dismissed EB-1A Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 6, 2024 In Re: 33346442 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is an entrepreneur who seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Petitioner had a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did he demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility 
to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 
291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in 
this matter de nova. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify under this immigrant classification
, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 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-step analysis. In the first 
step, 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.S(h)( 4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable material if he or she is able to demonstrate that 
the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then move to the second step to 
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, 
1121 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-step 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 Amin v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The 
Petitioner has a background in the sale, investment, design and implementation of projects related 
to housing and other buildings. He has founded multiple companies in his home country and he 
proposes to continue his work as an entrepreneur in the real estate development field in the United 
States. 
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). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met six of the regulatory criteria. 
The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied two of the criteria relating to published material and 
performing in a leading or critical role, but that he had not satisfied the criteria associated with prizes 
or awards, membership, original contributions, or high salary or remuneration. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that he meets the evidentiary criteria the Director denied except for the prizes or 
awards criterion. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we come to the same conclusion as 
the Director. 
1. Documentation of the alien's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion and the 
Petitioner doesn't contest those findings on appeal. We consider this criterion to be abandoned or 
waived. Matter of F-C-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 788, 789 n.3, 791 n.6 (BIA 2024) (finding issues not 
challenged on appeal are waived). 
2. Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
2 
The Petitioner provided articles from multiple news sources and the Director determined that the 
Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. We will not disturb that conclusion. 
3. 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). 
The 
Petitioner provided evidence and claims related to several companies the Petitioner founded. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion and we do not disagree 
with that decision. 
4. Evidence that the alien 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). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. In arguing 
his eligibility on appeal, the Petitioner presents new claims that he did not advance before the Director. 
First, he refers to the USCIS Policy Manual for entrepreneurs and what that resource reflects they can 
provide as direct evidence under this criterion focusing on outside investment in their companies. See 
generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. Before the 
Director, the Petitioner only provided profit and loss related information for his companies, with no 
real data on the types of investment from outside sources. Second, he now also claims he should be 
able to offer comparable evidence relating to his equity holding in his businesses, as the USCIS Policy 
Manual also describes as a possibility for entrepreneurs under the comparable evidence regulatory 
provision. He also did not present this claim to the Director. 
Because both the regulation and the Director's request for evidence put the Petitioner on notice and 
gave him a reasonable opportunity to provide these arguments and this evidence, we will not consider 
it for the first time on appeal. See Matter ofFurtado, 28 I&N Dec. 794, 801-02 (BIA 2024) (declining 
to consider new evidence on appeal when the filing party was put on notice of the required evidence 
and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial); see also Matter of 
Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,537 (BIA 1988). 
These are all the claims the Petitioner offers for this criterion on appeal. 
Considering this, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
5. Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
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 provided claims and evidence related to three organizations. The Director determined 
that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion, as these entities did not require 
outstanding achievements as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the Petitioner must satisfy. First, the Petitioner 
must demonstrate that he/she is a member of an association in his/her field. Second, the Petitioner 
3 
must demonstrate both of the following: (1) the associations utilize nationally or internationally 
recognized experts to judge the achievements of prospective members to determine if the 
achievements are outstanding, and (2) the associations use this outstanding determination as a 
condition of eligibility for prospective membership. 
On appeal, the Petitioner limits his arguments to one organization, the Bulgarian Investment and 
Construction Association (BISA) and he points to their Articles of Association as the primary 
supporting evidence. As a result, he has abandoned his claims relating to the other two entities he 
claimed before the Director. F-C-S-, 28 I&N Dec. at 789 n.3, 791 n.6. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts BISA requires outstanding achievements of its regular members based on 
the requirement that its regular membership level candidates must provide evidence of an investment 
in or have constructed and put into operation, a building comprised of an area that is one thousand 
square meters or more in size accompanied by a certificate that the "trader" is not bankrupt and is not 
subject to insolvency proceedings. 
But the Petitioner does not describe what evidence supports his assertion that this is an outstanding 
achievement. These unsupported statements have little evidentiary value and will not satisfy the 
Petitioner's burden of proof See Matter ofMariscal-Hernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 666, 673 (BIA 2022); 
see also Matter of Azrag, 28 I&N Dec. 784, 787 (BIA 2024). The Petitioner offers other external 
material relating to BISA, but none is as salient as the organization's own stated requirements. And 
the Petitioner has not demonstrated that its requirements constitute outstanding achievements as a 
condition of its regular members. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
6. Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, art1St1c, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The primary requirements here are that the Petitioner's contributions in their field were original and 
they rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an 
organization. See Amin, 24 F.4th at 394 (citing Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 
2013)). The regulatory phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. 
Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392,415 (2019) (finding that every word and every provision in a statute 
is to be given effect and none should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate 
another provision or to have no consequence). Further, the Petitioner's contributions must have 
already been realized rather than being potential, future improvements. Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The Petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The Petitioner proposes he will continue his work as an entrepreneur in the real estate development 
field. As a result, he must demonstrate the requisite level of contributions in the real estate 
development field. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this 
criterion. After discussing some of the recommendation letters he offered, the Director indicated that 
4 
"there is no doubt the beneficiary provides valuable knowledge and success to the field; however, his 
work has not made an original major significant contribution to the field." Also relating to the letters, 
the Director noted they lacked "specificity regarding how his achievements have affected the field or 
how the asserted achievements are being reproduced within the field. Further, the petitioner has not 
established how others emulate his techniques or have widely applied his results." 
Appealing that determination, the Petitioner points to one of the letters the Director discussed from 
The Petitioner's appeal brief quotes from the same portion of Mr. I Iletter 
that the Director quoted and discussed in the denial decision. Mr. I lstated: 
While many of his projects have received national and international awards and/or 
nominations for innovative design and unmatched quality, one of his most notable 
contributions to the Bulgarian economy, as well as to the the [sic] growth and 
popularisation of Bulgarian tourism and residential properties market, is his outstanding 
contribution in connection with market research, analysis, and input in connection with 
major legislative initiatives. His input, opinion letters, and tireless advocacy for raising 
the standards in real estate development, as well as balancing the needs of the respective 
districts and municipalities with the market demands and international standards, have 
not only made him a respected leader in the real estate development field but a major 
contributor to many key legislative initiatives in Bulgaria. 
The Petitioner then draws some tangentially connected aspects relating to BTSA having an effect in 
the industry, but we are not prepared to make the same logical leap without more cardinal evidence 
adequately attributing those improvements to market research and analysis, and to legislation 
initiatives. We agree with the Director that while the Petitioner has attained a certain level of 
achievement in his home country relating to real estate development, the record simply does not 
support the contention that those have resulted in a sufficient influence within the field. And having 
the ability to influence a legislative body is distinctly different from exerting one's influence that not 
only resulted in legislative changes, but also changes that had a significant impact in the real estate 
development field. 
The Petitioner closes his legislative improvement arguments noting he was the point of contact at 
BISA in connection with a legislative proposal. He generally points to "letters" in the record to bolster 
his claims, without identifying any particular author or set of authors supporting his contention that 
they explain the nature and significance of his contributions. The Petitioner alleges the Director did 
not give the evidence its proper weight, overlooked a significant portion of the evidence, and provided 
a general and unfounded explanation of why he did not fulfill this criterion's requirements. 
Considering the almost 800-page record contains numerous letters throughout, it is the Petitioner's 
responsibility to identify the specific evidence he references to support his claims. It is the filing 
party's duty and burden to inform us of what errors the lower entity committed and how their claims 
and evidence satisfy which eligibility requirements. Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th 1007, 
1012-13 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196 n.4 (9th Cir. 1992)). 
Commensurate with that burden is the responsibility for explaining the significance of proffered 
evidence. Repaka v. Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1219 (S.D. Cal. 2014). Filing parties should not 
submit large quantities of evidence without notifying the appellate body of the specific documentation 
5 
that corroborates their claims within such large quantities. Doing so places an undue burden on the 
appellate body to search through the documentation without the aid of the filing party's 
knowledge. Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th at 1012-13. 
Even though the Petitioner has been successful in his endeavors, we conclude he has not shown his 
work has been unusually influential, widely applied by the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of 
contributions of major significance. 
III. 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 do not need to 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 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 that goal. 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 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of their 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). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and they are one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) 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. 
6