dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATIER OF L- CORP. DATE: JUNE 28, 2018 
' 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a professional networking company, seeks classification of the Beneficiary 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Beneficiary met the required three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria 
but that he did not qualify for extraordinary ability classification in the final merits analysis. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that the Beneficiary qualifies for 
this classification. · 
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. 
.
Matter of L- Corp . 
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). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets 
at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media) . 
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. VSCIS, 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. USC!S , 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec . 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a professional networking internet company and seeks to employ the Beneficiary as 
business operations manager. As the record does not establish that the Beneficiary has received a 
major, internationally recognized award, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary 
satisfies at lea~t three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director held that the Beneficiary met 'the following criteria: membership at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), published material at 8 C.F.~. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), and original contributions at 
8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(v) but that he did not meet the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Because he met the three initial requirements, the Director considered the 
evidence in the record regarding a final me_rits determination and concluded that the record did not 
establish that the Beneficiary had the sustained national or international acclaim in the field of 
business strategy and leadership required for this classification. 
Specifically, we agree with the Director's conclusions that the Beneficiary meets the membership 
and original contributions criteria. We find that the evidence in the record supports these criteria due 
to his membership in the in 2015 and his original contributions through 
his work within which we will discuss further below. While the Director concluded that 
the Beneficiary met the published material criterion, he did not provide an explanation of his 
2 
.
Matter of L- Corp. 
analysis, and upon review of the totality of the record we find that the Beneficiary's eligibility under 
this criterion has not been established. The Petitioner relies on a quote of the Beneficiary in a book 
and several web articles related to his experiences in business school. The record reflects that 
an author, quoted the Beneficiary in one page of his book 
_ . To qualify, the plain language of the criterion would require the 
Beneficiary to be the subject of published material; thus, a single citation to him in a chapter about 
another subject does not meet the regulatory requirements. 
The record contains a number of articles from websites focusing on business schools, such as 
, and ; 1. Rather than relating to the Beneficiary's 
work in the field, these articles discuss his experiences in graduate school and his advice to students. 
Furthermore, the record does not contain evidence demonstrating that these websites and biogs are 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. Therefore, we withdraw the 
Director's finding that the Beneficiary meets the. published material criterion, as the record does not 
support it. 
However, we conclude that the documentary evidence in the record demonstrates that he meets the 
leading or critical role criterion. As will be disc1;1ssed in greater detail below, the record reflects that 
at the Beneficiary Jed the Product Strategy and Business Operations for Sponsored Content 
and that he led a team to develop a product eventually called _ , which has 
been very successful for This demonstrates that the Beneficiary meets three of the ten 
criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Accordingly, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in 
the context of the final merits determination below. 
8. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate whether the record 
demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Beneficiary has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and 
that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. See 
section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
The Petitioner acknowledges this two-step analysis in Kazarian but states that the Director erred in 
not providing a clear basis for concluding that the Beneficiary did not meet the final merits 
determination. The Petitioner asserts that "the subordination of objective regulatory criteria set forth 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) to a subjective unddr-defined merits determination thwarts efforts to 
achieve transparency, consistency, predictability and ultimately due process and fundamental 
fairness." As the Petitioner cites due process concerns throughout the brief, we note that USCIS 
administers extraordinary ability visas pursuant to. statutory and regulatory authorities, and the 
Petitioner does not argue that a specific provision of the statute or regulations is unconstitutional. To 
the extent that the Petitioner's due process argument had been grounded in the constitutionality of 
the statute and pertinent regulations, we lack jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of laws 
3 
.
Matter of L- Corp. 
enacted by Congress or of regulations promulgated by OHS. See, e.g., Matter of Fuentes-Campos, 
· 21 l&N Dec . 905, 912 (BIA 1997); Matter of C-, 20 I&N Dec. 529,532 (BIA 1992). Therefore, we 
will consider. the Petitioner's due process concerns as they relate to whether USCIS complied with 
the applicable statute and regulations. · 
The Petitioner states that the Director's decision on the final merits does not provide "an overall 
understanding of what converts someone from a merely ordinary individual to 'one who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor while enjoying sustained national or international acclaim."' 
Accordingly, the Petitioner states that the appellate brief "will scrutinize eligibility at the second step 
of the adjudicative analysis." Here, we highlight the fact that this second step final merits 
determination, as indicated by the court in Kazarian, is based on the requirements in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) (determining whether the individual is "one of that small percentage who have risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor") and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) (whether the individual has 
achieved "sustained national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been 
recognized in the field") and we note that objective evidence may be submitted to establish these 
factors. See Kazarian at 1119-20. Accordingly, we base our analysis in a final merits determination 
on the totality of the evidence. In doing so, we note that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but it is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit 
sought). Matter of Caron Int'/ , Inc., 19 l&N Dec. 791,795 (Comm'r 1988). 
' 
Regarding membership, the record contains evidence that the Beneficiary became a member of the 
in 2015. In the letter notifying the Beneficiary of his receipt of the 
scholarship, · states, that he was selected based upon his "academic excellence and 
demonstrated leadership." indicates that "[t]he ; program was founded in 
2000 to recognize the most talented students at the world's leading graduate schools ... to form an 
active, lifelong community among an ever-growing group of leaders" and that "[e]ach year, 93 
graduate students at the top of their class are selected from some of the most prestigious universities 
to be honored as ." This scholarship shows that he was selected as part of a small 
percentage of graduate students on account of his "academic excellence and demonstrated 
leadership." While we acknowledge the honor it was for the Beneficiary to receive this scholarship, 
the record lacks evidence showing that the Beneficiary has received national or international acclaim 
for being a scholarship recipient. 
For published material, while we note that it is a positive indicator of acclaim for the Beneficiary to 
be quoted in 's book, the record reflects that the Beneficiary is included in the 
acknowledgements page with 43 other people, and it is unclear to what extent this establishes 
sustained national or international acclaim. r 
With respect to the Beneficiary's original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director changed his position on this criterion from the time of the request 
for evidence (RFE) to the final decision. The Petitioner states that in the RFE the Director conceded 
that it met its burden of establishing the original contributions criterion but then challenged this 
.· 4 
.
Macter of l- Corp. 
category in the overall merits determination. Here, we find that the Director did not change his 
position on this point. The Director held that while the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary 
met the original contributions criterion, the record did not establish that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim or that he has risen to the very top of his field of endeavor. As the court held in 
Kazarian: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one 
of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien '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)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered 
"sustained national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" 
visa. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i). 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. Accordingly, the Director held that the record showed the Beneficiary had the 
requisite level of expertise but did not establish he has sustained national or international acclaim. 
_ For the reasons that follow, we agree with this determination. 
The record reflects that the Beneficiary has worked for since 2014. In a letter from _ 
the Vice President and Global Head of its Business Operations, he highlights the 
Beneficiary's contributions in two key initiatives: and 
He states that the Beneficiary led a team "to develop a comprehensive framework that 
outlined an exhaustive list of areas where l . could use our data to provide value to our 
Premium members." He "prioritized the list of potential new offerings based on what would be most 
impactful for our members and . . . secured approval from our Vice President of Monetization 
Products to build the product." states that this product, "eventually called ' 
_ ;' was launched to the public in :June 2016 to extensive press coverage and has since 
proved to be a key growth driver to our business." While the Beneficiary appears to have 
led a successful initiative within this does not establish national or international acclaim to 
the Beneficiary personally. The record contains ;m article from entitled, " 
" which discusses s " 
feature, but this represents acclaim to , not to the Beneficiary in his personal capacity. The 
record does not contain other evidence regarding the acclaim to regarding its 
feature or that discusses the Beneficiary'_s role in its development. 
, the Vice President and Global Head of Products for 
states in his letter that the Beneficiary "created and leads the ' strategy 
newsletter," which he states "is an invaluable resource, helping us compete effectively in the 
market." ___ further indicates that the Beneficiary was invited to share his insights regarding 
· ··- to the _ team in Asia Pacific, adding that this 
document "is an extremely valuable internal resource." Similarly, in a letter from 
the former Global Head of Product for _______ , he states that at "'. 
5 
.
Matter of L- Corp. 
' ... is a leading source insight into Ad Tech." He further states that this 
newsletter ''deserves the highest praise for its depth of insight" and that the Beneficiary's "ability to 
analyze complex topics ... and to develop incisive strategy are indispensable assets to 
This further demonstrates that the. Beneficiary's contributions for have been noticed within 
the company, but the record does not establish that his achievements have been recognized more 
broadly in the field of expertise. Thus, while the Petitioner has shown that the Beneficiary has made 
original contributions of major significance to th_e field, it has not demonstrated that he has received 
sustained national or international acclaim for his work. 
In his letter states that the Beneficiary "has made significant original contributions in the 
field via his blog, ." '. Then he adds that "his writing and insights have 
been shared by more than a million people aro4nd the world, making a significant contribution to 
our understanding of commerce, entrepreneurship and leadership." In the letter cited from 
the Associate Dean at he states that the Beneficiary's blog "attracts a 
distinguished readership," but the record regardjng the extent of its reach is unclear. For example, 
the record contains documentation from ~ , which states in one section that the 
Beneficiary's blog " has 200 daily visitors with 1,258 subscribers, although 
another section of this document states that the · blog has 63 subscribers. While we find it to be a 
positive consideration that . states that the Beneficiary's blog "is better than ever," the 
record does not indicate how this statement equates to sustained acclaim, nor does it contain 
evidence to substantiate the claim that the Beneficiary's writing has reached a million people. 
The record contains a letter from , a partner at which he 
states is "one of the world's top technology venture capital firms." indicates that he 
connected with the Beneficiary when he agreed to give an interview for his blog and that he has been 
following his work and career ever since. states that he has subscribed to the 
Beneficiary's blog for over four years and notes two of his posts in particular that had an impact on 
him. He also points out five notable subscribers to_ his blog, _ 
1ighlighting their backgrounds as "leading business leaders 
and thinkers." While indicative of the readership of the Beneficiary's blog, the record does not 
establish that this constitutes sustained national or international acclaim. 
In a letter from , Clinical Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at he 
indicates that the Beneficiary "has authored a very insightful l page leadership framework," which 
he states, "brings together the most concise expl~nations of leadership, management and culture I've 
seen." He adds, "It is no surprise that this framework has been read and shared by over 100,000 
people." We note that the record does not contain evidence corroborating the number of people this 
document has influenced or that demonstrates ir'has resulted in national or international acclaim for 
the Beneficiary. 
With respect to the leading or critical role, the Petitioner highlights the 
and as a student at In the let~er referenced above from 
the Beneficiary led a team to develop what became known as 
·6 
Beneficiary's roles at 
he states that 
, and he led 
.
Matter of L- Corp. 
Product Strategy and Business Operations for Sponsored Content, which he states is "our fastest 
growing product at scale and one of the most important (not to mention complex) products in the 
company." This establishes the results of the Beneficiary's leadership within but the 
record does riot reflect that this amounts to sustained national or international acclaim in the field. 
The Petitioner has also submitted letters regarding the Beneficiary's role at In a letter from 
. its Associate Dean, he states that the Beneficiary transformed the school's orientation 
strategy "by focusing it on three core tenets (sharing , ·· 's culture, ensuring the students are 
prepared for their MBA experience and enabling students to build strong relationships among 
themselves)." He further states that the Beneficiary created the in 
which he led a "combined team of students, faculty and administrators, to create the inaugural 
, version of this summit." This demonstrates the Beneficiary's leadership internally at , but 
the record does not reflect that he has received recognition for this that would constitute national or 
international acclaim. 
comments in his letter that "[b]y creating programming and offering coaching, [the 
Beneficiary] has directly impacted the lives of dozens of his classmates from 's MBA 
program. " While his letter indicates the Benef~ciary ' s efforts at the school have resulted in some 
acclaim by others in the field, it does not establish a national or international scope. 
l 
praises the Beneficiary's work in developing "~ " at and in 
inv1tmg experts in their fields to speak there. This establishes that the Beneficiary has had 
significant influence on students at __ , but we do not find evidence in the record demonstrating 
that this constitutes sustained national or international acclaim. 
The evidence in the record does not establish that the Beneficiary is within the small percentage of 
those who have risen to ·the very top of the field with sustained national or international acclaim 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2)-(3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner lias not established that the Beneficiary is eligible as 
an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of l- Corp., ID# 1229530 (AAO June 28, 2018) 
7