dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23069520 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN . 12, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an entrepreneur and business development executive , seeks classification as an individual 
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 the Petitioner did not meet 
the initial evidence requirement for this classification through evidence of either a one-time achievement 
or that he meets three of the alternative evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). In addition, the 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish that his entry will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United State s. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo 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 their 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 
they 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner 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 determined that the Petitioner 
fulfilled only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, published material about him at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he also meets five additional 
evidentiary criteria, which will be discussed below. 
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) 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate his prizes or awards are nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor. 1 Relevant considerations regarding 
whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field including, but are not 
limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international significance of 
the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any 
limitations on competitors. 2 
Here, the Petitioner submitted documentation indicating that he was among I I 
professionals" who received a " Award" (2021) from " " 3 
1 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, Appendices, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-
2. 
2 Id. 
3 The Petitioner presented a 2 2021 article, entitled "Publisher honors I I immigrants in the 
community" posted at www. .com. This articles states: 
2 
Promotional material offered by the Petitioner for this award indicates that "[t]he creation of the 
I I award has several meanings, but the key point is to highlight stories with ethical, moral 
and social values from people who were hitherto little known and who now have the chance to make 
public in the globalized publishing universe, in which we specialize." 
While the Petitioner provided promotional information about his award from and 
coverage in several newspapers serving the I I community in the United States4, this 
documentation does not indicate the national or international significance of his "
A ward" award in the field of endeavor. 5 The record does not include evidence demonstrating that the 
Petitioner's award was recognized by the field in general rather than mainly limited to the readership 
of a fewl I newspapers published in the United States. Nor does the evidence show that the 
limited media coverage relating to the Petitioner's award rises to the level of national or international 
recognition. Without further evidence regarding its national or international significance in his field, 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his " Award" award is a nationally or 
internationally recognized award for excellence in the field. 
For the above reasons, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established he meets this 
regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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 submitted his "membership diploma" from the I Institute of 
Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Sustainable Development - I He also presented 
information describing the organization's goals, mission, and target membership. This documentation 
does not indicate that the selection process for I I requires outstanding achievements or 
that admission to membership is judged by recognized national or international experts. 
With the appeal, the Petitioner submits a declaration from the I I Institute of Corporate 
Governance stating that he has been a member sincd 12022, but this membership post-dates the 
filing of the petition. Eligibility must be demonstrated at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1). 
Having reviewed the evidence submitted under this criterion, we agree with the Director and conclude 
that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
an an American company founded in 2017 by hiving in the United States, to represent, promote, 
edit and distribute books by I writers in the United States. The objective of the award is to highlight the biography 
of these immigrants." 
4 For example, the Petitioner submitted articles in ,I Land I I 
The record also includes an article in (a news portal serving the city ofl I in southeast but 
this article received only "11 views" according to the webpage presented by the Petitioner. 
5 Consideration for this award appears limited to I ]men working in the United States. Cf., Strategati, LLC v 
Sessions, 2019 WL 2330181 (S.D. CA 2019) (upholding finding that "Woman of the Year" award eliminated men from 
consideration and thus did not "measure the petitioner's standing or selection from the whole field.") 
3 
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 Petitioner contends that he "has judged the work of other professionals in the field while 
conducting his business affairs." He argues that "[w]hile managing strategies, functions, processes, 
activities, staff, and strategic alliances, [his] judgments about the work of others have produced 
substantial accomplishments for his business ventures." The Petitioner further asserts that he "must 
judge the works of others in order to coherently and effectively manage the myriad facets of the large­
scale real estate development projects." 
In his appeal brief: the Petitioner does not point to specific evidence in the record demonstrating that 
he meets this criterion. To fulfill this criterion, the evidence must show that an individual "actually 
participated in the judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization." 6 Here, 
the Petitioner has not offered evidence to demonstrate that he has participated, either individually or 
on a panel, as a judge of the work of others. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a 
judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Nor has the Petitioner shown that performing managerial responsibilities as part of 
his business affairs constitutes his participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the field. Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated 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) 
To qualify under this criterion, a petitioner must show that they served in a leading or critical role for 
an organization or establishment, and that the organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. 7 The Director determined that the Petitioner had performed in a leading role for both 
I I andl I but that his evidence was 
insufficient to demonstrate that either company has a distinguished reputation. 8 
The Petitioner maintains on appeal that both "companies enjoy a distinguished reputation within their 
field." He points to a 2017 7 ress release he osted throu h AB Newswire a aid ress release 
distribution service) entitled 
_____ ." In addition, the Petitioner provided a 2020 article in ( a 
newspaper serving the I I community in the United States) entitled ' [the 
Petitioner]." The record also includes articles entitled' 
entitled "---------,-------the Petitioner" Forbes.com _____ [the Petitioner] 
"(T2conline.com), "[The Petitioner ________________ 
' (NYundressed. com), "[The Petitioner] 
6 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, Appendices, supra, at F.2. 
7 "Merriam-Webster's online dictionar.Y. defines distin uished as marked b eminence distinction or excellence." Id. 
8 
The record includes letters of suppo 
and discussing the Petitioner's role fo and _____ 
but these individuals do not elaborate on the reputation of the Petitioner's two companies or identify specific 
examples of evidence indicating that they have garnered a distinguished reputation. 
4 
" (Im actwealth.com , " The Petitioner 
FSHNma azine.com), and ______________________ 
(T2conline.com)." While these articles discuss the Petitioner and his 
property, they do not mentio_,_ _____________ and ______ 
Accordingly, the aforementioned articles do not demonstrate that either company has a 
distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner also submitted an article entitled " I 
I " !Business Journal). This articles states that I 
currently owns the three land parcels that I I would be built on, according to county records. 
The is tied to al -based holding company that acquired the three properties .... " This 
limited information, however, is insufficient to show that[ I Art Services, enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. 
With the appeal, the Petitioner resents a 
the Petitioner 
2022 PRNewswire ress release entitled' 
' He also provides 2022 article in Business Journal entitled __________ o p ___ a ___ 2 ____ in Business Jo
" These two '------------------------------------' articles post-date the filing of the petition. Eligibility must be demonstrated at the time of filing. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
For the above reasons, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established he meets this 
criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies the criteria relating to awards, membership, 
judging, or leading or critical role. Although the Petitioner claims eligibility for an additional criterion 
on appeal, relating to original contributions of major significance in the field at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), we need not reach this additional ground because the Petitioner cannot fulfill the 
initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We also need not provide 
the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20, or render a 
determination on the issue of whether the Petitioner's entry will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 9 
Nevertheless, we advise that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not 
support a conclusion 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 those progressing toward the top. 
Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes 
do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
9 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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that 
EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. 
Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) 
( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist 
specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even 
highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 
918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" 
did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 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 also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 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). The record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
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. 
6