dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 06, 2024 In Re: 35282842 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based first preference (EB-I) immigrant classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )( 1 )(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This 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 and dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent 
motion to reconsider, concluding that he had satisfied only two of ten initial evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), of which he must meet at least three. The matter came before us on appeal 
from the dismissal of the motion, and we determined that the Petitioner met a third initial criterion. 
We therefore withdrew the Director's decision and remanded the matter for the Director to render a 
final merits determination in keeping with the framework set forth in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 
1115 (9th Cir. 20 I0) ( 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). 
The Director again denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied at least three 
of the initial evidentiary criteria, he did not show sustained national or international acclaim and 
demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. We 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before us on motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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, provided that the individual seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and the individual'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. 1 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F .3d at 1115 ( 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). 2 
Furthermore, a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies 
these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested benefit. Because the scope of a 
motion is limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these 
proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. Because the Petitioner had 
demonstrated that he satisfied three of the initial criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we evaluated the 
totality of the evidence, including the evidence submitted in support of the three criteria he satisfied 
as well as the other criteria he claimed to meet, in the context of the final merits determination. In our 
final merits determination, we explained that the Petitioner had not shown the significance of his work 
is indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or 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, we determined that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated he has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
1 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (providing that objectively meeting the 
regulatory criteria in part one alone does not establish that an individual meets the requirements for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act). 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (instructing that USCTS officers should consider the petition 
in its entirety to determine eligibility according to the standard - sustained national or international acclaim and the 
achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise, indicating that the person is one of that small percentage who 
has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor). 
2 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the preponderance of the evidence shows that he is one of that 
small percentage who have risen to the top of their field of endeavor and that he has sustained national 
or international claim, with achievements that have been recognized in his field of expertise. 
With respect to his participation as a judge of the work of others, the Petitioner asserts that our 
assessment of his service as a reviewer on a panel judging Ph.D. theses (five instances from 2003 until 
2010) at his alma mater, ___________________ _, was in error. He argues 
that "the Ph.D. Law degree is the highest possible academic degree a lawyer can obtain" and therefore 
his participation as a reviewer for Ph.D. dissertation committees atl Ishows he "has sustained 
acclaim as a professional at the very top of his field." 
An evaluation of the significance of his judging experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence 
is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this highly restrictive classification. See 
Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22.3 At issue here is the extent to which the Petitioner's service as a 
reviewer on a panel judging Ph.D. theses is commensurate with sustained national or international 
acclaim or a level of expertise placing him among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 4 The Petitioner, however, has not established we erred in concluding that that his judging 
experience did not place him among the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). Nor has he demonstrated we erred in determining that his participation as a judge did 
not contribute to a finding that he has a career of acclaimed work in the field or that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. 101-723 at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act. The Petitioner did not establish, for instance, that he garnered wide attention from the field based 
on his work as a thesis reviewer at his alma mater. Nor did the Petitioner establish that his work as a 
Ph.D. thesis reviewer resulted in or reflects his sustained national or international acclaim in the field, 
was recognized outside ofl Ior places him among that small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor. 
Regarding his authorship of two law books and a law book chapter between 1995 and 2005, the 
Petitioner argues that we erred in concluding that his published work was insufficient to demonstrate 
that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. He contends that his 
"published work has not only received interest and attention, but has been considered an original 
contribution of major impact in the legal field." The Petitioner further claims that USCIS "never 
requested additional evidence to corroborate the importance of the Petitioner's publications. Had it 
done so the Petitioner would have provided additional evidence." The Director's August 2020 request 
for evidence (RFE), however, listed the types of documents a petitioner may choose to submit to show 
the significance of their original contributions, including "[ o ]bj ective, documentary evidence that the 
major significant contribution has provoked widespread public commentary in the field or has been 
widely cited." Additionally, in the October 2023 decision denying the petition, the Director 
specifically explained: 
3 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l) (stating that an individual's participation should be evaluated 
to determine whether it was indicative of being one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 The Petitioner did not present documentation indicating specific requirements for selection of its reviewers. 
For instance, judging theses for a university that selects its reviewers based on subject matter expertise would not provide 
strong support for the petition. because possessing expertise in a given field is a considerably lower threshold than having 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
3 
The Petitioner is required to demonstrate that the research and publishing career is 
sustained and that the impact of the research has risen to the level where it places the 
Petitioner at the very top of the field. 
Evidence such as citation records can establish that the Petitioner's publications have 
been cited by researchers and that the impact of the publications has risen to such a 
level that it places the Petitioner at the very top of the field. The Petitioner submitted 
a letter froml !Justice of theI I 
I I as evidence of what the Petitioner's counsel calls "major recognition" of his 
2003 book. Though the letter asserts that the book ".... provoked widespread 
commentary among legal scholars and has been cited extensively as an authoritative 
source in academic discussions as well as in legal cases," the record does not contain 
evidence that sufficiently supports the assertion. The record does not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's overall publishing career or experience has generated a level of impact 
and recognition that, together with all the other evidence, places the Petitioner among 
the small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
Petitioner did not submit sufficient objective documentary evidence to establish that 
his publication record has garnered a level of attention that reflects a "career of 
acclaimed work" and sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner's RFE response and appellate submission offered two opportunities for him to provide 
additional evidence to corroborate the importance of his publications and their contribution in the legal 
field. Our appellate decision reiterated that publication of one's work does not automatically place an 
individual at the top of their field. 5 We explained that the citation history or other evidence of the 
influence of his publications can be an indicator to determine the impact and recognition that his work 
has had on the field and whether such influence has been sustained. For example, numerous 
independent citations for an article authored by the Petitioner may provide solid evidence that his work 
has been recognized and that others have been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final 
merits determination stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. 
On motion, the Petitioner repeats his earlier claim that the influence of his published work is evidenced 
by a letter he initially submitted from Justice IJustice ofthel I I I and founder of theI IJustice I I asserted the 
Petitioner's book ____________ (10B 2003), "has introduced a new legal 
classification involving the taxation of electronic commercial transactions, which provoked 
widespread commentary among legal scholars, and has been cited extensively as an authoritative 
source in academic discussions as well as in legal cases." 
5 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l) (providing that publications should be evaluated to determine 
whether they were indicative of being one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor 
and enjoying sustained national or international acclaim). 
4 
However, as indicated in our appellate decision, the Petitioner has not provided corroborating evidence 
showing that any of his authored works were used as a reference or that his works have been widely 
cited or utilized, and therefore sufficient to demonstrate a level of interest in his field commensurate 
with sustained national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Further, the 
Petitioner did not show the application of his written work by the field and that it represents attention 
at a level consistent with being among small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner, for instance, did not compare his authored works to others in his field 
of endeavor that are recognized as already being at the top in his field. 
While the Petitioner presented evidence showing that he has authored two law books and a law book 
chapter between 1995 and 2005, he has not demonstrated that this publication record is consistent with 
having a "career of acclaimed work" or qualifies for this "very high standard." See H.R. Rep. No. at 
59 and 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991 ). In addition, he did not establish that his authorship 
of three published materials is reflective of being among the small percentage at the very top of his 
field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Further, the Petitioner did not show that he has sustained national 
or international acclaim as his most recent published material, a book chapter, was last published in 
2005. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated we erred 
in concluding that his published work was insufficient to demonstrate that he has sustained national 
or international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
As it relates to his position as a managing partner for '--------------------'I I since 1989, our appellate decision acknowledged that the Petitioner has performed in a leading 
role for the law firm. 6 The Petitioner asserts on motion that our assessment of the relevance of the 
Petitioner's leading and critical roles for distinguished organizations was based on an incorrect 
application of law and policy. He points out that was recognized by Corporate INTL Magazine 
with a 2020 Global A ward for and 
that his firm was ranked among the top 20 full-service law firms from 2008 to 2015 by _
I Iwhich contribute to a finding that his firm has enjoyed a 
distinguished reputation. The Petitioner also highlights the letter from Justice I I and a letter 
from I I vice president of the board of legal and legislative affairs of the I I 
With regard to the Petitioner's previous employment with other entities, Justice I I letter 
indicates that based upon the Petitioner's "stature as a leader in his field" he was appointed to serve 
as the first coordinator of the Post-Graduate and Extension courses ofI I 
between 2011 and 2014. Mr.I I states that I I supported the Petitioner's appointment to serve 
as Judge of the (2004-2005) and Judge of the I 
I I(2006-2008). Our appellate decision explained that the letters from Justicel 
and Mr. I I did not address how the Petitioner's positions were leading or critical to these 
organizations, nor did they provide details of how the Petitioner achieved national or international 
acclaim based on these positions. Apart from these letters, we noted that the record lacks other 
independent evidence, such as news articles or other relevant materials, demonstrating that the field 
has widely recognized the Petitioner's specific roles or contributions to these employers in a manner 
that evidences a career of acclaimed work. We concluded that the evidence did not show that his roles 
6 This role is indicative of some degree of acclaim in his field. 
5 
and achievements at 
are at a level that places him among "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner's motion 
does not explain how our discussion of this evidence was erroneous. 
Beyond the three criteria that the Petitioner satisfied, our appellate decision considered additional 
documentation in the record in determining that the totality of the evidence did not demonstrate the 
Petitioner's eligibility. We concluded that the Petitioner's evidence neither fulfills the requirements 
of any further evidentiary criteria nor contributes to an overall finding that he has sustained national 
or international acclaim and is among the small percentage of the top of his field. 
As it relates to his claimed original contributions in the legal field, the Petitioner provided letters of 
support from several individuals. He argues on motion that his "achievements have been considered 
of major significance in his field." We explained in our appellate decision that the letters of support 
generally summarized the Petitioner's professional accomplishments and work history. The letters, 
however, did not explain how the Petitioner's achievements have been considered by the field to be 
of major significance. Moreover, they did not contain detailed information showing the unusual 
influence or high impact his contributions have had on the overall field. For instance, in his letter, 
Justice Iprovides that in 2013 the Petitioner successfully argued a case before the which 
resulted in a portion of a 1994 law being declared unconstitutional that had required the Petitioner's 
clients, rural employers, to pay a social security contribution from revenues from the sale of rural 
products. Although Justice I I asserts that the Petitioner "exercised significant influence in the 
Brazilian legal field" because the holding in the case applies "to all 26 Brazilian States and the Federal 
District," he does not address, for example, whether references to that case are indicative of its 
significant impact in the field, nor does his letter sufficiently support the assertion that the Petitioner 
is considered among that small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor or how he has 
garnered sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner asks on motion that we reconsider our determination based on Justice! Istanding 
in the field, but does not articulate how our analysis of his letter and the additional letters of support 
is based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. The recommendation letters offered by 
the Petitioner do not contain sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include 
adequate corroborating evidence, to show that he is viewed by the overall field, rather than by a 
solicited few, as being among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) 
Regarding published material, the Petitioner states on motion that articles in Valor, 
Bloombergnews.com, and Washington Post show that he has sustained national or international 
acclaim at the very top of his field. In our appellate decision, we noted that he provided copies of five 
articles. Two of those articles, published in the print version of the Brazilian publication Valor in 
2006 and 2009, do not identify an author of the material. 7 The remaining articles were not about the 
Petitioner relating to his work but were about recent trends in the field. 8 For example, a 2016 article 
7 The inclusion of the author is not optional but a regulatory requirement. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
8 The language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires "[p]]ublished material about the alien." See, e.g., 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, No. 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ, 2008 WL 10697512, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2008) (upholding a 
finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). 
6 
from Bloombergnews.com about Brazilian investors having bid up stocks in ant1c1pation of the 
country's recovery from recession, quotes the Petitioner, among several financial advisors, who opines 
that "[c]lients are looking at assets, looking at concessions that are cheap." A 2015 Washington Post 
article titled uotes the Petitioner 
who states, 
____________________ The Petitioner also provided a 2003 article 
from Valor which quotes him as confirming the ouster of the firm of from 
the legal consulting field and his firm's acquisition of "42 professionals." 
Our appellate decision indicated the Petitioner had not shown that the aforementioned level of media 
attention was consistent with the sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly 
restrictive classification. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. We concluded the Petitioner also did 
not show that his overall press coverage is indicative of a level of success consistent with being among 
"that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Moreover, we determined the Petitioner did not establish that the limited media reporting reflects a 
"career of acclaimed work in the field" or a "very high standard . . . to present more extensive 
documentation than that required." See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. The Petitioner 
does not articulate how our determination regarding his media coverage is based on an incorrect 
application of law or users policy. 
The Petitioner also claims on motion that our assessment of his remuneration was based on an incorrect 
application of law or users policy. The record reflects that he received total compensation of 
R$10,713,428 in 2015 (taxable income of R$55,965 and non-taxable, profit-sharing income of 
R$10,657,463) as managing partner at his law firm. As evidence that his earnings are high relative to 
the compensation paid to others working in the field, the Petitioner provided 2020 salary data for 
attorneys in Brazil from Salaryexplorer.com and Payscale.com. Because the salary data from 2020 is 
not contemporaneous with the year for which the Petitioner has documented his earnings (2015), he 
has not shown that the former offers a proper comparison with his compensation. Further, the 
information from Payscale.com states: "Individuals Reporting: 6 - Based on 6 salary profiles (last 
updated Jan 17 2020)." 9 
Our appellate decision agreed with the Director that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that he had 
earned a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to similarly employed 
workers. 10 Specifically, the Petitioner's position of managing partner at indicates both a different 
and a higher job classification than an attorney. The Petitioner's position contains further job duties 
and responsibilities than an attorney, reflecting a managerial position. 
9 The burden is on the Petitioner to establish the accuracy and reliability of the comparative earnings data. When evaluating 
whether a comparison between an individual's documented remuneration and the remuneration in the survey is accurate, 
USCTS considers "the validity of the survey. Some websites provide user-reported salary data, which may not be a valid 
comparison if,for example, too few users reported their salaries, or the data is otherwise not credible or reliable." See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
10 The petitioner submitted evidence that combines both salary and remuneration. The language of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix) makes a distinction between salary and remuneration. A salary must be "high" and other remuneration 
must be "significantly high." While the regulatory language at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) allows for evidence of "other 
significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field," the Petitioner did not provide evidence 
showing that his profit-sharing compensation is "significantly high" compared to other managing partners. 
7 
The Petitioner has not shown that he has received a high salary or other significantly high remuneration 
in relation to other managing partners in his field. See Matter ofPrice, 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); Grimson 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). Because the Petitioner did not provide sufficient 
evidence demonstrating the salaries or remuneration of other managing partners, he has not established 
that he has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services in relation 
to others in the field. 
While the Petitioner argues on motion that his total compensation is considerably higher that the 
figures reported for attorneys by Salaryexplorer.com, the record does not include supporting evidence 
that would allow synchronous comparison between his total remuneration and that of other managing 
partners in his geographic area. Therefore, the evidence does not establish that he receives total 
remuneration that is "significantly high" or that his earnings are comparable to those of individuals at 
the very top of the field. Nor has the Petitioner shown that his earnings record after 2015 is indicative 
of"sustained national or international acclaim." 11 See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The Petitioner has not shown we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy in determining the totality 
of the evidence did not show that he has sustained national or international acclaim and that he is 
among the small percentage at 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). Considering the petition in its entirety and the Petitioner's arguments 
on motion, we conclude that the record, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the 
Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our appellate decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or USCIS policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the 
time of the decision. Consequently, we have no basis for reconsideration of our decision. 
Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore 
remains dismissed, and his underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
11 See generally 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(A)(l) (stating that such acclaim must be maintained and providing 
Black's Law Dictionary's definition of "sustain" is "to support or maintain, especially over a long period of time ... To 
persist in making (an effort) over a long period of time"). 
8