dismissed EB-1A Case: Mobile Communications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 19825526 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 8, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a digital product and business manager in the mobile communications industry, seeks 
classification 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner (1) had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria; (2) seeks 
to enter the United States to continue working in her area of expertise; and (3) will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States, as required. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals 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 
international 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 criteria 
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 the initial evidence requirements (through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria), 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 
The Petitioner works in the mobile communications industry. The Petitioner seeks employment as a 
multi-access edge computing digital technology and product manager. She did not identify a 
prospective or intended employer on the petition form. In India, she worked forl lfrom 2001 
to 2004, and for lfrom 2004 to 2005. From 2005 to 2019, she worked for 
I land affiliated companies in India, Germany, and the United States, most recently for of 
America from 2016 to 2019, first as head of strategy and business development/business product 
management, and then as a senior product manager. She is the author of a U.S. patent, published in 
2019, for what she describes as I I I The Petitioner is in the United Kingdom. At the time she filed the petition in March 2021, 
she was studying for a master's degree at I and had recently accepted an offer 
of employment as a "Principle [sic] Product Manager" for l also in London. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she received a major, internationally recognized 
award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Petitioner claims to have satisfied three of these criteria, relating to original contributions of 
major significance; leading or critical roles for distinguished organizations or establishments; and high 
remuneration for services. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet any of the claimed 
criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she meets all three claimed criteria. Because the 
Petitioner only claims to have satisfied three of the ten regulatory criteria, the petition cannot proceed to 
a final merits determination unless she meets all three. Therefore, an adverse determination regarding 
any one of the criteria is sufficient to determine the outcome of the appeal. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not satisfied the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), which calls for evidence that the petitioner has commanded a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
2 
In claiming a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, the Petitioner does not 
submit any evidence of past salaries or remuneration paid to her. Instead, the Petitioner states that she 
"has received multiple global offers from industry giants,I I l andl I" The 
Petitioner submits a table of figures in U.S . dollars and U.K. pounds, stating that they represent the 
compensation packages accompanying those offers. The table , reproduced below, is incorporated into 
a letter dated March 5, 2021: 
Position I I Product Line Senior Strategy and Principal Product 
offered Manager,! I Business Development Manager /Director, 
Manager I I I 
Currency US$ UK£ US$ UK£ US$ UK£ 
Base salary 167,000 123,000 206,021 150,960 180,300 132,115 
Bonus 26,500 19,500 63,870 46,800 63,870 49,570 
Equity 48,125 35,000 20,000 14,650 262 ,500 192,300 
Total 241,625 177,500 289,891 212,410 506,670 373,985 
The Petitioner's initial submission did not include documentary evidence to support the figures 
claimed above. When the Director requested such evidence, the Petitioner responded by documenting 
two offers from and that do not match what the Petitioner previously claimed . The 
Petitioner submitted no documentat10n regarding I Is claimed offer. 
In a January 29, 2021 message,D offered the Petitioner a position as a "Senior Technical Sales 
Manager Network Solutions & Telecom Segment," with the following "Compensation Illustration": 
Base pay: 
Commission Target (25%): 
Quarterly Profit Bonus Estimate : 
Base + Bonus Targets: 
Hire Bonus : 
Stock Grant (vested over 3 years) : 
£144,000 
36,000 
10,800 
190,800 
20,000 
60,000 
(US$197,586 at 1/29/2021 exchange rate 1) 
offered the Petitioner a position as "Principle [sic] Product Manager" on February 9, 2021; 
the Petitioner accepted the job offer, with a signature dated February 12, 2021. The job offer letter 
describes the following compensation package: 
Base salary: 
On-hire stock award: 
Bonus scheme : 
£123,715 (US$170,671 at 2/9/2021 exchange rate 2) 
$450,000 3 
Eligibility for a performance-based bonus of up to 40% of salary 
1 See https://www.xe.com/currencyt ables/?from=GBP&date=202 l-O l-29 #table-section . 
2 See https://www .xe.com/currencytables /?from=GBP &date=202 l -02-09#tab le-section. 
3 The offer letter does not make clear the timing of distribution of the award. The 202 J annual report notes, 
"Stock awards entitle the holder to receive shares of lcommon stock as the award vests. Stock awards generally 
vest over a service period of four years or five years." See https://wwwl !com/investor/reports/ar2 l /index.html. 
3 
The Petitioner asserts: "The total of each remuneration package offered to [her] is well above the 
national average salary as provided by the Willis Towers Watson wage survey report." 4 That report 
shows the following figures (in U.S. dollars) for "Strategic Planning/Corporate DevelopmentlDigital 
StrategylGroup Manager (Supervisory/Management)": 
Percentile Average 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 
Base Salary 181,893 155,146 160,170 175,192 189,900 241,000 
Actual Performance Bonus 43,344 11,016 18,588 31,856 64,179 106,765 
Actual Total Annual Incentives 44,759 11,097 20,564 36,018 66,890 106,181 
Actual Total Annual Compensation 221,474 177,670 191,136 210,245 235,000 306,965 
Target Total Annual Compensation 5 200,747 160,086 176,871 202,843 227,500 240,954 
We note that the base salary for the I I position the Petitioner accepted is below the average 
base salary shown in the survey report, and the 90th percentile wages reflect a substantially higher base 
salary. Even then, the survey report is insufficient to show how the Petitioner's compensation stands 
in relation to others in the field, for two key reasons. First, the survey report is designated "United 
States," with no indication that any data pertains to positions in the United Kingdom. 6 Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established the survey's applicability to the two U.K. job offers she has documented. 
Second, the compensation packages from and I I include equity elements that are not 
reflected in the submitted data from the survey report. Explanatory text in the survey report differentiates 
between "Annual Incentives" and "Long-Term Incentives." The latter category includes stock- and share­
related benefits such as "Stock Options" and "Performance Shares," which appear to amount to equity. 
The Petitioner did not submit any survey data regarding these "Long-Term Incentives." Thus, the 
comparative survey figures that the Petitioner has provided appear to be incomplete relative to the data 
she provided regarding her claimed job offers. As such, the figures provided do not allow a full 
comparison, because the Petitioner listed stock as part of her offered compensation. Also, it is unclear 
how to interpret the Petitioner's stock award. If the award vests over the course of multiple years, then 
the award would appear to be less than the annual amounts of equity on the offers initially submitted. The 
record does not contain sufficient information on the timing of the award and how it factors into her 
annual compensation. Without such evidence, we cannot sufficiently determine whether the Petitioner's 
total remuneration is high in relation to others in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts: "The total of each remuneration package offered to [the Petitioner] 
is well above the national average salary as provided by the Willis Towers Watson wage survey 
report," but the "total ... remuneration package" includes a number of elements that do not count as 
"salary, and the elements submitted do not appear to necessarily correspond to the elements in the 
chart. Therefore, such a comparison would not be accurate. 
4 The full title of the report is United States I 2020 General Industry Middle Management, Professional and Services Survey 
Report I Compensation Data. 
5 The submitted materials do not explain the difference between 'Target" and "Actual" numbers. 
6 Persons working in different countries should be evaluated based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence in that 
country, rather than by simply converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewing whether that salary would be 
considered high in the United States. 6 USC1S Policy Manual F.2 appendix. 
4 
For the above reasons, the incomplete U.S. compensation figures do not show that the Petitioner's 
U.K. compensation offers meet the requirements for this criterion. 
We must also note that the base salaries in the job offer documents are lower than the figures the 
Petitioner initially claimed. Both offers predated March 2021, when the Petitioner filed the petition; 
the Petitioner had actually accepted one of those offers in early February 2021, several weeks before 
the filing date. The Petitioner does not explain why the terms described in the March 2021 filing did 
not match the actual job offers, which were already known to her at that time. The Petitioner did not 
submit the actual job offer documentation, or disclose the changes to the offers and compensation 
packages, until after the Director issued a request for evidence. 
In light of our determination that the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix), we decline to reach, and hereby reserve, the Petitioner's appellate arguments 
regarding (1) the other claimed criteria; (2) the Petitioner's intended work in the United States; and 
(3) the prospective benefit to the United States, because they cannot change the outcome of the appeal. 7 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, 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 conclusion 
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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the recognition of her work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates 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 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). We note the Petitioner's 
submission of l's 2018 Annual Report, which lists various "2018 highlights," but we can find no 
recognizable references to the Petitioner's activities as described in letters submitted in support of the 
petition. This is in keeping with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's work was important 
for individual projects, but not critical forl I at the organizational level. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("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). 
5