dismissed EB-1A Case: Logistics Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. I0, 2025 In Re: 35772707 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a logistics consulting executive, requests classification under the employment-based, 
first-preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with "extraordinary ability." See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(l)(A). Successful 
petitioners for U.S. permanent residence in this category must demonstrate "sustained national or 
international acclaim" and extensively document recognition of their achievements in their fields. 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A)(i) of the Act. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that, contrary 
to the Act, the Petitioner did not demonstrate his intent to continue working in his field in the United 
States or that his U.S. work would substantially benefit the country. The Director also found that, 
contrary to regulations, the Petitioner did not meet any of the ten initial evidentiary requirements for 
the requested category - three less than needed for a final merits determination. On appeal, the 
Petitioner contends that the Director disregarded and misinterpreted evidence. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christa 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that he established his intent to continue working in his field in the United States 
and that his work would substantially benefit the country. But, because he has not met the requisite 
number of evidentiary criteria, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that they: 
• Have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• Seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Through their work, substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" means expertise commensurate with "one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Evidence of 
extraordinary ability must demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, international 
recognized award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary criteria. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 1 
If a petitioner meets either evidentiary standard and the requirements at section 203(b )( 1 )( A )(ii), (iii) 
of the Act, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must then make a final merits 
determination. To merit approval, the record - as a whole - must establish a petitioner's sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognized achievements placing them among the small 
percentage at their field's very top. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010); 
see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B), www.uscis.gov/policy-rnanual. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. The Petitioner and His Field 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Kazakhstani 
native and citizen, earned bachelor's degrees in 
'translation and interpretation" and finance from universities in his home country. After working as a 
manager for about two years at a leasing company, he founded a consumer goods/construction 
company in Kazakhstan. Three years later, he established a wholesale tea company in the country. 
In 2023, the Petitioner came to the United States and formed a company here to provide logistics 
consulting services. He stated: "My plan is to utilize all my knowledge and experience to contribute 
to the development of the transportation and logistics industry and make a meaningful impact on the 
U.S. economy." 
We first review the Director's findings that the Petitioner did not demonstrate his intent to continue 
working in his field in the United States or that his U.S. work would benefit the country. 
B. Intent to Continue Working in His Field 
A noncitizen with extraordinary ability must "seek[] to enter the United States to continue work in the 
area of extraordinary ability." Section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act. A petitioner need not have a U.S. 
job offer or a certification from the U.S. Department of Labor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). But "the 
petition must be accompanied by clear evidence that the person is corning to the United States to 
continue work in the area of expertise." Id. Evidence may include: 
• A letter from a prospective employer; 
• Documentation of pre-arranged commitments, such as a contract; or 
• A statement from a petitioner detailing their plans to continue their work in the United States. 
Id. 
1 If an evidentiary criterion does not "readily apply" to a petitioner's occupation, they may submit "comparable evidence" 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
The Petitioner submitted a statement from himself and a business plan for the U.S. company he 
formed. The Director acknowledged the business plan but found that the company "does not appear 
to be a legitimate and established business." The Director noted that the petition lists the Petitioner's 
residential address in California but his company's formation in Florida. The Director stated: "You 
did not explain how you were and will be working for the organization in Florida, while you live in 
California." The Director further faulted the Petitioner for omitting evidence "that the organization 
was and is doing business .... The evidence does not establish that you have a legitimate U.S. business 
to continue working as a Top Executive Manager in the field of Logistics Consulting." 
The Director erred by requiring the Petitioner's U.S. company to be conducting business. A petitioner 
may satisfy this evidentiary requirement by submitting "a statement ... detailing plans on how he or 
she intends to continue his or her work in the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). The Petitioner 
not only detailed his intent to open a U.S. logistics consulting company, he submitted a business plan 
and proof of the entity's formation. His current residence in a state other than the one in which he 
formed his company is insufficient to controvert his stated intent to work in the United States. See 
Gulen v. Chertojf, No. 07-2148, 2008 WL 2779001, *4 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2008) (holding that a 
petitioner's statement alone met the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5)). 
The Petitioner has demonstrated his intent to continue working in his field in the United States. We 
will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
C. Benefit to the United States 
A noncitizen with extraordinary ability must also demonstrate that their "entry into the United States 
will substantially benefit prospectively the United States." Section 203(b)(l)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
Neither the Act nor regulations define the phrase "substantially benefit." But USCIS interprets it 
broadly. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 956 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (holding that a 
professional golfer would substantially benefit the United States "[g]iven the enormous popularity of 
golf in this country"); see also Buletini v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222, 1229 (E.D. Mich. 1994) (assuming 
that the United States would benefit from any noncitizen with extraordinary ability working in the 
country in their field). 
Contrary to the Director's finding, the Petitioner's statement and business plan establish that his U.S. 
work would substantially benefit the country. The business plan credibly projects that, by its fifth 
operating year, his company would employ 12 people and generate more than $1.2 million in annual 
revenue. Also, the Petitioner persuasively argues that, after the COVID 19 pandemic and its resulting 
supply chain disruptions, U.S. businesses need logistics consulting services. 
The Petitioner has demonstrated that his proposed U.S. work would substantially benefit the country. 
We will therefore withdraw the Director's contrary decision. 
D. Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards 
The record does not indicate - nor does the Petitioner claim - his receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award. He must therefore meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 
3 
The Petitioner claims that he submitted evidence of his: 
• Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field; 
• Original contributions of major significance in his field; or 
• Performance in a leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputations. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), (viii). 
The first evidentiary criterion requires "[ d]ocumentation of the [ noncitizen ]' s receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The Petitioner's evidence must objectively meet the regulation's 
parameters. See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8). 
When adjudicating this requirement, USCIS first determines if a petitioner - as opposed, for example, 
to their employer - received the prizes or awards. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(8)(1), Criterion 1. 
Second, the Agency determines whether an award is nationally or internationally recognized and 
granted for excellence in the relevant field. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted a computer printout indicating that the Kazakhstani president issued a "gold 
quality" diploma to the Petitioner's wholesale tea company. The diploma honors the business's status 
as "the best service company." 
As the Director found, the diploma states the award's issuance to the Petitioner's company, rather than 
to him. The regulation requires "the alien's receipt" of awards. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) ( emphasis 
added); see generally 6 USCJS Policy Manual F .2(8)( l ), Criterion I. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the diploma recognizes not only his company but also the 
leadership, strategy, and management practices that led to its prize. He contends that the award 
demonstrates that his "strategic vision and implementation of quality management were instrumental 
in the company's success and the receipt of the award." He notes that USCIS policy allows "team 
awards" to qualify a noncitizen under this criterion. 
But the diploma does not establish the Petitioner as a team award recipient. "Nothing precludes a 
person from relying on a team award, provided the person is one of the recipients of the award." 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(8)(1), Criterion 1 (emphasis added). "In general, qualifying awards 
include team awards where each member receives a trophy, certification, or medal; appears on the 
podium or stage; or is specifically named in the awarding organization's announcement of the award 
selection." Id. at n.19. The award does not state the Petitioner's name, nor does evidence indicate his 
mention in any award announcements or his appearance on a podium or stage. See Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885, *7 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (affirming our finding that, to 
meet this evidentiary criterion, a petitioner must be honored by name). 
Also as the Director found, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the award's receipt of national or 
international recognition. The diploma states its issuance by Kazakhstan's president. But that, in and 
of itself, does not constitute national recognition. When considering recognition, we focus on "how a 
larger audience viewed [the] awards." Krasniqi v. Dibbins, 558 F. Supp. 3d 168, 182 (D.N.J. 2021) 
4 
( quoting Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 136 (D.D.C. 2013)). The record lacks evidence that 
a national ( or international) audience knew of the award' s issuance. 
Contrary to this evidentiary requirement, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his receipt of lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in his field. We will therefore affirm 
the Director's finding regarding this criterion. 
E. Remaining Issues 
The Petitioner has not documented his purported receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized awards for excellence in his field and claims to have met only two other evidentiary 
criteria. Thus, he cannot meet the requisite three evidentiary requirements. We therefore need not 
reach and hereby reserve consideration of his appellate arguments regarding his claimed original 
contributions of major significance to his field and his purported performance in leading or critical 
roles for organizations with distinguished reputations. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 ( 197 6) 
(per curiam) (holding that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary 
to their ultimate decisions). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has demonstrated his intent to continue working in his field in the United States and the 
prospective, substantial benefit to the country. But he has not met the minimum number of evidentiary 
criteria required for the requested immigrant visa category. We will therefore affirm the petition's 
denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5