dismissed EB-1A Case: General Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4699219 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 18, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a general management executive, 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 satisfied 
only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1) 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 tenn "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 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 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates emplo
7
ent with I I as a partner in Latin America and as 
I I for I J, a division ofl ~ 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). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled one initial evidentiary 
criterion, leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On appeal, the Petitioner argues that 
she meets five additional criteria. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we conclude that 
the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three 
criteria. 
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). 
The Petitioner did not claim eligibility for this criterion before the Director. However, on appeal, she 
argues that she meets this criterion based on her membership with the International Project 
Management Association (IPMA) and the Central Florida Brazilian American Chamber of Commerce 
(CFBACC). 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 
As it relates to IPMA, the Petitioner presented a letter from~----------~ of IPMA 
Brazil, who claimed that IPMA's board of directors "shall be composed of individuals who have 
demonstrated significant highly [sic] achievements in business, exceptional education, the professions 
and/or public service." In addition, I I indicated that board members should have 
1 See the Petitioner's resume submitted at the initial filing of the petition. 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (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). 
2 
extensive and relevant leadership experience, at least an undergraduate degree, international 
experience, corporate governance, and the highest moral and ethical character. Moreover, D ~---___.I stated that he "strongly nominated her because of her daily involvement that goes above 
and beyond the call of duty." 
In his letter, howeverJ ldid not elaborate or define IPMA's meaning of "significant[ly] 
high[] achievements" to show that it meets the regulatory requirement of"outstanding achievements." 
Moreover, althoughl I referenced IPMA's by-laws, the Petitioner did not present them 
to support the letter's claims. Moreover, while the Petitioner submits evidence regarding the 
background and mission of IPMA, the documentation does not indicate the requirements for IPMA 
board membership. 3 Here, the Petitioner did not establish that IPMA board membership requires 
outstanding achievements as required by this regulatory criterion. Moreover, the Petitioner did not 
show that the other requirements of education, work experience, and character traits represent 
outstanding accomplishments. 4 Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that recognized 
national or international experts judge IPMA board membership. In fact, according to D I I the IPMA board is "nominated and elected." Thus, recognized national or international 
experts do not judge IPMA board membership rather than based on an election system. 
Regarding CFBACC, she provides a letter from~ ________ ___.of CFBACC, who stated 
that the Petitioner has been "a member of this Chamber of Commerce since 11/1/2018 and on 
11/28/2018 was elected as a new Board members [sic] to serve CFBACC in 2019." However, the 
Petitioner filed the initial petition in June 2018. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility 
requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing and continuing 
through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Therefore, the Petitioner's membership with 
CFBACC will not be considered on appeal. 
Notwithstanding the above, according to CFBACC's bylaws submitted by the Petitioner, "[i]ndividual 
membership shall be available to individuals expressing an interest in the Chamber." Hence, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that expressing an interest in CFBACC is tantamount to an outstanding 
achievements. Moreover, similar to IPMA, "[t]he Board of Directors of the Chamber shall be 
comprised of a total of thirteen (13) elected directors." Accordingly, CFBACC board membership is 
based on an election rather than outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show that she satisfies this criterion. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (stating that the level of membership afforded to the alien 
must show in order to obtain that level of membership, the alien was judged by recognized national or international experts 
as having attained outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought). 
4 Id. at 7 (instructing that relevant factors that may lead a conclusion that the alien's memberships in the associations were 
not based on outstanding achievements in the field include, but are not limited to, instances where the alien's membership 
was based solely on a level of education or years of experience in a pa1iicular field). 
3 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
Again, the Petitioner did not claim eligibility for this criterion before the Director. On appeal, she 
contends that she "assessed, evaluated and provided a judgment to companies in the form of reports 
regarding hundreds of high-level executive candidates upon request of large corporations." This 
regulatory criterion requires a petitioner to show that she has acted as a judge of the work of others in 
the same or an allied field of specialization. 5 
She submits a I !Report" for three job candidates, an "Interview Binder" for a job description 
and candidates' reports, and a "Candidate Profile." However, the Petitioner has not sufficiently shown 
that she participated as a judge of the work of others consistent with this regulatory criterion. Rather, 
the evidence supplied by the Petitioner indicates that she prepared summaries based on a 
"methodology" and presented them to employers for them to decide whether the job vacancies should 
be filled by the candidates. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate her designation as a judge, 
nor did she establish that she actually judged the job candidates. Here, the Petitioner did not establish 
that her reports involved her participation as a judge of the work of others. Without farther 
documentation, her evidence regarding the preparation and summarization of reports is insufficient to 
meet this criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that she fulfills 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 the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. 6 For 
example, a petitioner may show that her contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. 
The Petitioner provides "a sample methodology" claiming that it "applied to a case study for the 
insurance industry." While the evidence reflects a presentation relating to expected talent trends in 
the insurance industry for the next five years, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the presentation 
significantly impacted her field in a major way. Publications and presentations are not sufficient under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." See Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. Moreover, the Petitioner 
did not show the major significance of the "proposed methodology" discussed in the presentation. She 
did not, for example, establish the major influence of her methodology beyond the audience members. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
4 
Moreover, the Petitioner argues that her previously submitted recommendation letters from D ~----~I and I I "clearly show that the program developed by [her] extraordinary 
ability has been implemented by some of the world's leading companies which span various industries 
such as Aerospace and Defense." Although the letters praise the Petitioner for her "systematic and 
strategic methodology" and discussed how she achieved success in recruiting talent to fill positions, 
they did not elaborate on how her methodology has been of major significance in the overall field 
beyond the companies that utilized her contracted services. 7 For instanceJ ~ broadly claimed 
that the Petitioner's "new method, directly affected the productivity of the business, at [sic] a whole, 
and reshaped industry standards and parameters." Here, I I did not provide specific 
information explaining how the Petitioner's method impacted the greater field beyond an unnamed 
business. While the record contains other letters sufficiently showing that she performed in critical 
roles for specific organizations satisfying the regulation at C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), a separate and 
distinct criterion, they do not demonstrate that she has made original contributions of major 
significance in the larger field. 
Furthermore, I I speculates on the potential influence of the Petitioner's methodology and on 
the possibility of being majorly significant at some point in the future. For examplej I asserted 
that her methodology "will give benefit to [the] United States ... that could promote economic 
growth," [a]ssessing the potential benefit for the US industry, and its economy ... I would endorse 
that US is expected to benefit from her, in the future," and she "will prove to be crucial in promoting 
revenue growth in organizations she assists." While I I indicates promise in the Petitioner's 
work, he did not demonstrate how her methodology already qualifies as a contribution of major 
significance in the field, rather than prospective, potential impacts. The significant nature of her 
methodology to the greater field has yet to be determined, measured, or established. 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual 
influence or high impact her methodology has had on the overall field. Letters that specifically 
articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 8 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language 
do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting 
this criterion. 9 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 17 5 6, Inc. v. The 
US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
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. 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 8-9. 
9 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff"d in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
5 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y 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 contends that she provided evidence "clearly showing [that she] has commanded a high 
salary when comparing to other Human Resource Specialists (Recruiters) in Brazil." In order to meet 
this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that the Beneficiary's salary or remuneration is high 
relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. 10 
At the outset, the Petitioner offers and references her response to the Director's request for evidence. 
However, a review of that response reflects that she made numerous unsupported assertions. 
Specifically, the Petitioner claimed to quote various websites and other sources without providing the 
printed screenshots or source material. Likewise, the Petitioner's response contained self-compiled 
tables with figures and statistics; however, she did not submit evidence to corroborate her assertions. 
Because the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence, her uncorroborated claims lack probative, 
evidentiary value. 
Moreover, the Petitioner submits a letter fror I arl d 
who stated that the Petitioner "is a Partner,_ I andl !at I 1 ! a 
I !Company." In addition,! f indicated that the Petitioner ""oined the company 
in March 2011, and in December 2014 was promoted toL_ ___ --r------ 7 " Finally, 
b O I listed her gross payroll for each month in 2018 from and I I 
The Petitioner also presents "Consultant Bonus Calculation" from 2018 for I I 
andl I 
Although the Petitioner argues that she commands a high salary compared to other "Human Resource 
Specialists (Recruiters)" based on her employment with I I and I , , l the 
record indicates that she does not earn a salary as a human resource specialist at either company. 
Instead, the Petitioner receives compensation as a "Partner" and "Head"; therefore, she must show that 
her earnings are high compared to other partners and heads. Although she likens her salary to those 
of human resource specialists, she did not show that she commands a high salary "in relation to others 
in the field," such as other partners or heads in similar companies in Brazil. See Matter of Price, 20 
I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's earnings versus other 
PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th 
Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a comparison to others 
in the field); Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's 
salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) 
( comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). Even if we were to 
compare her salary to other human resource specialists in Brazil, she did not submit supporting, 
independent evidence of those salaries. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her 
bonuses were significantly high in relation to others. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that she meets this criterion. 
10 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
6 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that although the Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied only one evidentiary 
criterion, she does not meet any additional criteria on appeal regarding to memberships, judging, 
contributions, and high salary. While she claims eligibility for one additional criterion on appeal, 
relating to published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), we need not reach this additional 
ground. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue. 11 Accordingly, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. 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 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 she 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). Although the Petitioner has shown 
experience, the record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing that she is among the upper 
echelon in her field. 
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. 
11 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like comts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
7