dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-A-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 1, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a technology entrepreneur and product manager, seeks classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability in business. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 
8 U. S.C. § l 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief, arguing that he meets at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
.
Matter of A-A-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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 he or she is 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). 
11. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has served as a product manager for several businesses in Russia. Because he has not 
indicated 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 denying the petition, 
the Director found that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets six criteria, discussed below. We have reviewed all 
of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies 
the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion based on his receipt of "App Store awards," "over 
$500,000 in venture capital funds invested ," and the "international recognition of 
[NYSA]." In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate his receipt of 
lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 
The record, however , does not reflect that he either received "prizes or awards" or that they even exist 
from these organizations or instances. 
1 See 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 ADJJ -14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www .uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 
.
Matter of A-A-
As it relates to "App Store awards," the Petitioner previously indicated that his "lifestyle mobile app 
has received awards and recognition as it was featured as a top app on App Store on 
multiple occasions." The Petitioner provided screenshots from businessinsider.com describing 
procedures to get "featured" on Apple's App Store. In addition, the Petitioner presented a letter from 
founder and chief executive officer of who stated that the 
' app "has been acknowledged as a top app on App Store for several years," including best 
lifestyle app, number one free lifestyle app, and one of the best new apps, as well as featured as one 
of the best shopping apps and as a fashion app. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 
App Store bestows any "prizes or awards" or that "App Store awards" even exist. Moreover, Mr. 
discussed ranking and success as opposed to the Petitioner's "receipt" of 
any "App Store awards." 2 
Regarding the investment of ventured capital, the Petitioner claimed that his "technological acumen 
and business vision have received international recognition in the form of major venture capital 
investments." Specifically, the Petitioner indicated that with whom he served as the 
product manager, received $530,000 in capital investments from two companies. However, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate how capital investments are tantamount to "prizes or awards" for 
excellence in the field consistent with this regulatory criterion. Even if we would consider capital 
investments as prizes or awards, which we do not, received the capital investments rather 
than the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner did not show that --n---. ____ 's receipt of capital 
investments is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
Similarly, the Petitioner asserted that "[a]dmission to a competitive program such as [NYSA] 
undeniably constitutes an award, which in this case must be attributed directly to [him]." The record 
contains a letter from , founding partner and chief executive officer for 
who stated that - was launched by _ __ in 2015 and offers over a 
three-month acceleration program "to help European founders adapt to the US market, validate their 
ideas and product, and secure follow-on investment." Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how 
the admission of into NYSA is tantamount to a nationally or internationally recognized 
prize or award for excellence in the field. Again, the record reflects that received 
admission into NYSA rather than the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner did not establish that admission 
into NYSA is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner claimed eligibility for this criterion based on receiving the 
"Maxim Digital Person of the Year Award." The Petitioner submitted a letter from } 
vice-editor-in-chief of MAXIM online, who described the goal of the award, the selection criteria, and 
why the Petitioner received the award. In addition, the Petitioner provided screenshots from 
maxim.com regarding the background and history of the magazine. However, the evidence does not 
demonstrate that the "Digital Person of the Year Award" is nationally or internationally recognized 
for excellence in the field. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (stating that the description of this type of evidence in the 
regulation provides that the focus should be on the individual 's receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed to his or her 
employer's receipt of the awards or prizes). 
3 
.
Matter of A-A-
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he fulfills this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner argues that he meets this criterion based on membership with the 
and __ -~-- (SLP). In order to satisfy this criterion, the 
Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on being judged by recognized 
national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which 
classification is sought. 3 
As it relates to the Petitioner provided a letter from , founder of 
, who specified that membership requires before the age of 45 to be president, chairman, or 
chief executive officer of a corporation of significance with a minimum enterprise value of 
$20,000,000 and at least 50 full-time employees. 4 In addition, candidates must be recommended by 
two members of a local chapter and approved by a membership committee of each chapter. Moreover, 
stated that "invited [the Petitioner] as an expert speaker" and "invited [the 
Petitioner] to join the Moscow branch of as a highly-qualified Product Manager and expert." 
Although indicated that invited the Petitioner to speak and that he "prepared and 
carried out several brilliant and useful workshops for the club members," he did not show that the 
Petitioner is an actual member of Moreover, : did not explain how the Petitioner 
was eligible for membership as a product manager rather than the required president, chairman, or 
executive officer positions. Further, the Petitioner did not establish that the pre-existing age, 
occupational position, and business structure are reflective of outstanding achievements. The 
Petitioner also did not demonstrate that the membership committee is comprised of recognized 
national or international experts. 
Regarding SLP, the Petitioner submitted a letter from leader of the branch 
for SLP, who stated that candidates have to complete an application and then is "vetted on the basis 
of very specific skills by a Committee consisting of those Fellows who have already been through the 
Program." In addition indicated that "[w]e generally look for entrepreneurs and 
innovators who have outstanding skills in their respective fields, and who display a penchant for 
contributing to help others in our community." 5 The Petitioner, however, did not demonstrate that 
SLP requires "outstanding achievements," as judged by recognized national or international experts, 
as an essential condition for membership. Rather, as described by SLP screens 
candidates for "outstanding skills" and the potential to assist in the community. Moreover , the 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual 's distinguished achievements in original 
research) . 
4 The record contains various screenshots indicating that "you don' t need to be a founder of the company, simply its' 
current leader," and "they hold the very top position in an extremely profitable organization ." 
5 The Petitioner also provided screenshots from the huffingtonpost.com reflecting that "prospective fellows had to pitch 
their startup idea and present their so-far 'journey' in front of a group of current fellows that evaluated the application, the 
applicant's passion and commitment to the program and the fit to the rest of the community. " 
4 
.
Matter of A-A-
Petitioner did not show that SLP membership is judged by recognized national or international experts 
in their disciplines or fields. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
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 necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material. 6 The Petitioner provided two articles authored by him that were posted on vc.ru and 
firrma.ru. The material reflects the Petitioner's self-authored opinions on "mutually beneficial 
cooperation between small companies and large corporations" and "why the fund had stopped 
investing in ICO" rather than published material about him relating to his work. Articles that are not 
about a petitioner do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-
820-ECR-RJJ at* 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are 
not about the actor). 7 
In addition, the Petitioner provided another screenshot from firrma.ru regarding 
becoming a co-owner of the app, " ' Although the Petitioner is mentioned one time as 
being the owner, the material is about the purchase of' ." Similarly, the Petitioner submitted 
a screenshot from furfur.me relating to the launch of" 'rather than published material about 
him. 8 Moreover, the Petitioner did not include the required authors of the screenshots in the 
translations. 
Furthermore, while the Petitioner provided screenshots from SimilarWeb showing total visits, he 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance of the viewing statistics or explain how such 
information reflects status as major media. 9 The Petitioner, for example, did not show that the total 
visits or viewing statistics are high compared other websites in the field. 
Because he did not establish that his evidence meets the eligibility requirements, the Petitioner does 
not satisfy this criterion. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
7 Id. (finding that the published material should be about the petitioner relating to his or her work in the field, not just about 
his or her employer or another organization with whom he or she is associated) . 
8 The record contains several screenshots from websites reflecting coverage of .-~- but does not reflect published 
material about the Petitioner . 
9 Id. (instructing that evidence of published material in professional or major trade publication or in other major media 
publications should establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and 
show the intended audience of the publication). 
5 
.
Matter of A-A-
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 record reflects that the Petitioner participated as a jury member for a block 
chain architecture competition. Therefore, the Petitioner demonstrated that he meets 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). 
The Petitioner provided evidence demonstrating the he served in a leading role for 
_ (GLLC) and performed in critical roles for l __ and . However, the 
Petitioner did not establish that any of these organizations have a distinguished reputation. 10 
Specifically, regarding GLLC, the Petitioner points to screenshots reflecting coverage of the 
1 app and the successes of the app on the App Store. However, the evidence relates to the 
app rather than evidence showing that GLLC has a distinguished reputation. 
Moreover, regarding the record contains documentation reflecting the reporting of the 
company's projects and announcing its appearances at exhibits but does not establish the reputation of 
the company. Further, the record includes recommendation letters regarding the Petitioner's role and 
accomplishments at without showing the company's excellent reputation in the field, nor did 
the Petitioner include independent, supporting evidence. Here, the evidence does not demonstrate that 
enjoys a distinguished reputation as required by this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he fulfills 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 he commands a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration for services in relation to others in his field.11 Initially, the Petitioner 
presented a letter from: chief executive officer for who claimed that in April 
2014 the company "offered [the Petitioner] a yearly salary of 160000 US dollars to acquire his 
extraordinary talents" as a product manager. In addition, _ asserted that "such a position 
on the Russian market [is] less than 65000 US dollars per year." However, the Petitioner provided a 
document indicating that the promoted the Petitioner to the chief product director with an annual 
salary of $160,000, which is the original salary indicated by · Moreover, in response to 
the director' s request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted a contract, dated April 2014, reflecting 
that the Petitioner ' s annual wage was $70,900, along with screenshots from vc.ru regarding salaries in 
the forms of diagrams and charts of informational and technology specialists in Russia at the end of 
2017. 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1 , supra, at 10-11 (stating that the organization or establishment must 
be recognized as having a distinguished reputation and defining Merrian-Webster 's Dictionary definition of 
"distinguished " as marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence). 
11 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1 , supra, at 11. 
.
Matter of A-A-
Because the Petitioner provided documentation contradicting his actual wages, he did not demonstrate 
his salary with Inconsistencies in the record must be resolved with independent, objective 
evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). In 
addition, the Petitioner did not submit any supporting documentation clarifying his wages or salaries 
with Moreover, although the screenshots from vc.ru include the salaries of product managers 
and product directors, the Petitioner did not explain or articulate the meaning of the figures in the 
charts and diagrams. 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 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). 
In addition, the Petitioner offered three contracts and payments to develop "Internet representation" 
and "mobile application" for three companies as a sole proprietor. However, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the payment for three work projects shows that he commanded a high salary. 
Moreover, the Petitioner claims that he received "high remuneration for sale of [his] business 
" As discussed under the published material criterion, the Petitioner submitted a 
screenshot from firrma.ru reporting that L bought ' but the screenshot does 
not reflect the purchase price, nor did the Petitioner reference any documentation relating to this 
transaction. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that his sale of the app resulted in 
significantly high remuneration for services. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that he satisfies this criterion. 
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, 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 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. at 954. Here, 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 alsosection203(b)(l)(A)oftheAct. Moreover , the record does 
not otherwise demonstrate that 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). 
Matter of A-A-
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. In visa petition proceedings, the petitioner bears 
the burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-A-, ID# 2992210 (AAO May 1, 2019)