dismissed EB-1A Case: Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 30, 2024 In Re: 34569492 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a management consulting firm, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(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 ofthe Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Beneficiary 
satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required, the Petitioner did not show the 
Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate he is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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); 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 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established the Beneficiary's receipt of a major, 
internationally recognized award, the Beneficiary must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined the Beneficiary met three of the 
claimed evidentiary criteria relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), scholarly articles at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). However, the 
Director concluded the Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary garnered sustained national or 
international acclaim and his achievements have been recognized in the field of endeavor, 
demonstrating he is one of that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues the Beneficiary satisfies three additional criteria, and the evidence in 
the aggregate establishes the Beneficiary's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
Because the Petitioner has already shown the Beneficiary fulfills the minimum requirements of at least 
three criteria, we will evaluate the totality of the evidence based on the documentation presented to 
the Director in the context of the final merits determination below. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As indicated above, we will evaluate whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of 
the evidence, the Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim, 2 he is one of the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and his achievements have been recognized in the 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy ManualF.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
2 See 6 USCIS 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"). 
2 
field through extensive documentation. In a final merits determination, we analyze an individual's 
accomplishments and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his successes are sufficient to 
demonstrate that he has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of 
the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20.3 In this matter, we 
determine the Petitioner has not shown the Beneficiary's eligibility. 
The record reflects the Beneficiary received a bachelor's degree in electronics and communication 
engineering from _____________ in 2010. According to the Beneficiary's 
resume, the Beneficiary has been employed by the Petitioner as a director and associate partner since 
2018 and previously worked for as a director and chief architect and strategist from 2013 -
2018 and ________ as a senior enterprise architect from 2011 - 2013. As discussed 
further below, the Beneficiary has served on committees, conducted review work, made contributions 
to his employers, authored material, performed in authoritative roles, and earned salaries for his work. 
However, in considering the totality of the evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary's achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated 
by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). Furthermore, the Petitioner has not shown 
that the Beneficiary has risen to that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The commentary for the proposed regulations implementing section 
203(b)(1 )(A)(i) of the Act provides that the "intent of Congress that a very high standard be set for 
aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in this regulation by requiring the petitioner to present more 
extensive documentation than that required" for lesser classifications. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 
(July 5, 1991). Here, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary enjoys a career that meets 
this very high standard. 
The Petitioner presented evidence of the Beneficiary's recent membership on an evaluation committee 
forl 4 However, the Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary's 
service resulted in sustained national or international acclaim or reflects "that small percentage who 
[has] risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. §204.5(h)(2) and (3). The record, for instance, does not contain evidence showing that the 
Beneficiary received national or international recognition based on his membership or service with 
this committee. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary distinguished himself 
from others in the field based on his I I service, gaining national or international attention or 
placing him among the upper echelon in his field. Although the Petitioner points to Y-L-, who serves 
on the selection committee for I I and indicates he "is well known and pioneer," the issue is 
whether the Beneficiary garnered national or international acclaim rather than the reputation of his co­
workers or "many other established leaders in the industry." 5 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (instructing that USCTS officers should consider the petition in its 
entirety to detennine 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). 
4 Initially, the Petitioner also claimed the Beneficiary "was invited to join and participated as a member on the evaluation 
committee for the I I industry forl I 2013." Although the Petitioner 
provided an invitation email, the Petitioner did not show the Beneficiary actually attended and participated at the event. 
5 See R-S- letter. In fact, based on the evidence provided about Y-L-, the record reflects that Y-L-'s accomplishments and 
achievements are at a significantly. considerably higher level than the Beneficiary. 
3 
Similarly, regarding the Beneficiary's service as a judge of the work of others, an evaluation of the 
significance of his experience is appropriate to determine if such evidence indicates the required 
extraordinary ability for this highly restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121-22. 
Besides the Beneficiary's evaluation committee experience, the Petitioner submitted evidence of the 
Beneficiary's instance ofreviewing chapters for a book in 2013. Here, the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary's judging instances contributed to a finding that the Beneficiary has a career of 
acclaimed work in the field or indicative of the required 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 show, for example, how the Beneficiary's recent experience serving on an 
evaluation committee and reviewing book chapters over 10 years ago compares to others at the very 
top of the field. In addition, the Petitioner did not establish, for instance, that the Beneficiary garnered 
wide attention from the field based on his evaluation work. Moreover, serving as a committee 
evaluator or book reviewer does not automatically demonstrate that an individual has extraordinary 
ability and sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of his field. Matter ofPrice, 20 
I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (stating that even athletes performing at the major league 
level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard). Without evidence that sets the 
Beneficiary apart from others in his field, such as evidence that he has a consistent history of reviewing 
or judging recognized, acclaimed experts in his field, the Petitioner has not shown that the 
Beneficiary's narrow judging experience places him among that small percentage who has risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Likewise, authorship and publication do not automatically place one at the top of the field. The record 
reflects the Petitioner presented evidence showing that the Beneficiary authored one article in 2019. 
However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's publication record is consistent with 
having a career of acclaimed work, sustaining national or international acclaim, and being among the 
small percentage at the very top of his field. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner, for instance, did not show the significance of the 
Beneficiary's authorship or how his publication record of a single article compares to others who are 
viewed to be at the very top of the field. 6 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of written work can be an indicator 
to determine the impact and recognition that his publication has had on the field and whether such 
influence has been sustained. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by 
the Beneficiary 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. Although the Petitioner provided evidence of some citations 
of his article, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance or relevance of having been cited 76 
times. 7 For instance, the Petitioner did not compare the Beneficiary's numbers to those among the 
very top of the field or to show the Beneficiary's work received a level of interest in the field 
6 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra. at F.2(B)(2) (providing that an example where evidence in the record may help in 
determining whether in a totality analysis that considers all of the evidence, the person is among the small percentage at 
the top of the field and has sustained national or international acclaim). 
7 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (indicating that the petitioner must explain the significance of the 
submitted evidence, and how it demonstrates that the person has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognition in their field of expertise). 
4 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim. 8 See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's metrics represent attention at a level 
consistent with being among that small percentage at the very top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided an invitation email for the Beneficiary to speak at 
_______ 2023 without showing that the Beneficiary actually participated or spoke at the 
event. Regardless, the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's purported speaking engagement 
garnered any national or international acclaim. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the significance of the Beneficiary's purported presentation or how it 
impacted the field consistent with a very high standard requiring the petitioner to submit more 
extensive documentation than that required for lesser classifications. See 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. In 
fact, the Petitioner presented two identical articles reporting on the event without any mention of the 
Beneficiary or his presentation. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner provided several recommendation letters, including letters from the 
Petitioner, praising the Beneficiary and his work, especially his involvement with the I I 
methodology. For instance, D-K-S- stated thatl !yielded remarkable results" and 
"has since been adopted as an industry standard for in-place core modernization, not only in the US 
but also in APAC and ANZ regions." 9 However, they do not contain sufficient information and 
explanation to show that he is viewed by the overall field, rather than by a solicited few, among the 
upper echelon or that he has garnered recognition on a national or international scale, consistent with 
being among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. Moreover, although the 
letters indicate the Beneficiary has made an impactful contribution in the field, they do not reflect a 
career of acclaimed work in the field, garnering the required sustained national or international 
acclaim. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59 and section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Likewise, the letters do not 
establish his roles with the Petitioner,! Ior any other organization 
resulted in widespread acclaim from the field, that he drew significant attention from the greater field, 
or that the overall field considers him to be at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and 56 Fed. Reg. at 30704. 
Finally, although the Petitioner documented the Beneficiary's salary, the Petitioner did not establish 
that the Beneficiary commanded earnings commensurate with sustained national or international 
acclaim. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary's 
wages are tantamount to an individual who is among that small percentage at the very top of the field 
of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The Petitioner did not demonstrate, for example, how the 
Beneficiary's salary as a partner in a management consulting firm compared to others at the very top 
of the field or other renowned partners, or that the Beneficiary received notoriety or attention based 
on his earnings separating himself from others in the field or placing him in the upper echelon. 10 
8 We note that Y-L- has garnered at least 354,653 cumulative citations, including his highest cited article of79,354, 
compared to the Beneficiary's 76. 
9 Although we reference a sample letter, we have reviewed and considered the approximately dozen other recommendation 
letters in the record. 
10 The Petitioner compared the Beneficiary's salary as a partner to management consultants rather than to other partners. 
5 
The record as a whole, including the evidence discussed above, does not establish the Beneficiary's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. 11 Here, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification for 
the Beneficiary, intended for individuals already at the top of their respective fields, rather than those 
progressing toward the top. Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954 ( concluding that even major league level 
athletes do not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of 
"extraordinary ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding 
that the extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of 
Homeland Sec. (Hamal//), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021), aff'd, 
2023 WL 1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very 
small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), 
No. l 9-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at * 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 
(upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian 
theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals 
fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that 
"arguably one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a 
baseball coach). In this case, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of the Beneficiary's 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. See H.R. Rep. No. at 59; see also section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. While the Petitioner need not establish that there is no one more 
accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that the 
Beneficiary is among the small percentage at the top of his field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's 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 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) (providing that while a person may be stronger in one particular 
evidentiary area than in others, the totality of the evidence must establish that the person in extraordinary). 
6