dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 12, 2024 In Re: 33440983 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a 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 the Petitioner did not establish 
he satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. 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 immigrant visas available to individuals with 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, provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or 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 
The Petitioner serves as Vice President for Business Development at a a supplier of 
telecom engineering services and products. 1 Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established 
receipt of 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). The Petitioner initially claimed to have satisfied 
four of these criteria, but the Director determined the Petitioner fulfilled only the judging criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets three additional 
categories of evidence. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions ofmajor sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he made original contributions, but that they have been of major significance in the field. 2 As 
evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner submitted documentation relating to his product 
development work for I I and a guest lecture he provided for a 
Extension virtual Zoom course, entitled _____________ ___3 The record 
also includes evidence of contracts and licensing of products and services from 4 In addition, 
the Petitioner presented information about a book he coauthored, entitled 
___________ as well as letters of support from colleagues in the field discussing 
his projects at multiple companies. The Director considered this documentation but found that it was 
not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner's work constituted original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
In his appeal brief, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's findings under this criterion relating 
to his extension course guest lecture and book. He therefore has not overcome the Director's 
1 The Petitioner received a Master of Business Administration degree from (2012) and 
a Certificate from the Product Management Program at __________ (2016). 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
3 The Petitioner completed the __________ Executive Education Product Management Program in 
2016. He did not explain how providing a guest lecture at a university he previously attended is indicative of a business­
related contribution of major significance in the field. 
4 This documentation includes !proposals and contracts with for radio frequency engineering and design, 
proposals and contracts with for fiber construction, proposals and contracts with _____ and licenses 
sold to While the Petitioner helped determine clients' needs and effectively 
communicated their needs to I Iengineering team, he has not demonstrated that he originated the technologies 
used in products such asl I 
2 
determination that they do not meet requirements of this criterion. 5 We consider the Petitioner's prior 
eligibility claims not raised or contested on appeal to be abandoned. An issue not raised on appeal is 
waived. See, e.g., Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 
25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
The Petitioner contends on appeal that the Director incorrectly concluded the testimonial evidence of 
his achievements in the field was insufficient. He asserts that the testimony of independent witnesses 
as well as corporate executives with direct knowledge of his original contributions was not properly 
considered as part of the record. The Petitioner's references discussed his product development 
projects at I I and financial work at other companies, but their statements do not demonstrate 
the originality of his work and its major significance in the field. As discussed below, the reference 
letters do not offer sufficiently detailed information, nor does the record include adequate 
corroborating documentation, to show the nature of specific "original contributions" that the Petitioner 
has made to the field that have been considered to be of major significance. 
Regarding the Petitioner's involvement in the development of the I !network test measurement 
tool for __________ the company's CEO and Co-Founder, stated: 
In the year 2013 we first started working on our automated drive test tool called _ 
was envisioned with two important benefits to the customer - to make 
data collection cheaper and error free. 
[The Petitioner's] personal commitment to deliver this solution was commendable. Right 
from understanding the customer's problem to helping with the development of the 
solution he supported the Product team to an unimaginable length. Since he was also a 
part of the Business Development team, he was able to make this dream a possibility by 
getting its first-ever contracts from one of the big telecom operators 
the U.S. (which is I I to the tune of over 4 million dollars, which grew I Ito 
different level. This activity not only helped the company grow in revenue, but we had 
to open a back-office operation to manage the projects that were awarded to us. 
[The Petitioner] also came up with the idea of using Salesforce as a tool to manage the 
projects and used his analytical ability to visualize and guide the company various key 
performance indicators that we would need to monitor to make this program a success. 
While I I indicated that the Petitioner's work "supported the Product team" and helped his 
company secure a contract with I I the Petitioner has not shown that his work for I I has 
been considered important at a level consistent with original contributions of major significance in the 
telecommunications, business development, or project management fields. 
5 For example, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his book and guest lecture have influenced the field in a major way, 
have been highly cited relative to others' work in the field, or have otherwise affected his field at level commensurate with 
original business-related contributions of major significance. 
3 
With respect to the Petitioner's involvement with the development of 
President and CEO of I I stated: 
[The Petitioner] has a mindset to help clients build new products. He listens 
meticulously to his clients and helps his IT teams understand in a language they can 
understand. This has helped him to work with people from various engineering and 
development backgrounds and help build products that have filled a 
lot of gaps that were in the telecom industry. Their latest product I I... is 
a phenomenal idea of creating an AI based CRM tool for the telecom industry and help 
project managers get away from working and maintaining Excel sheets and instead get 
meaningful insights to their I I but generating intelligent reports. This idea was 
floated by [the Petitioner] when _____ was awarded the biggest project on 
PIM modulation by one of their clients 3 years ago. Instead of managing the data on 
Excel sheets [the Petitioner] immediately understood the roadblocks in the system and 
started working with his development team to develop a cloud-based application to 
manage the whole program. 
Mr. further noted that and used it in their national 
radio access network teams to manage their databases, but the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
this tool has affected the field in a substantial way (beyond his company's clientele such as I I or 
that his contribution to the product otherwise constitutes an original contribution of major significance 
in the telecommunications field. 
In addition, I Icurrently Vice President of Business Development atl I and 
formerly coworker of Petitioner atl I asserted that the Petitioner's "ability to analyze customer 
needs and data driven decision making approach always helped him and the team to come up with the 
most innovative solutions for our customers." Likewise, I I formerly Vice President of 
Data Analytics atl Istated that based on the Petitioner's regular interaction with various clients, 
I I was able to understand that the biggest problem of the industry at one given moment was 
the need for an automated drive test tool which helps telecom operators to collect network data while 
driving between cell tower and other telecom sites." Mr.I I also indicated that the Petitioner's 
"ability to analyze the problem and bring his unique solution to the engineering team to be brought to 
life was a great start to the development of our new product." While the Petitioner helped determine 
clients' needs and effectively communicated their needs to I Iengineering team, he has not 
demonstrated that he originated the underlying technologies used in products such asl I 
I land that his work rises to the level of business-related contributions of major significance in 
the field. 
Furthermore, Dr.I I professor at ___________ (the Petitioner's alma 
mater), stated that the Petitioner "put his finance and MBA skills to effective use by working with 
I I technical professionals and major customers to identify financially valuable new products 
and services, leading to the introduction of successful telecommunications implementations." Dr. 
I I however, does not offer specific examples of how the Petitioner's original work for I I 
has influenced the telecommunications industry to the extent that it is of major significance in the 
field. 
4 
The record also includes letters of support discussing the Petitioner projects at other employers before 
he joined I I For example, _____ Chief Business Officer - Auto Loans, 
I I stated that he worked with the Petitioner at both 
Regarding the Petitioner's work for _____ 
indicated that the Petitioner "launched multiple new branches for his region" and "helped the region 
reach record breaking numbers." With respect to the Petitioner's projects at Mr. 
asserted that the Petitioner headed "the consumer durables lending program in North India," 
"came up with the idea of Advance Dealer Disbursement that led to record breaking revenue for the 
whole company across India," and "won the award for the most Innovative regional manager in the 
entire company." The Petitioner, however, has not shown that his work for 
D rises to the level of original business-related contributions of major significance in the field 
Additionally, Senior Vice President, indicated that the 
Petitioner worked under his supervision as Regional Sales Manager for North India. Mr.I I 
stated: 
[The Petitioner] built a strong and motivated sales team and a wide dealer distribution 
of 250+ dealers in North India and ensured that all major retailers worked with 
I I [The Petitioner] drove his team to adapt to the latest technology of cloud 
computing and leverage the new products and processes to create a W o W customer 
experience. Under his leadership, sales turnover doubled every year and we again 
started branch expansion in northern markets from 9 cities to 15 cities. 
While the Petitioner improved sales and helped I Iexpand its branch operations to new 
cities, Mr.I I does not explain how the Petitioner's work for the company in North India is 
indicative of original business-related contributions of major significance in his field. Nor has the 
Petitioner demonstrated that the level of attention received by his work signifies that he has made 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
In this case, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his specific work to improve his employers' sales, 
services, and new product offerings rises to the level of original business-related contributions of major 
significance in the field. Courts have routinely affirmed our decisions concluding that 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) "requires substantial influence beyond one's employers, clients, or customers." 
Strategati, LLC v. Sessions, 2019 WL 2330181, at *6 (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2019) (upholding an agency 
decision that held "[aa] patent is not necessarily evidence of a track record of success with some degree 
of influence over the field as a whole."); see also Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383,394 (5th Cir. 2022) 
(upholding agency decision that held evidence insufficient "because it did not show widespread 
replication of [the petitioner's invention]"). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his original work 
has affected his field at a level commensurate with contributions of major significance in the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that he has made original 
contributions of major significance in his field. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship ofscholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
5 
As evidence for this criterion, the Petitioner presented a book he coauthored, entitled I _____ 
The language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires "scholarly articles" and the Petitioner's book does not equate to an article. 
An article is "a nonfictional prose composition usually forming an independent part of a publication 
(as a magazine)." 6 On the other hand, a book is "a long written or printed literary composition." 7 
Furthermore, the regulation requires that the articles be "in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media." As books may be published independently or self-published, mere publication 
does not establish that a book is a professional or major trade publication or other type of major media. 
As defined in the academic arena, a scholarly article reports on original research, experimentation, or 
philosophical discourse. 8 It is written by a researcher or expert in the field who is often affiliated with 
a college, university, or research institution. 9 Scholarly articles are also generally peer reviewed by 
other experts in the field of specialization. 10 While I I contains endnotes and a 
bibliography, the Petitioner has not shown that his book qualifies as a scholarly article within the 
purview of academia. 11 
For other fields, a scholarly article should be written for learned persons in that field. 12 "Learned" is 
defined as having "profound knowledge gained by study." 13 Learned persons include all persons 
having profound knowledge of a field. 14 Here, the Petitioner did not show that his book was written 
for learned persons in the field. For example, recommendations appearing in the initial part of the 
book state that I l"would be useful to someone new to product management," "is an 
essential read for anyone looking to bring a new disruptive product to market," is "an essential 
reference for anyone who aspires to be a rock star product manager," "is a must-read for everyone 
who cares about building the right products in the right way," and "covers many ideas and frameworks, 
along with providing step-by-step instructions for aspiring innovators and product developers." In 
addition, the record includes a quote from the Petitioner indicating that his book covers "the do' s and 
don'ts of successful product development for people wanting to be the next generation of product 
managers." These statements do not necessarily indicate that the book was written for learned persons 
in the field. 
Even if the Petitioner had demonstrated that I !equates to a scholarly article, which it 
does not, he has not shown that his book is a professional or major trade publication or other form of 
major media. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of this 
criterion. 
6 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/article, accessed on September 9, 2024. 
7 See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/book, accessed on September 9, 2024. 
8 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
9 Id. 
10 Id. 
11 The book's inclusion as "recommended reading" for a virtual "extension" course at a university where the Petitioner 
pursued studies I and its coverage in a blog post on the website of the Petitioner's alma 
mater I do not necessarily render it scholarly. 
12 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
13 Id. (citing to the Oxford English Dictiona1y 's definition of "learned"). 
14 Id. 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner meets the judging criterion but has not established he satisfies the criteria relating to 
contributions of major significance and authorship of scholarly articles. Although the Petitioner also 
claims eligibility for the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), 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). Because the Petitioner's inability to meet three of the 
initial criteria is dispositive of his appeal, we also need not provide the type of final merits 
determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. We therefore reserve these issues. 15 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding 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. Matter ofPrice, 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 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 
l 9-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 the significance of his work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or 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 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 the Petitioner among the 
upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 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. 
15 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
7