dismissed EB-1A Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 18, 2024 In Re: 31497965 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive officer of a beverage company, 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 
establish that he had received a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) or 
that he satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required for the requested 
classification. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo '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 )(1 )(A) 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 recognition 
of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 
recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then they 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 fust 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 is the founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of Ia U.S. beverage 
company manufacturing and distributing energy drinks. He states that he has extraordinary ability as 
an entrepreneur who is an "expert on Caribbean trade, with specialized knowledge in the coconut 
industry." He has served in various roles as a trade advisor, consultant and ambassador. The Petitioner 
intends to continue operating his business in the United States and claims it will substantially benefit 
the U.S. economically, as well as demonstrate diversity as an ethnic minority entrepreneur and develop 
trade opportunities between the U.S. and the Caribbean. 
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 initially claimed that he met three of these criteria: 
• (i), Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor; 
• (iii), Published materials about him in major trade or professional publications or other 
major media; and 
• (viii), Performing in leading or critical roles for organizations or establishments with a 
distinguished reputation. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), notifying the Petitioner that the evidence in the 
record was not sufficient to establish that he met any of the claimed criteria. The Director allowed the 
Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence in attempt to demonstrate that he satisfied at 
least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In response to the RFE, 
the Petitioner submitted additional evidence and again asserted that he meets the claimed criteria 
above, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii) and (viii). 
2 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated that he met one of 
the ten criteria. Specifically, the Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), with published materials about the Petitioner in major trade or professional 
publications or other major media. While we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has met this 
criterion, we conclude that the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner meets at least two 
additional criteria. Therefore, he does not meet the threshold for a final merits determination on 
whether he can establish that he is an individual of extraordinary ability in the field of Caribbean trade, 
the coconut industry and entrepreneurship. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he satisfies at least two additional alternate regulatory criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, he maintains his prior claim that he meets the criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (viii), for lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, and 
performing in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations. For the 
reasons discussed below, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he meets at least two more 
categories of evidence. 
Documentation of the individual'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). 
The Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion based on four awards: 
• First prize award for Entrepreneurial Spirit from the 
1 12012; 
• First prize award at thel I2015;
• Second place winner of the 2019; and 
• I I Colombia, 2019. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that any of the awards were national or 
international in scope or demonstrated recognition for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that the Director incorrectly analyzed his field of expertise as being a 
CEO in the beverage industry and clarifies that each award was given based on his expertise in 
entrepreneurship. 
The record includes evidence that the Petitioner was awarded first prize for Entrepreneurial Spirit in 
the 2012 Evidence in the record describes! las a 
private initiative promoting entrepreneurship in Colombia. The Petitioner states that he was awarded 
a monetary prize based on his innovation of a "zero-residue business model ... bottling fresh coconut 
water, making soaps with the flesh/coconut milk, and using the husks as natural fertilizers." A letter 
from the entrepreneurship manager of states that the Petitioner was one of 5,000 
candidates. However, the evidence in the record does not state the criteria used to grant the award or 
explain the national or international significance of the award. On appeal, the Petitioner states that 
this award was national in scope and was related to his field of expertise in entrepreneurship. 
3 
However, he does not provide any additional evidence to establish that this award meets the plain 
language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record includes evidence that the Petitioner was awarded first prize at the 
I I in 2015. The Petitioner states that he was awarded a monetary prize "as eco entrepreneur 
in the business category 'water, alternative energies and handling of solid residues' for [his] rainwater 
bottling pilot." The record includes a certificate and a photograph of a trophy, as well as other 
information in a foreign language without an English translation. 1 On appeal, the Petitioner states that 
the award "may have been at a lower level ... but it had the backing of an international organization: 
thel IThe evidence in the record does not provide information 
about the award, including the criteria used for judging, the national or international significance of 
the award, or the number of awardees or prize recipients. Nor does the evidence demonstrate the 
support of an international organization as the Petitioner asserts. The Petitioner must support 
assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 
376. The Petitioner does not provide any additional evidence to establish that this award meets the 
plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record includes evidence that the Petitioner was a second-place winner of the 
I in 2019. The Petitioner states that in Texas and 
northeastern Mexico. He states that he was awarded a monetary prize for his beverage line, as well as 
a five-year exclusivity contract and recognition from the Governor of Texas, the Texas House of 
Representatives and the Commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture. The record includes 
copies of certificates for the award and evidence that the Petitioner's business received the monetary 
award and contract with the supermarket. The record also includes a letter from the I I sourcing 
team stating that the Petitioner was selected as one of 20 finalists out of 842 submissions. On appeal, 
the Petitioner states that the award "may have been at a lower level (U.S. State- Texas), but this award 
was awarded by a major U.S. retailer." The evidence in the record does not provide information about 
the award, including the criteria used for judging, the national or international significance of the 
award, or the number of awardees or prize recipients. Nor does the evidence include information 
about I Ito support the Petitioner's assertion that it is a major U.S. retailer. The Petitioner does 
not provide any additional evidence to establish that this award meets the plain language of the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The record includes evidence that the Petitioner was a ant on I I Colombia in 2019. 
The Petitioner states that 
He states that he secured 
an investment deal on the show for his energy drink, The 
record includes photographs of the Petitioner on the show with links to the video. On appeal, the 
Petitioner states that hisl lprize was national in scope and is related to his field of expertise 
in entrepreneurship. 
1 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(3). 
The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. 
4 
The evidence in the record does not establish that the Petitioner is the recipient of a prize or award 
based on his appearance onl I Nor does the record document the criteria used for judging, 
the national or international significance of the award, or the number of awardees or prize recipients. 
The record does not include evidence such as a statement from the show's producers documenting that 
the Petitioner was the recipient of an award for excellence. Nor does the record include a statement 
from the Petitioner's I !explaining why he chose to invest in the Petitioner's product or other 
evidence explaining how this investment has national or international significance. The Petitioner 
does not provide any additional evidence to establish that this award meets the plain language of the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not submitted documentation that satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has pe1formed 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 played a leading or critical role for an 
organization or establishment, and that that organization or establishment has a distinguished 
reputation. When evaluating whether a role is leading, we look at whether the evidence establishes 
that the person is or was a leader within the organization, or a department or division thereof. A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish that a role is or was leading. For a critical role, 
we look at whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of a 
division or department of the organization or establishment. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
To support that an organization has a distinguished reputation, the relative size or longevity of an 
organization is considered together with other relevant information, such as the scale of its customer 
base or relevant media coverage. "Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines 'distinguished' as 
'marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence' or 'befitting an eminent person."' Id. 
The Petitioner points to the following roles as evidence that he meets this criterion: 
• Trade advisor with the I 
• Ambassador of the and 
• Consultant with the _________________ 
The Director's analysis of this criterion focuses on evidence in the record relating to the Petitioner's 
business,! Iand his role as CEO. The Director concluded that, although the Petitioner 
established that he performs in a leading role in the company, the evidence did not establish that the 
company has a distinguished reputation. However, the Director did not consider other evidence in the 
record, including the Petitioner's cover letter submitted with the initial filing and his response to the 
RFE, that the Petitioner's claim under this criterion was not based on his role as CEO of his company. 
Rather, the record demonstrates that the Petitioner provided evidence of his roles with I I and 
the I I in support of this criterion. 
5 
The record includes a letter dated March 2011 from the general secretary of the attesting to the 
Petitioner's role as "Advisor in the Directorate of Trade and External Economic Relations Department 
at I I for the past three years." The letter describes the as "an international organization 
based inl lwhich serves twenty-five member states and three associate members, as well 
as observer countries through consultation, cooperation and concerted action in the areas of trade, 
transport, sustainable tourism and natural disaster risk reduction." On appeal, the Petitioner states that 
he was nominated to the position by the Colombian government based on his merit and expertise in 
Caribbean trade. He states that during this tenure, he led events to promote trade, including an event 
that generated over $1.3 million in business. The record includes a report of this event and newspaper 
articles listing the Petitioner as an attendee. However, the evidence in the record does not describe 
the Petitioner's job duties as trade advisor for Nor does the evidence support the Petitioner's 
assertion that he was nominated by the Colombian government or led events promoting trade. The 
Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. The Petitioner has not established that his role as trade advisor with 
the meets the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner states that he was named as the ambassador and sole representative of his area for the 
2020 He describes the event as an annual summit attended by "senior 
government representatives, policy makers, and intergovernmental organizations" to "connect islands 
around the world and share ideas, best practices and solutions." The Petitioner states that through his 
participation in the summit he responded to "spontaneous questions from participants about or in 
relation to [his] archipelago."The record includes a copy of an email addressed to the Petitioner 
identifying him as the ambassador for the I I However, the 
record does not include any other evidence related to thel lor the Petitioner's role 
as ambassador. The Petitioner has not established that his role as ambassador of the I I 
I I meets the plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner also states that he was solicited to fill the role of consultant with the United Nations 
in 2021 based on his ex ertise in the coconut ind us tr and the U.S. market. Evidence in the record 
describes the 
The record includes approved contracts for 
services between the Petitioner and the United Nations appointing him for limited service as a 
contractor with the from September 2, 2021 to March 31, 2022. The record also includes a job 
description for the role, listing the Petitioner's responsibilities as conducting market and distribution 
channel research for projects on coconut in the United States, providing recommendations for 
campaigns to raise awareness of coconut agriculture, and delivering presentations for online events. 
However, the record does not include evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's role with the 
was leading or critical. The plain language of the job description does not indicate that the role of 
consultant is a leader within any department or division of the TheThe Petitioner has not submitted 
evidence of his contributions as a consultant or established that they are of significant importance to 
activities. The Petitioner has not established that his role as consultant with the meets the 
plain language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director erred in analyzing other evidence in the record not specifically intended to establish that 
the Petitioner meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), in performing in leading or critical 
roles for organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. However, upon review of 
6 
the record in its entirety, we conclude that the Petitioner's intended evidence, including the Petitioner's 
statements on appeal, are insufficient to establish that he meets this criterion. 
Although the Director erred in the analysis of the evidence in the record relating to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we need not remand the matter for further consideration because the Petitioner has 
not overcome the basis for denial regarding the other claimed criterion. As such, he has only met one 
criteria. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he satisfies at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner is not eligible because he 
has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that he 
meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we need not fully 
address the totality of the materials in a final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, and conclude that it does not support a 
finding that the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 2 
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 ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his accomplishments as an entrepreneur and expert in Caribbean 
trade and the coconut industry 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
under section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In 
visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 
806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 This review included consideration of testimonial evidence that was not claimed to satisfy any particular regulatory 
criterion, such as letters ofrecommendation and evidence of business grants supporting the Petitioner's company. 
7