dismissed EB-1A Case: Personnel Management Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 25692883 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 8, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner 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)(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 Texas Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the Petitioner did not establish that he 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 by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010) . We review the questions in this matter de novo . Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 
537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo 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 )(1 )(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 (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). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a business consultant operating in the area of human resources. He claims he has 
made a profound impact and advancements in the personnel management space in Russian-speaking 
countries and the business culture among post-Soviet countries gradually moving "toward more 
efficient, as well as more humane and ethical operations." He describes his field of endeavor as "the 
field of personnel management consulting." 
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 five of the regulatory criteria. 
The Director decided the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the criteria and he had specifically failed to 
satisfy the criteria associated with prizes or awards, published material, original contributions, leading 
or critical role, or high salary or remuneration. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that they meet the 
same five evidentiary criteria. After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for this highly restrictive immigrant classification. 
The Petitioner first takes issue with the Director's application of Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) to his case. The Petitioner alleges the Director applied this 
decision wholesale to documentation under several criteria, but it appears the Director only relied on 
this decision's findings as it relates to recommendation letters he provided under the contributions of 
major significance criterion. The Director indicated they considered the letters, but that such 
correspondence should be supported by more probative material in the record, and that the agency is 
ultimately responsible for determining whether a foreign national is eligible for a benefit. 
We also note that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to fact and we should 
evaluate the content of letters to decide whether they adequately support the foreign national's 
eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008). While we do 
not agree that the Director applied Matter of Caron International throughout their decision, we do 
observe that they did not explain how some of the letters were not in accord with other evidence in the 
record, or why they found them questionable, which might serve to assuage the Petitioner's objections. 
At any rate, we will address relevant evidence within this decision. 
2 
Documentation of the alien '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 provided evidence of his receipt of the '---------------------' The issuing entity was the _________ of the Russian Federation, and he received this 
accolade in 2017. The Director's analysis under this criterion all points to the evidence not satisfying 
the regulatory requirements, but at the end of the analysis, the Director indicates "the submitted 
evidence meets this criterion." Because the Director's conclusion does not align with the analysis, 
this appears to be a typographical error and we will presume they did not grant this criterion and we 
will make our own assessment. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements, all of which must be met to satisfy the regulation. 
According to the plain language of the regulation 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 was the recipient of this award and that portion of the requirements are satisfied. 
However, we question whether this accolade is nationally or internationally recognized. The Petitioner 
asserts that because the award was issued by an entity within the Russian government it should be 
considered nationally or internationally recognized. However, the fact that it was issued by an agency 
of the national government does not prove that the award meets the regulatory requirements. The 
record lacks evidence demonstrating its issuance was reported on publicly, and it does not reveal that 
any recognition extended beyond the I 
The Petitioner also compares this award to one issued by the U.S. government. Despite the fact that 
the government issues awards or decorations, that simple fact does not transform it into a nationally 
or internationally recognized item. National and international recognition does not necessarily result 
from the entity that issued the accolade, but through the awareness of it in the eyes of the field 
nationally or internationally. This recognition should be evident through specific means; for example, 
but not limited to, national or international-level media coverage. As a result, we do not agree with 
the Petitioner that U.S. government-issued accolades automatically conforms to the caliber of awards 
this criterion demands. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien 's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary requirements the Petitioner must satisfy. First, the 
published material must be about the Petitioner and the contents must relate to the Petitioner's work 
in the field under which he seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also 
appear in professional or major trade publications or other major media. Professional or major trade 
3 
publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
Petitioner must establish the circulation statistics are high relative to other similar forms of media. 
The final requirement is that the Petitioner provide each published item's title, date, and author and if 
the published item is in a foreign language, the Petitioner must provide a translation that complies with 
the requirements found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all 
of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The Petitioner provided several articles he characterizes as professional or major trade publications. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion expressing 
doubts about the objective nature of much of the evidence. We share some of the Director's concerns 
relating to portions of the Petitioner's evidence under this criterion. For instance, even though 
businessinsider.com is a form of major media, the article the Petitioner provided from this outlet 
reflects it is a A review of that resource's 
affiliated website reveals that "PRWeb is the leader in online news distribution and publicity. It offers 
various online press release packages, enabling users of all kinds to increase the web visibility of their 
news, reach new audiences, stand out in search, and drive traffic to their websites." About Us, Cision 
PRWeb (Feb. 3, 2023), https://service.prweb.com/about/. 
Even ifwe set those concerns aside, the Petitioner states the articles appeared in professional or major 
trade publications. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy reflects that circulation 
figures for other publications are necessary for comparative purposes to enable us to decide whether 
the resources the Petitioner provides are one of the qualifying publication types. See generally 6 
USCIS Policy Manual F.2 (Appendices), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (noting that 
"[e]vidence of published material in professional or major trade publications or in other major media 
publications about the alien should establish that the circulation ( on-line or in print) is high compared 
to other circulation statistics .... "). As the record does not contain circulation statistics in which we 
could compare to their provided resources, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility under 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 initially provided his foreign tax documents and consulting contracts. The Director 
found that material did not satisfy the regulation's requirements and in response to their request for 
evidence (RFE) the Petitioner asserted that he earns a certain hourly rate as a business consultant in 
the United States, but he did not identify the evidence that might corroborate those claims. He also 
provided two articles positing that his U.S.-based earnings were significantly higher than the average 
hourly earnings for a business consultant in the articles. 
The Petitioner further agreed with the proposition that comparing his total earnings, as reported in his 
foreign tax returns, with salaries of other management consultants would not provide a fair assessment 
since his total earnings also included his compensation as a business owner. Notably, the Petitioner 
conceded he was unable to locate "any market evidence to show how much management consultants 
earn on an hourly basis in" his home country. Finally, after converting his foreign earnings to U.S. 
dollars, the Petitioner compared those figures with the average hourly earnings listed in the articles. 
4 
Those articles contained salary information for management consultants in the United States. The 
Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains his eligibility under this provision. He claims he established his 
hourly earnings rate in the United States through a copy of his Form 1040-NR, U.S. Nonresident Alien 
Income Tax Return for 2020. We note he did not identify evidence demonstrating these tax forms 
were actually filed and determined to contain accurate figures, nor did he specify what other material 
demonstrates what he earned in the United States as a business consultant that might verify all his U.S 
earnings in 2020 were solely for that service. 
We further note that users policy reflects that we should not evaluate foreign country earnings, 
convert those earnings to U.S. dollars, and use that as a means of comparison. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual, supra, F.2 (Appendices). As a result, we do not agree with the method the Petitioner 
proposed in its RFE response. Within the appeal, the Petitioner continues to state his hourly earnings 
rate in the United States, but he again does not specify what evidence corroborates those claims, even 
though he filed the petition in December 2021. 
Ultimately, the Petitioner provided evidence of his earnings in Russia, but he was unable to locate data 
in which we could compare those earnings. And for his U.S.-based earnings, the articles reflect 
average hourly earnings for business consultants. But the plain language of the regulation requires the 
Petitioner to establish his salary is high-or remuneration is significantly high-when compared to 
others in the field. As such, average statistics as a comparison 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 evidence simply reflected that the 
Petitioner's purported hourly earnings were higher than the average earnings of business consultants 
as a whole rather than demonstrating that the Petitioner commanded high or significantly high earnings 
in relation to others in the field. 
Finally, the record contains two letters claiming what the top consultants earn in the United States and 
in Russia. USCIS policy provides: "the burden is on the petitioner to provide appropriate evidence. 
Examples may include, but are not limited to, geographical or position-appropriate compensation 
surveys and organizational justifications to pay above the compensation data." Because the salient 
claims within these letters are not corroborated by other evidence in the record, we consider them to 
be inadequate evidence to preponderantly demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility here. users is not 
required accept primarily conclusory assertions as adequate evidence. Fano v. 0 'Neill, 806 F.2d 1262, 
1266 (5th Cir. 1987); 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. 
Dist. 1990). 
As such, the Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence necessary under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
We conclude that although the Petitioner claims he meets five criteria, because his arguments fail on any 
of the three criteria we discussed above, that means he cannot numerically meet the required number of 
criteria and it is unnecessary for us to reach a decision on his other claimed elements. As the Petitioner 
cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), we reserve 
5 
our evaluation of those requirements. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it 
unnecessary to analyze additional grounds when another independent issue is dispositive of the appeal); 
see also Matter of D-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568, 576-77 n.10 (BIA 2022) (declining to reach alternative 
issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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 
"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. 101-723, 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 their 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. 
6