dismissed EB-1A Case: Operations Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 26, 2024 InRe: 31134849 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner works as a general and operations manager who 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 )(1 )(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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that the Petitioner had a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did he demonstrate that he met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The 
matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility 
to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 
291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in 
this matter de nova. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify under this immigrant classification
, the statute requires the filing party demonstrate: 
• The foreign national enjoys extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics; 
• They seek to enter the country to continue working in the area of extraordinary ability; and 
• The foreign national's entry into the United States will substantially benefit the country in the 
future. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 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 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, 1121 (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 Amin 
v. Mayorkas, 24 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2022). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner earned a foreign Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering in addition to a Master 
of Business Administration from a U.S. institution of higher learning. He now works as a general and 
operations manager for an e-commerce company. 
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). Before the Director, the Petitioner claimed he met seven of the regulatory 
criteria. The Director decided that the Petitioner satisfied two of the criteria relating to judging and 
performing in a leading or critical role, but that he had not satisfied the criteria associated with prizes 
or awards, membership, original contributions, authorship of scholarly articles, or a high salary or 
remuneration. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the evidentiary criteria the Director 
declined to grant. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude he has not satisfied any 
additional criteria meaning he has not met at least three criteria to warrant a final merits determination. 
Evidence ofthe alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge ofthe work 
of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sought. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion, and we will not 
disturb that conclusion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director also concluded the Petitioner satisfied this criterion's requirements and we agree with 
the assessment. 
2 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner claims a single award for his employer awarded for his operational performance in 
2021. The Director determined that even though the award reflected institutional recognition for 
excellence, it did not reflect national or international recognition for excellence in the field but instead 
was limited to recognition from his employer. Based on these findings, the Director concluded he did 
not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements, all of which must be met to satisfy the regulation. 
According to the regulation's plain language the evidence must establish: (1) the foreign national is 
the recipient of the prizes or the awards; (2) those accolades are nationally or internationally 
recognized; and (3) each prize or award is one for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The Petitioner argues several points on appeal, but we will first address the dispositive issue of whether 
he demonstrated his award was nationally or internationally recognized. The Petitioner's appeal brief 
identifies two articles he contends demonstrate the award garnered attention from the media. Despite 
one article being about the online sales industry and the other being about the Petitioner's employer 
directly, a review of both articles does not reveal any mention of the award. This material does not 
adequately support the Petitioner's claims. 
He further primarily relies on one letter on appeal to contend the award is at least nationally 
recognized. Even this letter only reflects the award' s recognition exists within his employer's business 
and doesn't extend beyond that into the broader field. We note that agency policy addresses employer 
awards limited only to its own personnel and states "an award available only to persons within a single 
locality, employer, or school may have little national or international recognition." See generally 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
National and international recognition results, not from the individual or entity who issued the award, 
but through the awareness of the accolade in the eyes of the field nationally or internationally. For 
instance, the President of the United States signs letters of appreciation for retiring military or 
Department of Defense civilian personnel. 1 However, the simple fact that an individual in a position 
of high authority signs a document, does not transform the document into a nationally or 
internationally recognized item. National and international recognition should be evident through 
specific means; for example but not limited to, national or international-level media coverage. 
Additionally, unsupported conclusory letters from those in the Petitioner's field are not sufficient 
evidence that a particular prize or award is nationally or internationally recognized. Sufficiently 
probative evidence that an award is nationally or internationally recognized is generally material from 
sources besides the issuing entity. Krasniqi v. Dibbins, 558 F. Supp. 3d 168, 183 (D.N.J. 2021). 
1 Presidential Letter ofAppreciation, Executive Services Directorate, https://www.esd.whs.mil/CMD/ploa/. Similarly, the 
presidential physical fitness award is not a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in athletics. 
Rather, it represents students reaching the 85th percentile in certain physical activities. Get Fit!, President's Council on 
Physical Fitness and Sports, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-HE20-PURL-LPS39913/pdf/GOVPUB­
HE20-PURL-LPS399 l 3.pdf. 
3 
We therefore conclude the Petitioner has not demonstrated his claimed award is nationally or 
internationally recognized as the regulation mandates. He therefore has not submitted evidence that 
meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements oftheir members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the Petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the Petitioner does not contest the Director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. Therefore, the Petitioner has abandoned his eligibility claims 
under this criterion. Matter ofF-C-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 788, 789 n.3, 791 n.6 (BIA 2024) (finding issues 
not challenged on appeal are waived). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not submitted qualifying 
evidence under this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner provided his blogposts on two websites, and two additional articles. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal the Petitioner 
contests the Director's findings relating to three articles that appeared in various publications to 
include: the first article published in DCVelocity, a second article published in three publications, and 
the final one published in CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements the Petitioner must satisfy. The first element is 
that the Petitioner is an author of scholarly articles in his field in which he intends to engage once 
admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. We consider these articles to fall within 
two distinct areas. 
One area is within the academic arena in which a scholarly article reports on original research, 
experimentation, or philosophical discourse. It is written by a researcher or expert in the field who is 
often affiliated with a college, university, or research institution. In general, it should have footnotes, 
endnotes, or a bibliography, and may include graphs, charts, videos, or pictures as illustrations of the 
concepts expressed in the article. The next area lies outside of the academic arena in which a 
scholarly article should be written for learned persons in that field. "Learned" is defined as "having 
or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship." Learned persons include all persons having 
profound knowledge of a field. See generally 6 USC IS Policy Manual, supra, at F .2(8)( 1 ). 
The second evidentiary element this criterion requires is that the scholarly articles appear in one of 
the following: (1) a professional publication, (2) a major trade publication, or (3) in a form of major 
media. Relevant factors a petitioner should demonstrate include the intended audience (for 
professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership are 
high relative to similar publications (for major trade publications and other major media). See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(8)(1). The Petitioner must submit evidence 
satisfying each of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
4 
The Petitioner claims each of his articles appeared in both "reputable [major] trade publications" and 
"major media outlets." We note he only needs to demonstrate the articles appeared in one of the 
required publication types, not both. So, he must demonstrate the intended audience and that the 
circulation or readership qualifies as "major" relative to other publications or media in the field. 
We begin with the publication DC Velocity. The Petitioner provided two forms of evidence 
supporting the circulation or readership for this publication. First was this publisher's 2020 Media 
Kit reflecting the publications total reach both in print and electronically. But we are not required to 
accept a publication's own claims relating to whether it qualifies as major media, as such self-serving 
claims are not sufficiently probative. Krasniqi v. Dibbins, 558 F. Supp. 3d 168, 185 (D. N.J. 2021) 
( citations omitted). Probative evidence is the type that "must tend to prove or disprove an issue that 
is material to the determination of the case." Matter ofE-F-N-, 28 I&N Dec. 591, 593 (BIA 2022) 
( quoting Matter of Ruzku, 26 I&N Dec. 731, 733 (BIA 2016)); see also Evidence, Black's Law 
Dictionmy (11th ed. 2019). Therefore, if some form of the Petitioner's evidence does not adequately 
prove their contention, then it is not considered to be probative. 
The second type of evidence the Petitioner provided relating to DC Velocity is the website's online 
traffic and rankings from an outside service, which reflected this website ranks 6,306 in their industry. 
This falls short of demonstrating this form of media qualifies as major, meaning the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the significance or relevance of these readership or viewership numbers to establish the 
website's major status. 
The next article appeared in five sources: Logistics Management; Modem Materials Handling; 
Supply Chain 24/7; Supply Chain Camp; Supply Chain Management Review. The evidence the 
Petitioner provided for the publication Logistics Management suffers a similar shortcoming as the 
DC Velocity publication; material from the publisher as well as online traffic and rankings, but in this 
case reflecting an industry ranking of 4,789. Again, this fails to demonstrate the viewership numbers' 
significance or relevance regarding the major status of the websites. And the remaining publications 
the Petitioner relies on in his appeal brief exhibit similar evidentiary shortcomings. 
We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary 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 provided his earnings data as well as evidence of remuneration. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. The Director noted that 
the Petitioner provided evidence of average salary statistics of general operations managers in which 
to compare with his own salary. The Director concluded that comparison was not a correct one 
because a general operations manager was a comparable field, but it was not sufficiently within the 
same specialty in which the Petitioner had been working. 
On appeal, the Petitioner alleges the Director mistakenly decided that information relating to a general 
operations manager was not sufficiently related to his current work in which his salary information 
5 
derived. We note that some of the letters in the record described the Petitioner's work for his current 
employer as an operations manager, so we will set that facet aside. 
However, the regulation's plain language requires the Petitioner to establish his salary is high when 
compared to others in the field. As such, average statistics alone do not meet this requirement. 
Strategati, LLC v. Sessions, No. 3:18-CV-01200-H-AGS, 2019 WL 2330181, at *7 (S.D. Cal. May 
31, 2019) (agreeing that average salary levels do not allow for an appropriate basis for comparison in 
determining a high salary "in relation to others in the field"). The surveys that simply reflected that 
the Petitioner's salary was higher than the average salaries of general operations managers were 
inadequate. Additionally, the Petitioner must show salary statistics in the same general area of the 
country relative to his own earnings, so the material showing the average national salaries were also 
inadequate. 
But the Petitioner also offered evidence from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center Online 
Wage Library for his area in New Jersey for the General and Operations Managers occupational title 
reflecting the following wages: 
• Level 1 Wage: $70,491 year 
• Level 2 Wage: $114,629 year 
• Level 3 Wage: $158,787 year 
• Level 4 Wage: $202,925 year 
The Petitioner provided a letter from his employer reflecting a base salary of approximately $182,000. 
We observe that prevailing wage rates are comprised of three tiers (the lowest paid one-third, the 
middle third, and the highest paid one-third). And, the Occupational Employment Survey assigns the 
wage levels within these tiers: 
• Level l is the average of the lowest paid one-third in an occupation, or approximately the 
17th percentile; 
• Level 2 is approximately the 34th percentile; 
• Level 3 is approximately the 50th percentile, or the overall average wage for an occupational 
classification; and 
• Level 4 is the average of the highest-paid two-thirds, or approximately the 67th percentile. 
Because the Petitioner's salary is situated almost halfway between levels 3 and 4, that would place his 
salary below the 67th percentile for this occupational category in the area where he works. The 
Petitioner has not demonstrated his salary-that falls below the 67th percentile-is high in relation to 
others performing similar work in his geographic region. We further note the U.S. Department of 
Labor's Occupational Information Network reflects that in the same location he presented the Foreign 
Labor Certification Data Center Online Wage Library evidence, an annual high salary amounts to 
$239,200 or more and this data was based on 2023 wage data. Local Wages 11-1021.00 - General 
and Operations Managers, O*NET OnLine (May 21, 2024), 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/localwages/l l- l 02 l .00?zip=0869 l. 
Turning to the Petitioner's claims that his non-salary remuneration is significantly high in relation to 
others in the field, he compares three years of his stock awards to data from salary.com reflecting "a 
6 
national average with a geographic differential." Again, surveys detailing salaries at the upper end of 
an occupation are more valuable than those showing only average wages. Proving a salary is "above 
average" typically doesn't suffice to establish a "significantly high remuneration." More 
comprehensive wage data is needed to effectively demonstrate significantly high remuneration 
earnings relative to peers. This evidence's value is further diminished as it reflects data for the entire 
United States rather than in the Petitioner's same geographic area. The Petitioner's evidence from 
indeed.com suffers from these same shortcomings. 
We conclude the Petitioner's evidence does not aid him in meeting his burden of proof under this 
criterion and he has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements here. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner's claims here involve a metric he created along with standard operating procedures, he 
developed protocols for his employer's automation, he formulated a best practices model, and his 
previously mentioned articles he authored. The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet 
the requirements of this criterion. 
The primary requirements here are that the Petitioner's contributions in his field were original and 
they rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an 
organization. See Amin, 24 F.4th at 394 ( citing Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 
2013)). The regulatory phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. 
Nielsen v. Preap, 139 S. Ct. 954, 969 (2019) (finding that every word and every provision in a statute 
is to be given effect and none should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate 
another provision or to have no consequence). Further, the Petitioner's contributions must have 
already been realized rather than being potential, future improvements. Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The Petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The Petitioner attempts to extrapolate the size of his employer to indicate that significant contributions 
within his organization should equate to the broader e-commerce field as a whole. We do not agree. 
The Petitioner's employer does not operate a monopoly in their area, nor are they the only major 
company within that space. It therefore stands to reason that if the Petitioner's achievements were at 
the level he contends, that his employers' competitors would have considered adopting those methods 
and activities. But he has not made such a showing in this appeal. The Petitioner offered no evidence 
showing the widespread implementation of his claimed achievements that have been seminal, or that 
it otherwise equates to an original contribution of major significance in the field. And we are not 
persuaded that limiting the Petitioner's contributions to one of many players in the field exhibits the 
influence necessary to satisfy this criterion's requirements. See Amin, 24 F.4th at 394 (finding that a 
foreign national's methods must not only be adopted by those outside a petitioner's employer, but 
those outside organizations also must have been able to successfully replicate the transformative 
methods for them to amount to a contribution of major significance to the field as a whole.) 
7 
Further, the briefretlects, "[t]he support letters from various professionals in the field are not merely 
anecdotal; they outline [the Petitioner's] innovative techniques and strategies, which have been widely 
adopted by competitors and implemented by professionals within the industry." A review of the 
Petitioner's more in-depth appellate analysis and the evidence he presents in support offer no 
additional insight into how his claims extend beyond his employer. While some of his achievements 
have been instrumental to his employer, those have been considered and incorporated into the 
Director's evaluation of him performing in a leading or critical role under the regulatory criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Neither the Petitioner, nor the letters supporting this filing explain how 
those achievements expanded their reach beyond his employer. 
And regarding his authorship of articles under this criterion, not only has he not explained or shown 
how those influenced the broader field, but we considered this evidence under a separate criterion. 
Because the regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of scholarly articles, we 
will not presume that evidence relating to that criterion is evidence that the Petitioner also meets this 
one. Here it should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one 
another. Because separate criteria exist for authorship of scholarly articles and original contributions 
of major significance, USCIS clearly does not view the two as being interchangeable. Publications 
are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major 
significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aff'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010). 
In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed its holding that this office did not abuse its discretion in finding 
that the foreign national had not demonstrated contributions of major significance. Kazarian, 596 
F.3d at 1122. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement under section 
203(b )( 1 )(A)(i) of the Act for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) that the Petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. Thus, there is no presumption 
that every published article is a contribution of major significance in the field; rather, the Petitioner 
must document his article's actual impact. 
The regulation requires original contributions of major significance in the field. While the Petitioner 
has established he has made such impacts to his employer, his achievements and accomplishments as 
of the priority date fail to rise to the level of being considered of "major" significance in the field as a 
whole. As a result, the Petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
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 criteria. As a result, we do not need to 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 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 that goal. USCIS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
8 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of their 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. l 0 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 
203(b)(1 )(A). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and they are one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
9