dismissed EB-1A Case: Event Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 11283915 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 15, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an event management professional , seeks classification as an alien 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 
satisfy at least three of the ten regulatory criteria for this classification and therefore did not meet the 
initial evidence requirements. The Petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider, which the Director dismissed. The Petitioner then appealed that decision to our office. 
We withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter to the Director for entry of a new 
decision. The Director issued a new decision in which he affirmed the denial of the petition , and the 
matter is now before us again 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 , 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 is an event management professional with experience in planning and managing 
components oflarge international events including the Rio 2016 Summer Olympic Games and FIFA 
World Cu(). She received a bachelor's degree in social communication from.__ ______ _. 
University I lin 2000. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met one of these criteria, relating to her performance in a 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). The evidence supports this conclusion and sufficiently documents her 
critical roles as a management employee of the local organizing committees for the 2016 Summer 
Olympic Games and the 2014 FIFA World Cup held in Brazil. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets five additional criteria as discussed below, including: 
membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; published material in major media; 
original contributions of major significance in her field; display of her work at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; and command of a high salary in relation to others in her field. See 8 C.F.R. § 
2 
204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), (vii), and (ix). 1 After reviewing all evidence in the record, we find that the 
Petitioner has not satisfied at least three of the criteria and therefore does not meet the initial evidence 
requirements for this classification. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based 
on being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements 
in the field for which classification is sought. 2 
The Director evaluated the Petitioner's eligibility under this criterion based on evidence of her 
membership in the Sports Marketing Association (SMA) and Women in Sports and Events (WISE). 
The Director acknowledged her membership in these associations but determined that she did not 
support her claim that either association requires that its members demonstrate outstanding 
achievements as judged by national or international experts in the field. 
The Director also acknowledged the Petitioner's claim that she was a member of the local organizing 
committee (LOC) for the 2014 FIFA World Cup but determined that the supporting evidence only 
demonstrated her employment by the LOC, not her membership on the committee. The Petitioner 
does not contest this determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she can satisfy this criterion based on her membership in the 
SMA, WISE, and a third organization, the Worldwide Association of Female Professionals (WAOFP). 
In support of her claim, she submits copies of the SMA's "Constitution Bylaws," a screenshot from 
the WAOFP website, and an undated letter confirming her membership in WAOFP. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner was approved for membership in the SMA and WISE in May 
2018, approximately one year after she filed the petition, and it does not document when she was 
admitted as a member of WAOFP. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for 
the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through 
adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Therefore, even if we determined that one or more of these 
1 Previously, the Petitioner has submitted evidence intended to meet the criteria relating to judging the work of others in 
her field and authorship of scholarly articles. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). On appeal, the Petitioner does not 
claim that she meets these criteria or contest the Director's findings that they were not met Therefore, we consider these 
criteria to be waived. See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012) (stating that when a filing party fails 
to appeal an issue addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 
1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. 
Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *I, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned 
as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 6 (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
3 
associat10ns requires outstanding achievements of its members, we could not conclude that the 
Petitioner satisfied this criterion at the time of filing. 
Nevertheless, we note that the SMA's bylaws state that professional membership in the association "is 
open to any individual who wishes to subscribe to the purposes for which the association is formed." 
The Petitioner emphasized that she nominated herself for a "member-at-large" position on the executive 
board of this association and therefore her qualifications underwent additional scrutiny, but the SMA 
bylaws do not support the Petitioner's claim that an SMA member must demonstrate outstanding 
achievements in order to have his or her board nomination accepted. The evidence submitted regarding 
the WAOFP's membership requirements states only that "members have been vetted and thoroughly 
interviewed" and "have demonstrated success in their career pursuits." Finally, the Petitioner has not 
offered supporting evidence explaining the membership requirements for WISE. Based on this limited 
evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that any of these associations require outstanding 
achievements of their members as judged by recognized national or international experts. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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) 
The Petitioner submitted one article that was about her and relating to her work, published by Orlando 
BrazilUSA Magazine. The Director determined that the article did not satisfy this criterion because 
the record reflects that this magazine has a print circulation of only 5,000 copies and is not a 
professional publication, major trade magazine or other major medium. On appeal, the Petitioner 
submits the magazine's media kit which provides information regarding its online presence, including 
figures for e-mail subscribers and online views per month. She also provides comparative figures for 
the Orlando Business Journal, asserts that the two publications have a similar reach, and maintains 
that she met her burden to establish that Orlando BrazilUSA Magazine is "among major trade 
publications." 
The record reflects that the article about the Petitioner was published by Orlando BrazilUSA Magazine 
in c=]2018, more than one year after this petition was filed. Although the Director evaluated the 
evidence under this criterion, we note again that the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing 
through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The Petitioner has not submitted evidence of any 
published materials about her prior to the filing of this petition in May 2017. Accordingly, she did not 
establish that she can satisfy this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have made original contributions 
of major significance in the field. 3 For example, a petitioner may show that her contributions have 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
4 
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 Petitioner claims that she meets this criterion based on her preparation of materials used by FIFA, 
the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) to 
"transfer knowledge for upcoming sport events and new generations of l<rofessionals." For example, 
she indicates that, following the 2014 FIFA World Cup, FIFA' sl department hired her to write 
thei I handbook chapter for the new LOC in Russia, responsible for the 2018 FIFA World Cup. 
She noted that other materials written by her during the FIFA World Cup tournaments cycle are "part 
of thel I projects of FIFA" while documents she prepared for the 2016 Olympics 
and Paralympics are incorporated in a library with more than 30,000 documents available for 
consultation by sports industry professionals, sports federations and students. The Petitioner asserts 
that these materials, which she describes as "presentations, handbooks, manuals, operational plans," 
demonstrate "a great significance and contribution to the major sports entities mentioned ... and to 
the professionals and students in my field." 
The record includes copies of documents that the Petitioner created in her capacity as the._l __ ____. 
I I employed by the organizing committee of the 2016 Olympics and Paralympics, and as the 
I I employed by the FIFA World Cup organizing committee. In support of 
her claim that she made original contributions of major significance, she submitted letters from her 
former supervisors. 
In her letter,I l I I of the 2016 Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic 
Games Organizing Committee, praises the Petitioner's talents, hard work, commitment, 
communication skills, organizational skills, and attention to detail. She describes the Petitioner as "a 
dedicated and competent professional" whose "contributions were valuable to the project." The letter, 
however, does no] support the Petitioner's claim that the published materials she created in her role as 
I _ for the 2016 Rio Olympic Games are regarded as "original contributions" nor does 
support her claim that these documents are of "major significance" in the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner also submitted a letter froml I the Head of~------~ 
I I for FIFA. I I offers similar praise of the Petitioner's professional talents and 
confirms that she was engaged as a consultant "to write one of the handbooks as well as a FIF Al I I I for [sic] the FIFA Club World Cup in Morocco." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director acknowledged and discussed the Petitioner's evidence, 
but noted that it did not establish how she had made original contributions to her field or how such 
contributions remarkably influenced or impacted her field. The Petitioner submitted additional 
testimonial letters with her response to the RFE. While she indicated that they were intended to 
establish her critical role with the 2016 Rio Olympic Games and 2014 FIFA World Cup organizing 
committees, she emphasized that the letters also note her "great contributions" to these projects. 
A letter from former ~ ~ for the 2014 
FIFA World Cup, describes the Petitioner's duties a .... .-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--~~~~~~====== indetail, explains 
how she was "crucial to the success of the event," and states her belief that other sports organizations, 
organizing committees and/or companies would benefit from her "professional contributions" to any 
5 
major event. She does not, however, directly address the Petitioner's published handbooks, briefings 
and materials related to FIFA events and therefore does not offer support for the Petitioner's claim 
that these materials themselves amount to original contributions of major significance in their shared 
field. A letter froml lformer~-----------~ofthe International 
Paralympic Committee, praises and explains in detail the Petitioner's contributions and critical role to 
the Rio Olympics organizing committee, but does not clarify how she made original contributions that 
have gone on to influence the field as a whole. 
Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field 
and its impact on subsequent work add value. 4 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics do not 
add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this 
criterion. 5 The Director determined that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the Petitioner 
had made original contributions of major significance in the field of event management. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in determining that the submitted letters are 
not specific or that they do not articulate the nature of the Petitioner's "original professional work in 
the field of acclaim." 
We acknowledge that the letters submitted, particularly those ofl ~ an~~----~ 
are detailed. As noted, the Director determined that these letters sufficient to establish that the 
Petitioner had served in critical roles for the local organizing committees of both the 2016 Rio Olympic 
Games and the 2014 FIFA World Cup. However, acknowledging that the Petitioner made important 
contributions to the outcomes of these events does not lead to a conclusion that her contributions 
remarkably impacted her field to an extent consistent with "major significance." 
As noted, the Petitioner relies on her written briefin@s, handbooks, manuals and other documentation 
she created in her capacities a~~-----~~ and I at these two events. 
The work she produced was her own "original" work in that the evidence establishes that she was the 
employee responsible for creating these documents as part of her position-related responsibilities. It 
is unclear how the procedures and guidelines she outlined in these documents were novel or different 
when compared to those documented for previous editions of the FIFA World Cup and Olympic 
Games. Further, the fact that it was her original work product was made available in the libraries or 
repositories of FIFA and the IOC for future reference is not sufficient to establish that her work was 
of major significance, absent evidence that the work, for example, provoked widespread commentary 
or influenced others working in the field. 6 The letters from persons who worked with the Petitioner 
on the organizing committees of these events do not comment on the impact or influence of her written 
work and therefore their letters, while detailed, do not establish that she has satisfies all elements of 
the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that her contribution to the management of "mega events" is "in 
and of itself 'original work' given size, significance and impact." While we acknowledge that the 
FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games are significant and impactfol sporting events, this alone is 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
5 Id. at 9. 
6 Id. at 8 (stating that "funded and published work may be original," but "this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that 
the work is of major significance"). 
6 
insufficient to establish that a _______ presentation or I I briefing prepared in the 
context of one particular edition of these events is an "original contribution of major significance" in 
the Petitioner's field. She states that the types of documents she created are part of every Olympic 
and World Cup cycle and that all such documents are retained by the IOC and FIFA for future 
reference. She farther explains that the materials are widely accessible to professionals involved in 
Olympic and FIFA events but she has not established how her own original manuals, handbooks and 
presentations have been highly influential or otherwise of major significance. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) 
The Petitioner claims eligibility under this criterion based on her work performed for the Rio 2016 
Olympic Games and 2014 FIFA World Cup. The Petitioner previously asserted that the nature of 
these events and evidence regarding the scope of the work assigned to her "clearly elucidates that the 
display of [her] work process, design and objectives were ultimately showcased and displayed in the 
qualities of production and directorship" of these venues. 
In determining that the Petitioner did not meet the criterion, the Director noted that the evidence 
reflects that her primary duties related t ~---------------~rather than the 
display of any "artistic elements." The Director also concluded that these events were not "artistic 
exhibitions or showcases." 
On appeal, the Petitioner draws attention to her responsibility for the conception, planning, 
development and execution of thel I Programs I I for the 2014 FIFA World 
Cup Brazil. The Petitioner emphasizes that these programs hosted prominent world leaders and were 
"aimed to showcase the Brazil culture and hospitality," by including regional decor, objects and 
elements, as well as traditional local food. She resubmits al I briefing and associated 
concept development documentation, as well as evidence of the proposal submitted by the Brazilian 
hospitality services company that was ultimately selected to provide the decor and catering for thee=] 
and I !program. 
The evidence establishes that th0briefing, developed to guidel !contractors in 
prepari~eir proposals, mentions these cultural elements. For example, the briefing document notes 
that the LJ area environment should have "a regional flair," "predominant Brazilian decoration," and 
"international cuisine." However, this same document also provides guidelines for all non-cultural 
elements such as I l etc. While it appears that the Petitioner was 
involved in selecting the winning! I the evidence reflects that the artistic concept for 
the decor of the I I areas was developed by that bidder, not by the Petitioner. 
Therefore, even if we agreed with the Petitioner that the0 area of a major international sporting 
event qualifies as an "artistic exhibition or showcase" the evidence does not establish that she created 
the work displayed at the 2014 FIFA World Cup or other events. As she has not established that this 
7 
event was an artistic exhibition or showcase that displayed her own work, she does not meet this 
criterion. 
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 Petitioner has consistently claimed that she meets this criterion based on her earnings received in 
2015 and 2016. 7 At the time of filing, the Petitioner submitted several employment contracts. In the 
RFE, the Director informed her that contracts alone did not provide sufficient evidence of her actual 
earnings and requested evidence, such as her foreign tax documents, to demonstrate her remuneration. 
Further the Director advised that the Petitioner should submit geographical, position-appropriate 
compensation surveys or comparable evidence to demonstrate that her salary or other remuneration is 
high relative to others working in the field. 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE included copies of her Brazilian annual individual income tax 
returns for the years 2015 and 2016. In a statement accompanying the response, the Petitioner stated 
that a "senior event manager" in Brazil earns a median salary ofR$ 7,500 per month or R$ 97,000 per 
year, considerably less than the earnings reported on her tax return. She attributed this median salary 
figure to "data of Brazilian Geography and Statistic Institute (IBGE)," but did not provide supporting 
documentation from this or any other source. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy this criterion, in part, because she submitted "no evidence corroborating" the stated R$97,000 
median salary for her occupation and geographic location. The Petitioner did not address this 
deficiency when she filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider or in the initial appeal of the 
Director's decision dismissing her motion. 
In support of this appeal, the Petitioner submits, for the first time, a geographical compensation survey 
for the occupation of event manager in Rio de Janeiro obtained from Glassdoor. Where, as here, a 
Petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to 
respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
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 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 
7 She has also claimed that she meets this criterion based on her earnings in 2018, subsequent to the filing of the petition. 
Again, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from 
the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Our determination is therefore based 
on evidence that pre-dates the filing of the petition in May 201 7. 
8 
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 that the significance of her 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 section203(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 she 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 her 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. 
9