dismissed EB-1A Case: Charitable Fundraising And Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 55822191 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 26, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a consultant, 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 record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner satisfies at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for 
this classification . The matter is now before us on appeal. 
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 conclude that the Petitioner has 
not met this burden. Accordingly , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 
international 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 criteria 
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 states that he "is extremely well-known" among charitable organizations in the United 
States, Israel, Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union for his fundraising, consultinf and 
project management work with the I I and the I The 
Petitioner's resume reflects that, after graduating from I I University with degrees in geography 
and African history, he worked for the from 2002 until 2015, initially as a 
representative in Ukraine and Later, he served as the donor relations and development 
coordinator the ,__ ____ ___,s organizational headquarters in I I as its country 
representative in Ukraine, as the regional director for Central Asia (based in Uzbekistan), and, most 
recently, as the Director General of the I I Russia representative office. 
The Petitioner indicates that he has been self Tmployd as a consultant in Florida since 2016, and has 
n n will be working as a fundraiser and consultant for the southeast office of thel I 
American Section inl I as the director of ·I J for the non-profit 
and as a consultant and fund raiser for I I an organization that 
,.__-------,--.,........,.,,------,---' 
supports underprivileged youth and single parent families. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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). The Petitioner has claimed to meet three of the ten criteria, summarized 
below: 
I (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
I (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation; and 
I (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others. 
2 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet any of the claimed criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that he submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he meets the three claimed 
criteria and is otherwise eligible for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner meets only one criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and therefore has not established that he satisfies the initial evidentiary 
requirements for this classification. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that he has made original contributions of 
major significance in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that his contributions have been 
widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have 
otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
The Director acknowledged that the evidence establishes that the Petitioner is highly experienced as a 
fundraiser, consultant and project manager and has made contributions in his field. However, he 
determined that the record lacks evidence of the impact or influence of those contributions and does 
not establish their "major significance." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the Petitioner's contributions exceed the "major significance" standard 
required by this criterion, emphasizing that "his contributions were life saving and life altering." He 
further explains: 
[The Petitioner] made and continues to make significant contributions of major 
si nificance in his field of endeavor - the very special and unique field ofl I, the 
,___ __________ ~ ... The evidence provided ... is very clear about what 
he did to bring,____~ people and especially youn eo le who, for various reasons 
lost their parents and support of their countries . In many instances he 
was the only one who would be working t,..__ __ _.these kids fro~ ~ and 
war-torn nations to thP.I r ... His contribution only can be measured in 
the human I ives he saved and the futures that he was able to secure for the persecuted 
and unfortunate. 
We recognize that the nature of the work the Petitioner has performed for th~~-------~ 
and other organizations has a significant impact on the lives of the individuals who receive sup
1
port for
1 their,___ _____ __. and other humanitarian assistance. The Petitioner's work as an 
consultant, fundraiser and project director is well documented in the record through reference letters 
and other evidence.1 For example,,___ ____ __. a Senior Representative of thel I I I in North America, confirms that the Petitioner "took a leading role in numerous 
international projects, among them rescue operation in war turn Gear~ helping to save lives of 
man~ ltamilies fleeing of war mess and bringing them safely tol__Jon special flights."D 
1 While we do not discuss all of the submitted reference letters and letters of gratitude submitted, we have reviewed and 
considered each one. 
3 
I I also recogni~Petitioner's successful involvement in "efforts to raise funds and 
humanitarian support fotl__J people around the world, who seek assistance and humanitarian help." 
In addition, he credits the Petitioner's initiation and organization of projects in numerous countries as 
a regional director tori I and praises his focus, determination, and dedication to 
humanitarian values. 
I I president of thd I discusses the organization'g I project 
and states that the Petitioner "remains the main driving force and the principal leader of this extremely 
special endeavor aiming to help secure a better future for underprivileged youth in distressed areas of 
the world." He praises the Petitioner's "enthusiasm, leadership, rich experience, world-wide 
connections and other talents that make our organization capable of helping and saving the most 
underprivileged and giving them the gift of a better future." 
This criterion requires the Petitioner to establish that his contributions have significantly impacted or 
influenced the field in which he works. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's 
contributions are of major significance in the field and his impaJ-<-1--l-<.U.... .................... .....,.ent work add value. 2 The 
letters submitted here are all comparable t sand s letter in content and do 
not discuss how the Petitioner's projects with .___ ________ ____.and other organizations 
have impacted the field, rather than individuals who have received assistance from his employers. The 
record documents the Petitioner's contributions to fulfilling .___ _____ ____.s mission and we 
recognize his critical role with the organization below, but it does not demonstrate the significance or 
influence of his work in the broader field. 
In the appellate brief, counsel asserts that the Petitioner "was the first individual that was able to 
establish rules and procedures related tol lr.hildren from dilapidated countries of Former Soviet 
Union I I' noting "it was not done before in modern history, after WWII." However, he does 
not elaborate and his statement that the Petitioner was responsible for establishing the referenced "rules 
and procedures" is not adequately supported by other evidence in the record, or by evidence that such 
rules and procedures were adopted or implemented by other organizations in the field or otherwise 
recognized as influential or majorly significant in the field. Assertions of counsel do not constitute 
evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 l&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements must be substantiated in the record 
with independent evidence. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual 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) 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with 
appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading.3 Regarding a 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update AD11-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/po I icyman ual/HTM L/Po I icy Manual. htm I 
3 Id. at 10. 
4 
critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the 
title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or 
was critical. 4 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner had submitted evidence related to his roles at tha._ _ ____, 
I land the,___ ______ __, However, the Director determined that the evidence 
was insufficient to establish that he performed in leading or critical roles for either organization. He 
further found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that either organization has a distinguished 
reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "made an error by not reading all the 
documents submitted." 
While we agree with the Director that the record does not establish that the,___ ______ _, a 
Florida non-profit company established in 2015, enjoys a distinguished reputation~ the Petitioner 
submitted sufficient evidence to establish the distinguished reputation of thP.I J I 
In addition, letters from persons familiar with his work with th~._ ____ ____,~ and other evidence 
in the record, provide sufficient explanation of the Petitioner's performance in senior roles to establish 
that those roles have been critical to the outcome of the organization's activities in several targeted 
regions. Accordingly, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
In a cover letter provided in support of the petition, the Petitioner indicates that "[a]s a professional 
fund raiser and activist [the Petitioner] was [a] highly paid professional averaging hundreds of 
thousands of dollars for his job throu h the ears." His initial evidence in support of this criterion 
included an undated letter from the,___.======-=======lsummarizinq the Petitioner's terms of 
service as a senior representative of the,___ _______ ~ inl I Russia from August 
2009 until August 2015.5 According to this letter, his remuneration included monthly gross wages of 
$6000, as well as monthly "representative fees," compensation for rent expenses, an "education fund," 
and "children education funding at the place of service." 
The Petitioner provided evidence that the private school his children attended inl Jbilled 
thel lfor their 2014-2015 school year tuition and fees. However, he did not 
document his actual salary earnings or total remuneration received during his period of employment 
for the I I in_ I The Petitioner also submitted data on "Average Russian 
NGO salaries" from SimplyHired, which indicates an average salary of $25,000 but states that 
"average Russian NGO salaries can vary greatly due to company, location, industry, experience and 
benefits." 
The Petitioner's initial evidence also included his 2017 IRS Form W-2 froml t=J 
U.S.-based consulting company) indicating that he was paid $12,000 in wages. He provided 
4 Id. 
5 According to the Petitioner's resume and the employment history he provided on his concurrently filed 1-485, Application 
to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, he worked for th~ 0 I as its Regional Director in 
I I from January 2014 until August 2015. 
5 
~----~~s 2017 corporate federal tax return, which reflects his receipt of $13,389 in ordinary 
business income based on his 50% ownership interest in the company. He did not provide comparative 
evidence to demonstrate that he earned a high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to 
others working in his occupation in the United States during that year. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), counsel for the Petitioner stated: 
[The Petitioner] was dispatched and worked in mostly Former Soviet Union States ... 
For his work he was paid significant amount of money, compared to local population 
and also he was provided with transportation, housing allowance, private school tuition 
for his children and other perks attributed to his position. It is not easy to compare his 
salary to the local population due to uniqueness of his job asl I consultant, but due 
to deteriorating post-Soviet State financial system, he was making 10 to 20 times what 
any local person in the same or similar position would make. He was very well paid. 
The Petitioner re-submitted the above-referenced letter from confirming 
the financial terms of service for his posting in~ ___ ___.and the private school tuition invoice 
from 2014. On appeal, counsel repeats the same passage from his letter in response to the RFE, already 
quoted above. The appeal does not otherwise address this criterion. 
It is the Petitioner's burden to provide appropriate evidence in support of this criterion and we agree 
with the Director's determination that the evidence submitted here did not meet that burden. In order 
to establish that they have commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration, a 
petitioner should provide documentary evidence of their actual earnings. The undated letter setting 
forth the Petitioner's terms of payment from the I O , I does not adequately 
document the Petitioner's salary and other remuneration earned during his period of employment in 
Russia. 
In addition, while the Petitioner provided data regarding "average Russian NGO salaries" from 
SimplyHired, the publisher of this data acknowledges that such salaries "can vary greatly" and does 
not provide information regarding high salaries in the field as a point of comparison. It is not sufficient 
for the Petitioner to provide evidence that his salary was "above average." Although we acknowledge 
counsel's repeated assertion that the Petitioner earned "10 to 20 times what any local person ... would 
make" we note that the assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Obaigbena, 19 l&N Dec. at 
534 n.2 (citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 l&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). 
Therefore, even if the Petitioner had adequately documented his total earnings from 2014 or 2015, 
additional comparative data would be needed to establish that he commanded a high salary or 
significantly high total remuneration. 
As noted, the Petitioner also documented his earnings in the United States for 2017, but he has neither 
claimed nor submitted comparative salary data to establish that he commanded a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration in that year. 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
6 
B. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner has been granted 0-1 status, a classification reserved 
for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 
nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude 
USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different statute, 
regulations, and case law. Further, it must be emphasized that each petition filing is a separate 
proceeding with a separate record. In making a determination of statutory eligibility, USCIS is limited 
to the information contained in that individual record of proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16)(ii). We 
are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated, 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See Matter of Church Scientology 
lnt'I, 19 l&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r 1988); see also Sussex Eng'g, Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 
1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987). 
Finally, our authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa 
petition, is comparable to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a 
service center director has approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of an individual, we are not 
bound to follow that finding in the adjudication of another petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra 
v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding 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 for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 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)(1)(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)(1)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
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. 
7