dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11198670 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 26, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business development specialist, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
satisfied four of the initial evidentiary criteria, the Petitioner did not establish his intent to continue to 
work in his area of extraordinary ability in the United States and that his entry would substantially 
benefit prospectively the United States. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
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 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates employment as vice president and general manager at ._I _____ ___.I and 
vice president atl I 
A. Background 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed 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). Under his "Analysis of Criteria" in his decision, the Director determined 
that the Petitioner met four of the claimed evidentiary criteria relating to published material at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
While the Director briefly stated under his "Final Merits Determination" that "[t]he petitioner provided 
evidence to indicate the beneficiary's high-level experience withc=]and.__ ______ ___,..,' the 
record does not show that the Petitioner garnered sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise through extensive documentation, 
demonstrating that he is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. 1 
Instead, the Director focused on the Petitioner's intent to continue to work in his area of expertise in 
the United States and whether he would substantially benefit prospectively the United States. In 
1 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 13 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing that objectively meeting the regulatory 
criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act). 
2 
addition, the Director did not explain how having "high-level experience" establishes sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition of his achievements in the field, consistent with this 
highly restrictive classification. 
On appeal, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of the final merits determination 
below to decide whether the Petitioner demonstrated eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability 
under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. If the Petitioner shows his extraordinary ability in business, 
then we will determine whether the Petitioner established that he will continue to work in his area of 
extraordinary ability in the United States under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act and whether he will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(iii) of the Act. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the Petitioner submitted the reqms1te initial evidence, we will evaluate whether he has 
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim, 2 
that he 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. In a final merits determination, 
we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his 
successes are sufficient to demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-
20. 3 In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
According to his initial cover letter, the Petitioner "holds a degree in Economy Management and a 
degree in Computer Application Software from the University I I' 
and "is a graduate ofl I their Advanced Management Program." 4 In the past 
~s, the Petitioner has been employed at various companies, such as I I 
L__J(senior consultant and consultant manager), I I 
~==-- (senior mana er, I l<director),LJ 
Lr---------------..,.._ ___ __,(associate partner artner and mana in artner 
( chief executive officer), 'i========.-----------' .-------'----------.----------~ resident and strate ic consultant (global vice president), 
L.---------------~-----r------'-'--'--"=.......,.==e=n-=-;t and managing partner), 
~-----7- _____ ___,(president)....,.,.,_ ___ ~--~- ....... (senior vice president), 
(vice president and general manager o service . s indicated above, the .__ _____ ___, 
Director determined that the Petitioner received some press coverage, participated as a judge, 
performed in leading roles, and earned a high salary. The record, however, does not demonstrate that 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 14 (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and 
providing Black's Law Dictiona,y 's definition of"sustain" as to supp01t or maintain, especially over a long period of time, 
and to persist in making an eff01t over a long period of time). 
3 Id. at 4 (instructing that USCTS officers should then evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its 
entirety to determine if the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence the required high level of expertise 
of the immigrant classification). 
4 The Petitioner did not provide evidence of his degrees to support his claims. 
5 See "Job History Summary" prepared by the Petitioner and a screenshot from bloomberg.com entitled, "Executive Profile 
& Biography." 
3 
his personal and professional achievements rise to a level of "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
As it relates to media coverage, the Petitioner offered two items reflecting published material about 
him in 2011 and 2012. However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that such minimal press coverage, 
without any media reporting about him since 2012, is consistent with the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of 
the Act. Although he offered an additional six articles where he is mentioned as being one of the 
attendees at meetings, quoted on various business topics, and interviewed as a spokesperson of 
companies, the Petitioner did not show how his overall media coverage is indicative of a level of 
success with being among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Thus, the Petitioner did not establish that the limited media reporting of 
8 articles in a 15-year span reflects a career of acclaimed work in the field or a very high standard to 
present more extensive documentation than that required. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and 56 
Fed. Reg. at 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991). 
Regarding the Petitioner's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the significance 
of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required extraordinary 
ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 6 The record 
reflects that the Petitioner participated as a judge for the 201 ] I Research 
Award and the 2018 I !Analysis Report. However, the Petitioner did 
not establish that these two occasions, seven years apart, contribute to a finding that he has a career of 
acclaimed work in the field or indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim. 
See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. He did not show, for example, 
how his experience judging these two contests compares to others at the very top of the field. The 
Petitioner did not establish that he garnered wide attention from the field based on his judging 
activities. While he provided some media accounts announcing the upcoming events, the Petitioner 
did not demonstrate the prestigious nature of the occasions or that he garnered any acclaim from these 
judging instances. 
Serving as a member of a jury does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary 
ability and sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Cf, Matter of Price, 
20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (USCIS has long held that even athletes performing at 
the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard). Without 
evidence that sets him apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has a consistent history 
of reviewing or judging recognized, acclaimed experts in his field, the Petitioner has not shown that 
his judging experience places him among that upper echelon of his field and that small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 
30704. 
6 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 13 (stating that an individual's participation should be 
evaluated to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field of endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
As it pertains to his roles, as mentioned above, the Petitioner served in various executive capacities 
for several companies for the past 25 years. However, the Petitioner presented documentation relating 
to his roles for only three businesses ~ .... ___ _.l I I andl O I The record 
lacks evidence documenting his professional career with the other companies, nor does it demonstrate 
whether his employment resulted in attention or recognition from the field, reflecting a career of 
acclaimed work in the field or a very high standard to present more extensive documentation than that 
required. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
While he submitted job confirmation letters, none of them indicate any of the Petitioner's national or 
international acclaim based on his professional achievements at the companies. For instance,LJ 
I I former general manager atl I claimed that the Petitioner's role in "revenues 
and headcount ... was more widey recognized withinD' than by the overall field. FurtherJ I I I COO at I stated that the Petitioner "has valiantly led our team to victory 
surpassing our business target for 8 consecutive quarters" but did not explain how the greater field 
recognized his accomplishments. Similarly, the record reflects that the Petitioner provided evidence 
of his receipt of the "FYI 71 I Gold Club award" for "extraordinary performance, 
transformation and contributions toward achieving key company objectives"; however, the Petitioner 
did not show any acknowledgment of the award by the field outside of the company. In addition, 
I !chairman and CEO o~ l indicated that he "appreciated [the Petitioner's] 
selfless contribution to help our team in the transformation, win in the market strongly, and think 
differently about the competition and ways of success" without demonstrating how the Petitioner's 
personal and professional traits resulted in broad national or international attention. 
The letters do not discuss whether any of the Petitioner's professional achievements at the businesses 
garnered him national or international acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Further, the 
letters do not show the Petitioner's recognition on a national or international scale, consistent with 
being among that small percentage at the very top of the field. See 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2). Here, the 
Petitioner did not establish how his roles resulted in widespread acclaim from his field, that he drew 
significant attention from the greater field, or that overall field considers him to be at the very top of 
the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Finally, although he documented his income froml l I land._! ____ __., 
the Petitioner did not establish that he commanded earnings commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not show that his wages 
are tantamount to an individual who is among that small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). He did not demonstrate, for example, how his salary compared 
to others at the very top of his field, or that he received notoriety or attention based on his earnings 
separating himself from others in the field or placing him in the upper echelon. 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, 
intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing 
toward the top. Even major league level athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. While the 
Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more accomplished to qualify for the classification 
sought, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that he has sustained national or international acclaim 
5 
and is among the small percentage at the top of his field. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 7 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. 
7 As the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act, we need not 
consider whether he will continue to work in his area of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )( A )(ii) of the Act and 
whether his entrance will substantially benefit prospectively the United States under section 203(b )(1 )(A )(iii) of the Act. 
Accordingly, we reserve these 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 
ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516. n.7 (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
6