dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-N-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 31, 201 7 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a business manager and software developer, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(1)(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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not demonstrated a qualifying one-time achievement, and 
that he satisfied only two of the alternate initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least 
three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. He contends that he meets the 
one-time achievement and, alternatively, an additional five of the required criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act states: 
Aliens with extraordinary ability. --An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 
.
Matter of M-N-B-
(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 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). Alternately, he or she must provide evidence that meets at least three 
of the 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 ). 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 o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner states in his initial filing that he is an IT and business management professional and 
that he has played different roles as an IT projects manager, trainer, and quality control consultant. 
He indicates that he is the founder of a start-up consultation company, which enjoys 
an "informal presence in U AE and Egypt." 
A. One-time Achievement 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he has received a one-time achievement, defined at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) as a major internationally recognized award, through his receipt of the "Innocentive 
Award." He states that it is "currently the first and most widely recognized platform to gather and 
award creative talents for their innovations in diversified fields such as business, science, medicine, 
astronomy etc." 
Congress' example of a one-time achievement is a Nobel Prize. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 
19, 1990). The regulation is consistent with this legislative history, stating that a one-time 
achievement must be a major, internationally recognized award. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Significantly, lesser internationally recognized awards could serve to meet only one of the ten 
2 
.
Matter of M-N-B-
regulatory criteria, of which an alien must meet at least three. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The 
selection of Nobel Laureates, the example provided by Congress, is reported in the top media 
internationally regardless of the nationality of the awardees, is a familiar name to the public at large, 
and includes a large cash prize. While an internationally recognized award could conceivably 
constitute a one-time achievement without meeting all of those elements, it is clear from the example 
provided by Congress that the award must be internationally recognized in the alien's field as one of 
the top awards in that field. 
The Petitioner claims to meet the one-time achievement based upon his receipt of a "certificate of 
performance," which he states was "issued by the executive chairman of 
He offers the addresses of several websites that he indicates describe the 
award, though he does not provide hard copies of the website material. In addition, he provides 
excerpts from the website depicting the Petitioner's and screen shots 
from the website www listing ' a group with 878 
members. The Petitioner's name is not listed on the website. He does not offer evidence of his 
receipt of the award apart from the and website excerpts, and he does not explain how 
the ' ' relates to the "Certificate of Performance." Thus, we note that the Petitioner has 
not sufficiently documented his receipt of this award. 
Even if we were to find the is reflective of his receipt of the award, he does not 
provide sufficient evidence to establish that his classification as an was 
a qualifying one-time achievement that is, a major, internationally recognized award. The record 
does not contain evidence stating how many individuals are awarded a "certificate of performance,'' 
or otherwise explaining its significance or how the "certificate of performance" relates to the 
' Furthermore, the Petitioner did not otTer evidence that his 
categorization as an was reported in major international or even 
national media. Likewise, while the record indicates that at least 878 individuals earned this 
distinction, the Petitioner did not adequately document the significance or international recognition 
of this achievement. As the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of either his receipt of the 
award, or that the award is internationally recognized as a major award in his field, we find that he 
does not meet the one-time achievement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
As the Petitioner has not 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 that the Petitioner met the criteria for awards under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and leading role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), though the record does 
not support these findings, as discussed below. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the 
Beneficiary also meets the following five criteria: judging, 1 published material, 2 original 
1 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
2 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
3 . 
.
Matter of M-N-B-
contributions, 3 membership, 4 and remuneration. 5 We have reviewed all ofthe evidence in the record 
of proceedings and it does not support a finding that the Beneficiary meets the plain language 
requirements of at least three criteria. We evaluate each of the claimed criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director found that the Petitioner meets the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The 
Petitioner claims to meet this criterion through his receipt of the As we noted in 
the one-time achievement discussion above, the Petitioner has not sutliciently documented his 
receipt of an award; rather, he appears to have earned status as an '' 
though he does not adequately explain the significance of this status or provide information or 
evidence that this status was issued for excellence in his field. Furthermore, the record lacks 
sutlicient evidence that this distinction is nationally or internationally recognized. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established that the satisfies the criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) and the Director's finding on this issue is withdrawn. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which is 
classification is sought. which require outstanding achievements (~f 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 claims that he meets this criterion based upon his certification as a " 
'by the In order to demonstrate that his membership meets 
this criterion, the Petitioner must show that the institute requires outstanding achievement as an 
essential condition for admission to membership. Membership requirements based on participation in 
coursework, employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or experience, 
recommendations by colleagues or current members, or payment of dues do not satisfy this criterion as 
such requirements do not constitute outstanding achievements. 
Here, the Petitioner indicates that certification by the is based upon 
examination and work in the field. The record contains a letter from to the Petitioner outlining the 
application and certification process. The letter, from certification standards supervisor, 
states that certification is through an audit process consisting of the submission of an application, 
documentation of 35 hours of project management related education, and evidence of a bachelor's or 
master's degree. The letter does not indicate that certification is based upon outstanding achievements, 
or that such achievements are judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines 
or fields, as required. Thus, the Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of this 
criterion. 
3 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
4 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
5 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
4 
.
Matter of M-N-B-
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 class(fication is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author q{the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner maintains that he is eligible under this criterion based upon the publication of an article 
entitled ' discussing a research 
study conducted by him and his colleagues, published in the newspaper, The record 
does not reflect that this publication is either a professional or major trade publication. In addition, 
the Petitioner 
has not offered evidence of the circulation data of to compare with the 
circulation statistics of other Egyptian newspapers to demonstrate that it constitutes major media.6 
The record does not show that the newspaper has a national rather than a regional reach within 
Egypt. Publications with only a regional reach are not generally considered to be major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that is published by a "governmental holding 
journalism company" in Egypt, He avers that this holding company provides print 
media throughout Egypt and the whole Middle East, and therefore should be 
considered major media. While some publications owned by may be accessible 
nationally and even internationally, this does not demonstrate that the newspaper, 
where the relevant article appears, qualifies as major media. As such, the Petitioner has not 
established that he meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel. as a judge (~l 
the work q{ others in the same or an allied .field ql spec(fzcation for which· 
class(fzcation is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner asserts that his work as a consultant with the 
subsidiary, qualifies 
under this criterion. He states that his duties included training, consulting, and evaluating the 
readiness of Egyptian software companies to approach information technology using quality 
management models. He indicated that his work "shaped the first generation of national 
consultants," and that he was responsible for appraisal and training in the fields of project 
management, IT/software engineering, and quality standards. The record includes a copy of a 
sample "Appraisal Review Report," in which the Petitioner, as a consultant, provided training and 
feedback to stakeholders. 
Serving as a consultant where part of one's job duties includes evaluating other professionals in the 
exercise of his or her duties does not necessarily equate to participation as a judge of the work of 
others in the field under this criterion. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a 
judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
6 
See Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) at Chapter 22.2(i)( I )(A); see also Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 
(S.D.N.Y. 20 12). 
5 
.
Matter of M-N-B-
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The Petitioner has not demonstrated that his incidental evaluation responsibilities 
inherent to his consultancy position constitute service in an official capacity, either individually or 
on a panel, as "a judge" of the work of others. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic. athletic, or business­
related contributions of major signtfzcance in the.fzeld. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that he has made original contributions of major significance to the field 
through two business models that he developed: the ' '' and the 
" ' The Director acknowledged the relevant evidence, but found that it was 
not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits copies of the models along with evidence that he is the 
"administrator" of the models' social media presence. While the Petitioner provided copies of these 
models and noted that they are "intellectual property" owned by his company, he did 
not establish that the models have been considered of major significance in his field, such as by 
showing how they are being widely used or reproduced within the field, or how they have changed 
business practices within the industry. Overall, the record does not include documentary evidence 
showing the widespread implementation of the Petitioner's work, that it has been seminal, or that it 
otherwise equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. Thus, he has not met 
the requirements of 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). 
In the decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner established that he performed in a leading 
or critical role. The record does not support this finding as explained below. 
The Petitioner stated that, in 2004, he was a software consultant with and a member of the 
company's team that reached the level of model. He 
describes the model as "a referential model for software companies to apply best procedures 
of software production that allows in producing and improving better software products." The 
record includes excerpts from the website http:/ describing how level 
certification is a "major achievement to the company" "qualifying it to be one of the top ranking 
international companies having the same level." 
In general, a leading role is evidenced from the role itself, and a critical role is one in which a 
petitioner was responsible for the success or standing of the organization or establishment. The 
record does not contain evidence that specifies how the Petitioner's position fits into the hierarchy of 
the organization to show that it is a leading role. Nor does it clarify what role the Petitioner had in 
obtaining the certification or how his work was critical to the success and standing of the 
.
Matter of M-N-B-
organization. The record includes a copy of email correspondence from CEO thanking the 
Petitioner and three other employees for achieving ' though he does not further 
elucidate the importance of this certification to the company or explain how his achievement played 
a critical role for the organization. As such, the record is insufficient to establish that he performed 
in a leading or critical role for the organization. Furthermore, the record does not establish that 
ossesses a distinguished reputation consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
The Petitioner asserts that he also played a leading or critical role as an outsourced consultant to the 
He states that he was appointed as an IT 
quality consultant by the and that he "took charge" of two Egyptian software companies: 
and The evidence provided, however, does not 
establish that his role was leading or critical as it does not identify the nature of his work or the 
prominence of his positions; rather, it notes that he was "an outsourced consultant." Additionally, 
the record does not document the reputation 
as an organization. Without additional evidence that the Petitioner has performed in a leading or 
critical role for a distinguished organization, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this 
regulatory criterion and the Director's finding relating to this criterion is withdrawn. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signtficantly high 
remuneration for services. in relation to others in the .field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must offer evidence of objective earnings data 
showing that he has earned a "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with 
those performing similar work during the same time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 
954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour 
golfers). Here, the Petitioner provided copies of his contracts with companies for software 
development and quality assurance services. For example, he sent an undated copy of his contract 
with for services over a period of six months, indicating compensation of "7500 EGP'' 
per month. However, he did not explain the significance of the contracted wage or offer evidence 
that it is high compared to others in the field. The record also includes several other contracts dated 
in 2000 and 2007; yet, he did not provide employment or tax documentation depicting his overall 
salary or remuneration in relation to others in the field during the same period. Finally, we note that 
the Petitioner also submitted a screen shot from the Occupational Outlook Handbook indicating that, 
in 2014, the "median pay" annually for computer and information systems managers is $131,600, 
however he has not offered evidence of his annual salary, or that his compensation, in total, is high 
compared to others in the field. Thus, the record does not contain sufficient evidence to meet the 
requirements of this criterion. 
C. Summary 
As explained above, the record does not demonstrate a qualifying one-time achievement, and does 
not satisfy any of the regulatory criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Had the Petitioner 
Matter of M-N-B-
met the evidentiary requirements, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers 
all of evidence in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated a "level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor," that the individual "has sustained national or international acclaim, and that his or 
her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3); 
see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we need not provide the type of final merits 
determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that 
the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. The 
evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate that he is in the small percentage at the top of the field or 
show the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive classification. 
Nor does the record include extensive documentation showing recognition of the Petitioner's 
achievements in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability under 
section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Accordingly, he has not established eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-N-B- ID# 599067 (AAO Oct. 31, 20 17) 
8