dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Management Software

Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 28364074 Date: OCT. 2, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record does not 
establish the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the 10 initial evidentiary criteria. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b)(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [ noncitizen ]'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 10 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner stated that he "has made an original business-related contribution of major significance 
to the field of Enterprise Resource Planning - Business Management Software." He further indicated 
that he intends "to continue working in the field of ERP - Business Management Software and develop 
new programs and software to improve client operations." The Petitioner did not assert that he 
received a major, internationally recognized award under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and 
the Director found that the record does not support the conclusion; therefore, he must satisfy at least 
three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner stated that he 
satisfied the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)-(v), (viii)-(ix). However, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner satisfied only the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the record supports the 
Director's conclusion. On appeal, the Petitioner reasserts that he satisfies the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv)-(v) and (ix), in addition to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). For 
the reasons addressed below, we conclude that the record does not satisfy at least three of the 10 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Evidence of the [noncitizen 'sJ participation, either individually or on a panel, as a 
judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of spec[fication for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director acknowledged that the record contains "certificates from the I foundation for 
Women thanking him for his participation as a mentor the programs [sic] in 2017 and 2019." The 
Director also acknowledged that the record contains "a certificate from I lthanking him for 
supporting its Diversity Externship." However, the Director concluded that the record does not satisfy 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) because it does not establish that his role as a mentor acted 
"as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field," as required. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that "the meaning of the word 'Judge' or 'Judging' ... is broad 
enough to include actions by people who have not been expressly named a 'judge' or 'reviewer' for a 
specific event or activity." The Petitioner then reiterates information in the record about his mentor 
2 
"role at thel IFoundation." 1 The record does not support the Petitioner's assertion in the 
record that his role as mentor for the I IFoundation for Women satisfies the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). In response to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner submitted 
an undated, two-page document titled 'The Role of the Mentor," bearing the I !Foundation 
for Women logo on both pages. In relevant part, the I !Foundation for Women document 
states that a mentor "support[ s] their mentee to articulate goals . . . . A mentor listens to their mentee 
and provides them with the opportunity to evaluate their own progress" (emphasis added). Although 
"a mentor gives their mentee an opportunity to reflect on where they are and what progress they are 
making in their entrepreneurial journey [ and] offers perspective to their mentee, [a] mentor should not 
offer solutions; instead, they should provide support to bring out their mentee 's wisdom" (emphasis 
added). 
Although we acknowledge that not all those who judge the work of others bear the title of 'judge," 
nevertheless, a role defined by providing others "the opportunity to evaluate their own progress" and 
providing support for others to bring out their own wisdom is inconsistent with the plain-language 
meaning of the IJhrase 'judge of the work of others," provided at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Thus, 
thel Foundation for Women's document in the record does not support the conclusion that 
the Petitioner's role as mentor for that organization was in the capacity of a judge of the work of others, 
as contemplated by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record does not satisfy the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
Evidence of the [noncitizen 's} original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major significance to the field. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner "submitted evidence of the patent [ for an artificial 
intelligence-based chat bot platform] which lists him as the first inventor." However, the Director 
noted that "the issuance of a patent, by itself: does not verify the significance of the innovation patented 
because the patent's significance is not evaluated during the application process." The Director 
observed that the record does not establish how the Petitioner's chat bot platform "demonstrates the 
major significance of his contribution in the field," as required by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the following evidence in the record satisfies the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v): "an article published byl lin 2018 detailing the sale of the product 
and the product's impact on the client," along with a "letter from the representative of I 
client,I Itestifying to the tremendous impact and value that the company gained by 
purchasing the [ chat bot platform]" and evidence of contracts between I 
The Petitioner does not establish on appeal that his contributions are of major significance to the field. 
Although the documents address how the chat bot platform may be significant to IIthey do not address how the chat bot platform may be significant to the broader field of 
enterprise resource planning (ERP), or indeed how it amounts to "major significance to the field," as 
1 The Petitioner did not address the Director's conclusion regarding thel~_~lcertificate on appeal and. thus. he has 
waived that issue. 
I 
I 
I 
3 
I 
required by the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), beyond one company and one of its clients. On 
the contrary, the Petitioner acknowledged that he "invented his chatbot around the same time Apple 
Siri, IBM Watson[,] Google Assistant[,] Microsoft Cortana[,] and Amazon Alexa became prevalent." 
However, the record does not reconcile how the Petitioner's chat bot platform used by a single client 
is of major significance to the field of ERP-or any other particular field-given numerous other, 
prevalent chat bot platforms developed "around the same time." Because the record does not establish 
how the Petitioner's contribution is of major significance to the field, it does not satisfy the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
We need not determine whether the record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) because, 
even if it did, the record would not satisfy at least three of the 10 criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Accordingly, we reserve our opinion regarding whether the record satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 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 ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues 
on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
evidence that meets at least three of the 10 criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
at 25; see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. at 526 n.7. Nevertheless, 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 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 that 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; see also 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4