 (BIA 2022) ( declining 
to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. 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 and conclude 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. 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). The record indicates that 
the Petitioner is a successful entrepreneur and small business owner who makes valuable contributions 
to his local community. He has earned the respect and admiration of that community, as well as a 
reputation for offering high-quality products and services. However, the Petitioner has not shown that 
the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or 
that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. 
Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record 
does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered sustained national or international 
acclaim in the field, and that 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). 
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