dismissed EB-1A Case: Pharmaceutical Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17756172 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL. 15, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a senior quality assurance associate working in the pharmaceutical 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. § 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 Director of Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish, 
as required, that the Petitioner satisfies at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203 (b )( 1) 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 his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was employed as a Quality Assurance Associate III with a 
,__ _____ _. contract development and manufacturing comp n m he biopharmaceutical 
industry. The Petitioner received a bachelor of pharmacy degree fro College of Pharmacy 
in 2002 and,>J..l,l..l.!.l.2l,<.l.l..!J.~.u:.....l..l..!.1.1..1..L1~!o<l.L""" post-graduate program i .__ ____ ____.industry regulatory 
affairs at the India, and a master of business administration at the University 
of.__ _______ _. She has approximately 15 years of professional expenence m the 
pharmaceutical industry, including eight years wittj I 
in India. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has 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 claimed that she could meet four of these ten criteria, 
summarized below: 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others in the field; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance in the field; 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with a distinguished reputation; and 
• (ix), High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to her participation as a judge of the work of others in her field 
and her performance in leading or critical roles for organizations that have a distinguished reputation. 
We will not disturb the Director's conclusions with respect to these two criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that the Director did properly evaluate the evidence she submitted in support of her 
claim that she has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to 
others in her field. We will address this criterion below. 
2 
The Petitioner's arguments on appeal are limited to the issue of whether the previously submitted 
evidence was sufficient to satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). She states in the 
"Conclusion" section of her appellate brief that she has made original scientific contributions of major 
significance in accordance with the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). However, she does not 
otherwise raise this issue or challenge the Director's reasons for concluding that she did not satisfy 
this criterion; she merely mentions it in passing. Issues or claims that are not raised with specificity on 
appeal are deemed to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009 See 
Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Greenbriar, Ltd. v. 
City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that passing references to issues 
are insufficient to raise a claim for appeal, and such issues are deemed abandoned). 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that 
she meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Evidence that the individual has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
To satisfy the requirements of this criterion, the Petitioner must establish that she has commanded a 
high salary, or significantly high total remuneration, based on a comparison with others in her field 
working in similar positions and geographic locations. 1 
The Petitioner claims that she meets this criterion based on her earnings as a senior scientist for!._ __ _. 
.__ _______________ __, in India. She provided documentation of her earnings, in 
Indian rupees (INR), during the period from April 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013. 
In a cover letter accompanying her initial evidence, the Petitioner stated that her "total remuneration" 
in 2012 was INR 964,212. The Petitioner provided a copy of her Form ITR-1, Indian Income Tax 
Return for the 2013-14 assessment year. This form indicates at line 1 that her "Income from 
Salary/Pension" was INR 620,926, and identifies her employer as '----------~ 
The Petitioner also submitted a document identified as a "Tax Planner for the Month of February 
2013" summarizing her remuneration from.__ _________ _. The document provides a 
breakdown of her basic pay and other payments made by her employer between April 2012 and March 
2013. It reflects that she received monthly "basic pay" of INR 29,992 and other recurring monthly 
payments that amounted to INR 41,025 (including a house rent allowance, a superannuation 
allowance, a conveyance allowance and rent paid). In addition, the "Tax Planner" has a gross income 
calculation that includes the items noted above, plus "gratuity receipts," "taxable LTA," leave salary, 
a performance bonus, award(s) and "medical domestic rec'd." The document lists a "gross income 
before exemption" figure of INR 873,194, 2 a list of exemptions, and a "rounded gross total income" 
figure of INR 620,926. 
1 See 6 USCTS Policy Manual F.2 appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual (noting that it is the petitioner's burden 
to provide geographical and position-appropriate evidence to establish that a salary is relatively high). 
2 This figure is the sum of all the items listed above, except for the "rent paid" figure, which according to this document is 
"data only for information." 
3 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided two additional Indian 
tax forms (Form No. 12BA and Form No. 16), which both indicate the amount paid to her byl I I I for the 2013-14 assessment year as INR 873,194. 
The Petitioner provided comparative salary data from several sources in support of her claim that she 
commanded a high salary or significantly high remuneration in relation to others in her field in 2012. 
This evidence included a screenshot from Payscale.com with 2018 country-wide salaries for the 
occupation of"Analytical Methods Development Scientist" in India. This evidence indicates a median 
salary ofINR 576,112, an average salary ofINR 674,074, and a 90th percentile salary ofINR 930,000. 
The information is based on data reported by 26 individuals in India. 
The Petitioner also submitted February 2020 data from Glassdoor.com for the position of "Analytical 
Chemist" in India. This document indicates that the average base pay for this occupation is INR 
574,367. Finally, the Petitioner submitted information from Indeed.com for the occupations of Senior 
Analytical Chemist and Analytical Chemist which she stated is an "equivalent position to an analytical 
scientist." This evidence indicates an average monthly salary of INR 17,628 per month for "Senior 
Analytical Chemist" with a range between INR 8,000 and 42,000. For the position of "Analytical 
Chemist," Indeed.com indicates an average salary of INR 20,663, with salaries ranging from INR 
8,000 to 51,000. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again emphasizes that her "total remuneration" for her role as a Senior 
Scientist atl I in 2012 was INR 964,212. She asserts that "[i]n Buletini v. INS, 
860 F. Supp. 1222 (1994), the court found that the beneficiary, an Albanian physician, who earned 
'twice the average salary of other Albanian doctors' in Albania to qualify as sufficient evidence to 
meet this criterion." The Petitioner maintains that the AAO has affirmed the standard upheld in 
Buletini in our unpublished decisions. 3 She states that the submitted salary surveys establish that her 
earnings in 2012 were approximately double the earnings of persons in her field in India, even when 
compared to salaries reported in 2018-2020. 
After reviewing all the submitted evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
she satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). The Petitioner maintains that her "total 
remuneration" was INR 964,212 in 2012, but this figure does not appear on the Petitioner's Indian tax 
documentation or employer-issued tax planning document. The figure of INR 873,194 reported on 
the Petitioner's Indian Form No. 16, includes non-salary remuneration, such as rent and conveyance 
allowances and medical coverage payments. As noted, this figure also includes "gratuity receipts," a 
"superannuation allowance," and a "special allowance." The Petitioner's "basic pay" during the tax 
year in question was INR 29,992 which equates to an annual base salary of approximately INR 
360,000.4 
3 For example, she provides a copy of an unpublished decision issued in 2017, in which we noted that we did not contest 
the Buletini court's finding that USCTS "must intend that the salary of the [petitioner] be judged in relation to others who 
are in comparable circumstances." 
4 The record reflects that the Petitioner last received her monthly "basic pay" from! lin December 
2012 and indicates that she relocated to the United States in January 2013. After she left the company, in February 2013. 
it appears that she was paid for leave (INR 101,973) and received a "gratuity receipts" payment ofINR 149,962. 
4 
While it appears that other payments beyond her "basic pay" were included in the INR 620,926 figure 
reported on the Petitioner's tax return for the 2013-14 year, it is unclear whether, or to what extent, 
the comparative salary surveys she provided from Glassdoor, Payscale and Indeed included non­
salary income. None of these sources indicates that the figures reported reflect "total remuneration" 
paid to employees. To satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that her salary is high or 
that her total "remuneration" is significantly high in relation to others. Demonstrating that her total 
remuneration is high compared to the average base salaries in the field does not suffice. 
The information from Payscale indicates an "average salary" of INR 674,074 for an "analytical 
methods development scientist" as of 2018. The Petitioner's basic salary for the 2012-13 year was 
lower than this figure, and no comparative data from 2012 has been provided. The income figure 
reported on her Indian tax return was closer to this 2018 "average salary," but again, we cannot 
determine what types of employer payments, if any, beyond base salary were included in Payscale's 
average figure. The Petitioner's claim that she earned nearly double the average salary data reported 
by Payscale is not adequately supported by the record. 
We have also reviewed the average monthly salary information for the occupations of "analytical 
chemist" and "sr. analytical chemist" provided by Indeed.com. Assuming that the figures provided 
by Indeed are base salary figures, we acknowledge that the Petitioner's basic monthly salary ofINR 
29,992 was higher than the average figures reported for an analytical chemist (INR 20,663) and for a 
senior analytical chemist (INR 17,628). However, the same survey reports a high salary of INR 51,000 
for the analytical chemist position, which is significantly higher than the Petitioner's documented base 
salary. There is insufficient evidence to establish that her salary was high, or that her total 
remuneration was significantly high, when compared to others employed as senior scientists during 
the relevant period. An above-average salary does not necessarily equate to a "high salary" for 
purposes of satisfying this criterion. 
Finally, the information the Petitioner provided from Glassdoor indicates that "average base pay" for 
an analytical chemist in India (as of 2020) is INR 574,367 and the publisher indicates that it did not 
have sufficient information to provide a salary range that includes high salaries for this occupation. 
The publisher does not state that its "average base pay" figure includes non-salary compensation. The 
Petitioner's base pay in 2012 was INR 360,000, which is lower than the figure reported by Glassdoor. 
The information provided from this source does not allow us to compare the Petitioner's 2012 base 
pay or total remuneration to that of others working in her occupation in India during the same time 
period. 
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that she has 
commanded a high salary, or other significantly high remuneration, in relation to others in her field. 
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 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 finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
5 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance and recognition of 
her 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)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise 
demonstrate that she 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6