dismissed EB-1A Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 07, 2025 In Re: 37101834 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a chief financial officer, seeks first preference immigrant 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 that the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria listed at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the 
ten 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) 
(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). 
II. SIGNATURES ON APPEAL 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2) provides that '"[u]nless otherwise specified in this chapter, an 
acceptable signature on a benefit request that is being filed with the USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services] is one that is either handwritten or, for benefit requests filed electronically as 
permitted by the instructions to the form, in electronic format." 1 
USCIS policy explains that a valid signature is "any handwritten mark or sign made by a person" and 
such signature must be made by the person who is the affected party with standing to file an appeal or 
motion to signify that the person "knows of the content of the request and any supporting documents; 
... has reviewed and approves of any information contained in such request and any supporting 
documents; and ... certifies under penalty of perjury that the request and any other supporting 
documents are true and correct." 1 USCIS Policy Manual B.2(8), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual/volume-1-part-b-chapter-2. A person's signature on an immigration form establishes a strong 
presumption that the signer knows its contents and has assented to them, absent evidence of fraud or 
other wrongful acts by another person. Matter of Valdez, 27 l&N Dec. 496, 499 (BIA 2018) (citing 
Thompson v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 638, 647 (6th Cir. 2015); Bingham v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th 
Cir. 2011)). The probative force of a declaration subscribed under penalty of perjury derives from the 
declarant's signature. 
The USCIS Policy Manual provides that in "general, any person requesting an immigration benefit 
must sign their own immigration benefit request, and any other associated documents, before filing it 
with USCIS." 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B.2(C)(1) (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2)). Agency 
policy provides that "[a] signature is valid even if the original signature on the document is 
photocopied, scanned, faxed, or similarly reproduced. Regardless of how it is transmitted to USCIS, 
the copy must be of an original document containing an original handwritten signature, unless 
otherwise specified." 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B.2(8). 
The Form I-290B, Instructions for Notice of Appeal or Motion additionally provide that "If [the] form 
is not signed, or if the signature is not valid, [USCIS] will reject [the] form. See 8 CFR 
1 Because this Form 1-290B was not electronically filed, none of the provisions relating to electronic filings applies in this 
case. We note the Form 1-290B is not a form that is available for parties to file electronically online. Forms Available to 
File Online, USCIS (Mar. 3, 2025), https://www.uscis.gov/file-online/forms-available-to-file-online. 
2 
103.2(a)(7)(ii){A). If USCIS accepts a request for adjudication and determines that it has a deficient 
signature, USCIS may deny the request." The form instructions further require that an individual 
"must properly complete [the] form. USCIS will not accept a stamped or typewritten name in place 
of any signature on this form." 
The instructions for the Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited 
Representative provide: "Validity of Signatures. For Form G-28, USCIS will consider a photocopied, 
faxed, or scanned copy of the original handwritten signature valid for filing purposes. The photocopy, 
fax, or scan must be of the original document containing the handwritten, ink signature." Every form, 
benefit request, or other document must be executed in accordance with the instructions on the form, 
which are incorporated into the regulation requiring its submission. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(1). 
Furthermore, filing requirements for these documents are found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), which 
provides that "[eJach benefit request must be properly completed and filed with all initial evidence 
required by applicable regulations and other USCIS instructions." Therefore, the failure to follow the 
form instructions is tantamount to not complying with the regulation. 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a) requires that the Form G-28 "must be properly completed 
and signed by the petitioner, applicant, or respondent to authorize representation in order for the 
appearance to be recognized by DHS." 
If someone acting on behalf of a petitioner--to include someone from their attorney's office--performs 
the function of electronically applying a signature to a Form 1-290B, that act nullifies the filing because 
it is not a valid signature, and it is not properly signed under the penalty of perjury. Ultimately, even 
if a filing party presents a photocopy of a Form 1-290B to USCIS, that photocopied form must contain 
a filing party's original signature because "[a]n applicant or petitioner must sign his or her benefit 
request." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). 
Although the "regulations do not require that the person signing submit an 'original' or 'wet ink' 
signature on a petition, application, or other request to USCIS," we do "not accept signatures created 
by a typewriter, word processor, stamp, auto-pen, or similar device." 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
at B.2(B), B.2(A) (stating that"[ e]xcept as otherwise specifically authorized, a benefit requestor must 
personally sign his or her own request before filing it with USCIS"). USCIS has implemented these 
regulations and attendant policies "to maintain the integrity of the immigration benefit system and 
validate the identity of benefit requestors." 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B.2{A). 
Without the Petitioner's actual and personal signature as the declarant, the declaration under the 
penalty of perjury on the Form 1-290B has no evidentiary force. Moreover, if we determine that a 
benefit request does not contain a valid or a proper signature, we reject, deny, or dismiss it without 
providing an opportunity to correct or cure a deficient signature. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(ii){A). 
In this case, the appellate Form 1-290B contains an image of a signature under Part 4, 4 in the 
Petitioner's signature block. Upon review, we conclude that this is not an original signature. First, 
we observe that the Petitioner's signature on the Forms 1-290B and G-28 are identical and 
indistinguishable, to include each line, loop, slant, and spacing. Additionally, they appear to be 
computer generated by a word processor given the style and exactness of the letters. The penmanship 
3 
of the lettering is extremely precise, and the signatures perfectly align with lines of the signature boxes. 
In reviewing the original l-140A petition filing, the Petitioner's signatures contained on the Form 1-
140 under Part 8, 6.a., Form G-28, the Petitioner's passport, and the certificates of translation, do not 
match the signatures submitted in conjunction with the appeal on Forms l-290B and G-28. The 
signatures appearing in the l-140A petition appear to be handwritten and are visually wholly distinct 
from the signatures contained in the appeal filing. For example, the signatures in the l-140A petition 
appear to only contain the Petitioner's first name with a large 'P' followed by an 'a', and then 
indistinguishable following letters. They slant up and do not align with the line of the signature box. 
In comparison, the signatures in the appeal filing consist of the Petitioner's first and last names in a 
straight line, with each letter discernable, precisely lining up with the signature box. 
Because of the above factors, we conclude that it is more likely than not that the signatures on the 
Forms l-290B and G-28 are not valid signatures as required by the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(a)(7)(i i)(A). Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied her burden of proof, or the preponderance 
standard of proof, that the signature on the Form l-290B or the Form G-28 are valid signatures. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375 n.7 (explaining that the filing party bears the burden of proof, 
and that the preponderance standard does not relieve them from satisfying regulatory requirements, 
such as providing a "valid signature"). 
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the record preponderantly reflects that the Petitioner's 
signatures on the Form l-290B and the Form G-28 were electronically applied to the forms, and they 
are not her "original handwritten signature[s]," as USCIS policy requires. 1 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at B.2(B). If the record does not establish that the Petitioner personally signed the Form l-290B 
and the Form G-28, we cannot recognize the appellate forms to have been properly filed by an affected 
party with legal standing in these proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(iii)(B). Nor can we decide 
that the Petitioner properly filed this appeal. 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B.2(B). As a result, 
we are dismissing the appeal in part on these factors. 
Ill. IMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established her receipt of a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the regulatory criteria. The Petitioner claims that 
she meets five of the regulatory criteria, namely that she has been a member of associations in the field 
which require outstanding achievements, has published material about herself relating to her work, 
has composed scholarly articles in the field, has performed in a leading or critical role for a 
distinguished organization or establishment, and has commanded a high salary or other significantly 
high renumeration in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (vi), (viii), and (ix). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did establish that she has performed in a leading or critical 
role for a distinguished organization or establishment but did not meet the requirements for the other 
claimed criteria. Upon de nova review, we agree. 2 
2 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
1. "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). 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they are or were a member of an 
association in their field of claimed extraordinary ability. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(B). In addition, they must show that the association requires that their members have 
outstanding achievements, and that those achievements were judged to be outstanding by recognized 
national and international experts in their disciplines or fields. Id. Associations may have multiple 
levels of membership, but the petitioner must demonstrate that the level they belong to requires 
recognized national or international experts to judge the person as having attained outstanding 
achievements in the field for which classification is sought. Id. 
The Petitioner avers that she satisfies this criterion based on her membership in several associations, 
namely the Chartered Financial Analyst Institute (CFA Institute), the National Institute of Public 
Administration (INAP), the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries (ASPPA), the 
International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the Financial Executives International 
(FEI), the Financial Planning Association of Houston (FPA), and the College of Metropolitan 
Economists of I I 
While the Petitioner provided general information about the various associations and proof of her 
memberships, she did not provide evidence sufficient to establish that these organizations required 
that their members have outstanding achievements or that she was classified in a membership category 
requiring such achievement. For example, for the ASPPA, the Petitioner provided proof of her 
membership, documentation on the organization, and a copy of the membership application. However, 
she did not submit evidence that the association required its members to have outstanding 
achievements. The membership application requests various information but does not mention what 
information is required for membership. Conversely, the Petitioner did provide information about 
requirements for the FPA. Nevertheless, the evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner's level of 
membership, Allied Professional, requires only that she work in a role critical to the financial planning 
profession and pay the required dues. Requiring only that an individual work in a particular field and 
pay dues is not sufficient to establish that the association requires outstanding achievement of its 
members. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B) (providing examples of outstanding 
achievement and stating that requirements that may lead to a conclusion that the membership is not 
based on outstanding achievement include: a level of education, years of experience in a particular 
field, the payment of a fee, and subscribing to an association's publications). 
In the case of the ICMA, the Petitioner gave evidence of the organization's membership requirements. 
Nonetheless, the organization has different categories of membership, some of which definitively do 
not require outstanding achievement, such as affiliate members, who are "[a]ny person that does not 
qualify for Full membership." Even if we were to find thatsome of the membership categories required 
outstanding achievement, we cannot determine the Petitioner's membership level based on the 
evidence provided. The email confirming her membership labels her only as a "new member." The 
membership profile appears to denote that her membership group is "Affiliate;" however, the size and 
5 
clarity of the typeface make it difficult to ascertain the word. The evidence regarding the other 
associations proffered by the Petitioner all have the same issues. The Petitioner did not provide 
evidence sufficient to establish that these organizations required that their members have outstanding 
achievements or that she was classified in a membership category requiring such achievement. Thus, 
the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that she meets the requirements for this 
criterion. 
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." 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i ii). 
This criterion requires "[p]ublished 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." 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). "Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and 
any necessary translation." Id. 
When adjudicating this requirement, USCIS first determines whether the published material relates to 
a petitioner and their specific work in the field. 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, F.(2)(8)(1). Evidence 
may include copies of print or online newspaper or magazine articles, popular or academic journal 
articles, books, textbooks, similar publications, or a transcript of professional or major audio or video 
coverage of a petitioner and their work. Id. The Agency then determines whether a publication 
qualifies as aprofessional, major trade, or major media publication. Id. When evaluating professional, 
major trade, or major media publications, relevant factors include: for professional and major trade 
publications, the intended audience; and, for major trade publications and other major media, the 
publications' relative circulation, readership, or viewership. Id. 
The Petitioner presented four items in support of this criterion. The first, _____ 
___________________ __, is a report co-authored by the Petitioner 
regarding the state's retirement system. The Petitioner is the author, not the subject of the report, and 
it is not about the Petitioner. 
The remaining pieces are not sufficiently about the Petitioner, relating to her work. ____ 
isis a book in which the author makes a single citation to a report written 
by the Petitioner. This singular citation is not sufficient to meet the criterion's requirement that the 
book be about the Petitioner, relating to her work. The two other articles in the Houston Chronicle 
and the Dallas Morning News, respectively, are also not adequate to constitute published material as 
outlined by the regulations. Both articles discuss different reports co-authored by the Petitioner and 
provide quotes from the Petitioner's co-author on the reports. The Dallas Morning News article states 
that the report has a co-author but never states the Petitioner's name. The Houston Chronicle article 
names the Petitioner as the co-author in one sentence. These brief mentions do not make the articles 
about the Petitioner. Articles that are not about a petitioner, do not fulfi 11 the regulatory criterion. See 
Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (articles about the Iranian Table Tennis 
Team which only briefly mentioned the person were not about him); see also Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 
2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding 
a show are not about the actor). Thus, the Petitioner has not met the requirements to establish this 
criterion. 
6 
3. "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). 
To meet this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that her salary or remuneration is high relative 
to the compensation paid to others in the field. To determine whether a person's compensation is high 
relative to others, USCIS will consider comparative evidence, such as geographical or position­
appropriate compensation surveys. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(1). Broad 
descriptions that include multiple occupations may not provide an accurate comparison to others in 
the field. Id. 
The Petitioner claims eligibility for this criterion based on her position as the Chief Financial Officer 
of In support, she presented a letter of employment verification, 
comparable salary figures from a few websites for an economist, pay stubs froml Ibank 
statements, and copies of her 2022 and 2023 W-2 Wage and Tax Statements froml I 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not qualify for this criterion as the evidence presented 
concerned the salary range for an economist, while the role fulfilled by the Petitioner was as a chief 
financial officer. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that her position should be described as an 
economist. However, she has not submitted adequate evidence to justify this. See Matter of Chawathe, 
25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. 
According to the letter from I I Chief Talent Officer at the 
Petitioner's role as Chief Financial Officer encompassed "overseeing all financial operations and the 
entire finance team." The letter from Commissioner tori I 
further states that the Petitioner managed the Precinct's "financial portfolio, overseeing various funds, 
... capital projects, ... and provides counsel on the $1.2 billion in total County-wide capital project 
bonds" and overseeing the team of individuals within the finance division. 
In comparison, the evidence provided by the Petitioner from CareerOneStop states that economists, 
"[c]onduct research, prepare reports, or formulate plans to address economic problems related to the 
production and distribution of goods and services or monetary and fiscal policy." This description is 
not substantially similar with the responsibilities described by the Petitioner's employer. They 
describe the Petitioner's chief executive position as one involving the management of the 
organization's budgets, planning for its financial future, and the oversight of employees. Conversely, 
the evidence provided by the Petitioner states that an economist addresses economic issues by 
engaging in research and composing reports on topics. It is the Petitioner's burden to establish her 
eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 375-76. Based 
on the record provided, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient documentation that she meets the 
requirements for the criterion. 
We acknowledge that the Petitioner has previously worked in O-1A status, and that this classification 
is reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. However, 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. Moreover, each petition is separate and independent and must be 
adjudicated on its own merits, under the corresponding statutory and regulatory provisions. 
7 
The Petitioner claimed eligibility for five criteria. She established eligibility for one criterion. As 
such, her inability to satisfy the three outlined criteria means that she cannot meet the required three 
criteria necessary to progress to a final merits determination. As the identified reasons for dismissal 
are dis positive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve arguments concerning 
the remaining criteria See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that "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 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The 
appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. It is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility 
for the immigration benefit sought. The Petitioner has not met that burden here. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8