dismissed EB-1A Case: Pharmaceutical Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20612257 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN . 17, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a business executive in the pharmaceutical industry , seeks classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )( 1 )(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 the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that record did not establish 
that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, 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 by a 
preponderance of the evidence . See Section 291 of the Act , 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawath e, 25 
l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act make s 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 
exten sive 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 indivi duals 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 implement ing regu lation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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. USCJS, 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 is a business executive with more than 25 years of experience in the pharmaceutical 
industry. The record reflects that she most recentl served asl !(Managing 
Director) of from 2017 until 2019. She previously 
worked as a General Manager of (2013 to 201 7) and spent 17 years 
working in progressive positions for th roup of companies in Europe and the Americas, most 
recently as Executive President of in Venezuela from 2011 to 2013. The Petitioner 
indicates that she intends to establish a U.S.-based consulting business to assist, coach and mentor 
business and organizational leaders. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or demonstrated that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted 
evidence that satisfies the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which requires documentation of 
published material about the petitioner, relating to their work, in major trade or professional 
publications or other major media. The record supports the Director 's determination that the Petitioner 
met this criterion. 1 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that she can satisfy five additional criteria, discussed below. After 
reviewing all the evidence provided, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that she meets 
at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) and therefore has not satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements for this classification. 
1 The record includes a 2019 online article titled ________________ published by 
The article is about the Petitioner, includes the required title, date, and author, and is accompanied by evidence 
that the publication qualifies as major media, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) . 
2 
Documentation of the individual'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). 
This regulatory criterion requires evidence of the petitioner's receipt of prizes or awards and evidence 
that such prizes or awards are nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. Relevant considerations regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was 
excellence in the field include, but are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, 
the national or international significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of 
awardees or prize recipients as well as any limitations on competitors. 2 
The Petitioner established that she was the recipient of three awards: (1 ) ________ 
Award, presented by the 18th Edition of the Asia Pacific HRM Congress in 2019 and (2) two awards 
I I Award and I !Award) presented to her byl I in 2017. Although we 
acknowledge that the awards granted by I I recognize the Petitioner's professional 
accomplishments, the record does not establish the national or international significance of the awards 
or that the company's internal company awards program, which is necessarily limited to persons who 
work within a single organization, meets the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner 
does not pursue her claim that she meets this criterion based on her awards from 
The Petitioner's initial evidence included a copy of her award certificate 
and a screenshot from the Asia Pacific HRM Congress website promoting its 2019 awards. The 
website lists the organizational and individual award categories. According to this information, entries 
for the individual category awards should be accompanied by a personal profile for the nominated 
person with information such as achievements, awards or accolades received, media coverage, articles 
published, photographs and "any other relevant details." The website indicates that "[t]he Jury will 
evaluate each entry & will decide on winners." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director advised the Petitioner that the initial evidence was not 
sufficient to establish that the awards she received met all requirements of this criterion. The Director 
advised that she should submit additional objective evidence demonstrating who is eligible for 
consideration for such awards, the criteria used to grant the awards, and the significance of the prizes 
or awards, to include the national or international recognition associated with them and the number of 
prizes awarded each year. 
In response, the Petitioner resubmitted a copy of her award certificate and the website printout from 
the Asia Pacific HRM Congress regarding the 2019 awards. The only additional evidence she 
provided was a copy of an edited post on her Linkedin page in which she quoted the invitation she 
received from the 18th Asia Pacific HRM Con ress. The uoted portion of the post indicates that she 
would be receivin the title of which the issuin or anization described 
as The organizer's 
invitation indicated that the bases of selection for this award include building a sustainable leadership 
2 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2) appendix, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 
(indicating that an award limited to competitors from a single institution, for example, may have little national or 
international significance). 
3 
pipeline in the organization, empowerment, social change, ability to influence and "building a 
successor in line and career path." 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not submit objective evidence establishing that her 
_________ Award" is a nationally or internationally recognized award or prize for 
excellence in her field and therefore did not meet her burden to establish that it meets all requirements 
of this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner re-submits the evidence described above. In the appellate brief, counsel 
emphasizes that the website of the Asia Pacific HRM Congress states that its awards program 
recognizes the "Best of the Best." Counsel further states that "the number of awardees is limited to 
one in each category, but it is open to any institution in the Asia Pacific region," that "the award has 
great significance in the field," and that is "internationally recognized - in all Asia Pacific region." 
However, the record lacks objective evidence supporting these statements. Assertions of counsel do 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)). Counsel's statements must be substantiated in 
the record with independent evidence. 
While we acknowledge that the Asia Pacific HRM Congress is an international organization, this fact 
alone does not establish that its annual meeting issues awards that are nationally or internationally 
recognized in the Petitioner's field as awards for excellence. The record does not include evidence 
demonstrating the recognition associated with the award outside the issuing organization. Rather, the 
only information regarding the award was sourced from the organization's own website. The 
Petitioner did not offer supporting evidence, such as coverage of the award in professional or trade 
publications or other media or other evidence showing the award's recognition for excellence in the 
field. Finally, although requested by the Director, the record does not contain sufficient information 
and evidence regarding the entry and selection process and the criteria used to select award recipients. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that she has been the recipient of an award 
that satisfies this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must document their membership in an association and 
demonstrate that membership in the association is based on being judged by recognized national or 
international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is 
sought. 3 
3 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual supra. at F.2(B)(2) appendix (providing an example of admission to membership in the 
National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member, 
and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
4 
The Petitioner initially claimed that she meets this criterion based on her membership in Young 
Presidents' Organization (YPO), her membership in the The Or anization of 
Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI), and her election and service as 
I I for the German Venezuelan Chamber of Industry and Commerce. The Director 
determined that she did not meet her burden to establish that any of these associations or organizations 
require outstanding achievements as a condition for membership or that such achievements are judged 
by recognized national or international experts in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner's does not contest the Director's determination that she did not establish 
eligibility based on her participation in the of OPPI and her I 
position withl 4 Accordingly, we will limit our review to her claim that her membership in 
YPO meets all requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
With respect to her membership in YPO, the Petitioner submitted: 
• Letter from the Chapter Manager of YPO Mumbai Connect confirming the Petitioner's 
membership in this chapter, one of 15 in the South Asia Region 
• Screenshot of the Petitioner's membership profile page from the YPO Connect website 
• YPO membership criteria and application procedure from the organization's website 
(YPO.org) 
• Letter from _________ Grupo Maso, who states that he invited the Petitioner 
to join the YPO Venezuelan chapter in 2012 
According to the YPO website, the organization requires prospective members to establish that they: 
(1) possess a qualifying title within their company or division (managing director, president, or board 
chairperson); (2) supervise at least 50 employees; (3) meet YPO's age requirement (under age 45 at 
the time of application), and (4) work for a qualifying corporation. To establish employment with a 
qualifying corporation, applicants must establish that their employer meets threshold financial 
requirements (minimum gross turnover or assets). 
The YPO website indicates the foregoing criteria are the minimum requirements and that individual 
YPO chapters may have additional criteria. In addition, it states that "the application must be certified 
by an outside auditing firm or other approved independent third party." The third party must verify 
the applicant's job title, the number of employees supervised and their annual compensation, and the 
company sales/turnover. 
With respect to the application and review process, the YPO website indicates that applications are 
reviewed by a "YPO membership development manager" and forwarded to a local chapter for 
consideration if all quantitative criteria are met. It states that local chapters have their own processes 
for admitting members. With respect to applicants that meet the quantitative requirements, it states: 
4 We observe that although the Director stated that the Petitioner established her membership in OPPI and I I the 
record does not contain objective evidence demonstrating that either of these organizations admits individual members 
based on a review of their individual achievements. Rather, it appears that she held elected or appointed positions as the 
representative of a member company. For example, a letter from the Director General of OPPI states that the Petitioner 
was part of the executive committee while representing I I 
5 
Meeting the specific quantitative requirements does not automatically guarantee 
admittance into YPO. There are other important, less easily defined requirements that 
also need to be met. These are qualitative in nature and are at the discretion of the 
current chapter's executive committee. 
While the evidence submitted clearly states the organization-wide threshold quantitative requirements 
for YPO membership, the record does not contain evidence from either local chapter that admitted the 
Petitioner addressing any additional requirements, their local process for admitting members, or 
information as to how they make discretionary decisions based on undefined qualitative factors. The 
evidence does not establish that the stated quantitative requirements (pertaining to the applicant's age, 
job title, company's finances, and the number of personnel supervised), although confirmed by third­
party auditors, are subject to being judged by recognized experts in the field who make membership 
decisions. 
The evidence indicates that final decisions are made by local chapter executive committees, but the 
record does not demonstrate that such committee positions are held by recognized national or 
international experts in the Petitioner's field. 5 Nor does the record identify or document the 
discretionary qualitative factors these executive committees consider, such that we could determine 
whether "outstanding achievements," beyond the quantitative data collected on the application, are a 
condition for membership. 
The evidence submitted in support of this criterion must demonstrate that, as a condition of being 
granted membership in an association, the person was judged by recognized national or international 
experts as having attained outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. We 
acknowledge that holding a senior executive position for a qualifying company relatively early in 
one's career is a significant professional achievement. However, but for the reasons discussed, the 
record does not establish that membership in YPO meets all elements stated at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(ii). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that she satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must establish that not only have they made original contributions 
to the field, but also that those contributions have been of major significance. For example, a petitioner 
may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably 
impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner submitted letters of recommendation and evidence of 
her participation in panel discussion and events and webinars. The Director concluded, however, that 
while the record reflects that the Petitioner has made business contributions that impacted her 
employer, the evidence did not demonstrate that she had made business-related contributions that had 
5 On appeal, the Petitioner submits an excerpt from the YPO website which identifies the members of its _____ 
She states "approval of membership eligibility" is made by this Board and they are recognized expe1is in the field. 
However, as discussed above, the evidence submitted from the organization indicates that final decisions regarding 
membership are made by executive committees at the local chapter level, rather than the Board for the larger YPO 
organization. 
6 
a broader impact or influence, such that her contributions could be considered of major significance 
in the field. The Director emphasized that the letters were not supported by sufficient independent 
and objective evidence establishing the significance of the Petitioner's contributions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the letters she submitted from "renowned people in the field" 
were supported with independent evidence that discusses her contributions, such as published articles 
and a book in which she was interviewed. She states that she was "the firstl I 
I I in the world of business" and was given this title because she "headed a comprehensive and 
transformational effort of applying I I to a large and complex commercial 
operation atl I' The Petitioner maintains that while this approach initially impacted her 
employer it "has gained global recognition" as evidenced by the submitted media coverage. 
In reviewing this criterion, we have considered the submitted letters, 6 published materials, the 
Petitioner's participation in panels and workshops in her field, her work on the I 
of OPPI, as well as her statement in support of the petition. For the reasons discussed below, the 
record does not establish that the Petitioner's business-related contributions are of major significance 
in her field. 
In her statement, the Petitioner explained that in her last assignment withl I (frfrom 201 7 
to 2019) she "received the mandate to implement a transformational operating model and a new 
approach to business and leadership." She indicates that the new strategy was implemented within 
one year, served as "a benchmark for several other companies" and "had influenced other leaders in 
the healthcare sector in India and the world." The Petitioner also emphasized that during her tenure 
with OPPI, she "led the member companies to work together on a strategy that followed the principle 
of bringing social impact to the association strategy, focusing on results beyond ... selling our 
products, supporting the increase of access in Healthcare." In addition, the Petitioner emphasized that 
her efforts "to support the healthcare broader impact and a more humanized leadership" have resulted 
in invitations to participate in panel discussions and roundtables to discuss the future ofleadership and 
healthcare. 
The Petitioner's supporting evidence includes a letter from 
atl I who states he reported to her during her tenure with that company. He states 
that the Petitioner's " eo le centric leadership style infused excitement and optimism in each and 
every employee of and drove the organization to create a 2030 vision that centered around 
transforming healthcare in & care for every patient's life." He states that this "industry first" 
vision was "complemented with a detailed strategic roadmap, a patient centric operating model and a 
purpose driven organization culture."I !credits the Petitioner's "visionary and leadership 
centric leadership style" with yielding business growth, increased employee engagement scores, and 
the signing of several long-term MOUs focused on delivering broader healthcare impact with several 
government and large private organizations" which "set a defining trend in the industry." He further 
mentions that the Petitioner "regularly spoke at many industry conferences sharing her forward­
looking views on how corporates can deliver a much larger impact on society, purpose driven 
leadership, and building Quantum organizations." 
6 While we do not discuss every letter in this decision, we have reviewed and considered each one in evaluating whether 
the Petitioner established that she meets this criterion. 
7 
A letter froml I also a senior manager with I I discusses the Petitioner's work, 
notin that she "contributed significantly to the organization," and transformed it by bringing in 
developing a long-term vision, and building a strategy to achieve the vision. 
describes the Petitioner's operating model as "extremely futuristic as compared to the peer 
companies" and states that it "has been a benchmark for many who wish to transform their 
organizations." While she indicates that other teams within the I I organization 
requested that the Petitioner share her expertise, she does not provide examples of how the influence 
or impact of her work withl I extended outside the organization. 
The record supports that the Petitioner made business-related contributions tol lthat 
significantly impacted her employer. However, the record does not contain sufficient support for a 
determination that her work with I has been widely recognized outside the organization as 
a contribution that serves as "a defining trend in the industry" or as a "benchmark" for the industry at 
large. Further, while the record includes evidence that the Petitioner has been invited to participate in 
panel discussions and workshops to speak to her peers about her work withl I it does not 
contain evidence that these speaking engagements have already had a demonstrated impact or 
influence on other organizations or other business leaders in the field consistent with original 
contributions of major significance. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from a rofessor at the University of a letter from a pro
and instructor at who co-authored the book 
stated that the authors interviewed 
the Petitioner as part of "a select group of business leaders who made a significant contribution to 
leadership in their organization and in society at large" for their book. I praises the 
Petitioner as a positive and inspirational leader, noting that she "motivated her team in to create 
a comprehensive vision to improve the quality and access to healthcare for millions of people." He 
does not offer specific support for his general claim that she has made significant contributions to 
"society at large," or indicate that the Petitioner's vision forl ]had already achieved an 
influence that extended beyond the company or had a demonstrable impact on the quality and access 
of healthcare in I The record includes an excerpt from thel Jchapter that 
discusses the Petitioner's work atl I The chapter explains the positive impact the Petitioner's 
purpose-driven, human-centered approach had on land supports a determination that she 
made business contributions to her employer that have earned her some recognition from those who 
study organizational leadership based on these principles. 
We have also considered letters that discuss the Petitioner's work with YPO and OPPI. Entrepreneur 
I I notes that the Petitioner has "actively brought speakers from her vast global network 
to mentor or share experiences with the Indian colleagues in YPO." He further indicates that the 
Petitioner has been invited to serve as a speaker and to run workshops for the YPO chapter 
"to share her professional experience on how to deliver results and increase productivity through more 
focus on I but he does not explain or point to evidence of how her experiences 
have been influential or impactfol in the field. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from Grupo Maso and member of 
YPO's Board for the Latin American Region. He states that during her time as a YPO member in 
Latin America, the Petitioner "was an inspiration for her work as a remarkable leader in the 
8 
Pharmaceutical industry during very complex times in Venezuela." He states that she created "an 
extraordinary leadership model that would later become a global benchmark for I I 
praises the Petitioner's talents, notes her participation as a speaker at YPO conferences and events, 
and asserts that "YPO Venezuela, and Venezuela in general, are better today thanks to the 
contributions [the Petitioner] made during her journey in Venezuela." However I does not 
identify a specific contribution that had an impact on "Venezuela in general," or otherwise explain 
how her work with either I or with YPO in Latin America is recognized as a majorly significant 
contribution to the field of business or organizational leadership. 
A letter from OPPI's I I confirms that as part of the organization'sl,__ __ 
___ from 2018 to 2019, the Petitioner "participated in industry-led patient advocacy and 
actively engaged with the Government oflndia in addressing the healthcare challenges of the country." 
Thel I also confirms the Petitioner's previous role as I the OPPII I 
I noting she was "instrumental in creating a value-based healthcare mission for the 
Group," and "responsible to drive 30 of the OPPI member companies and bring them together to work 
towards the collective and shared vision of providing better patient outcomes with the most sustainable 
costs." He credits the Petitioner with "helping to reinforce the knowledge and thought leadership for 
OPPI in India" but does not address how her effective leadership of one of the association's 
workgroups over a one-year period resulted in contributions that have significantly impacted or 
influenced the pharmaceutical or healthcare industry or other companies in the industry. 
Letters from experts in the field that specifically articulate how an individual's contributions are of 
major significance to the field and its impact on subsequent work add value. On the other hand, letters 
that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language do not add value and are not considered to be probative 
evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 7 Here, the letters do not contain specific, 
detailed information explaining the unusual influence or high impact that the Petitioner's work has 
had in the overall field. 
The Petitioner emphasizes that media coverage regarding her lrole withl I 
_ demonstrates her impact on the industry. 8 The Petitioner's evidence included online articles 
published by Forbes.com, Dialogue, and the website of These articles are 
very similar in content and all three were authored b 
who the Petitioner identifies as one of her mentors. In the articles, ___ explains how 
the Petitioner adaptedl J mission to the unique challenges faced by 
I I noting that her role as _______ "has been transformative" for the company 
by reshaping its rewards framework, replacing traditional pharmaceutical sales metrics with self-
selected atient-im act tar ets and connectin everything to ______ In the article 
writes that "[i t is crucial that companies that want to 
follow lead do so wholly by granting the _______ to lead and change from the 
heart of the business." The articles indicate that the Petitioner's leadership style and transformation 
efforts atl l were highly effective and may serve as a useful example to other organizations. 
They also discuss the novelty of the _______ job title, noting that other organizations 
7 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) appendix. 
8 While we have focused our discussion on articles that discuss the Petitioner'sl I role withl I 
we have reviewed all submitted articles. Other articles include an article regarding the Petitioner being assigned to 
____ an article regarding her departure, and articles which discuss I pharmaceutical products. 
9 
may benefit from assigning such roles to senior leaders to recognize the value of ____ 
leadership. However, the published materials in the record do not state, and the record does not 
establish, that the Petitioner's I I leadership style or the novel business strategies she 
implemented at I have already had a significant impact on other organizations in the field. 
For all the reasons stated above, upon review we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not 
established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual 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) 
To meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, a petitioner must establish that they have 
performed in either a leading or critical role, and that the role has been for an organization or 
establishment ( or a division or department of an organization or establishment) having a distinguished 
reputation. If a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is or was a leader. A title, 
with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 9 
As noted, the record establishes that the Petitioner recently held the position of 
and Managing Director of I and that she was the senior executive 
assigned to that entity. 10 The Petitioner has submitted company information for both the I 
and itsl I subsidiary in support of her claim that the company has a distinguished reputation as a 
leading pharmaceutical company worldwide, and as the leading provider of cancer therapeutics in 
I I 
In determining that the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion, the Director noted, in 
part, that the letters she provided from her employer "did not demonstrate how the [petitioner's] role 
impacted or influenced the regional and national business industry in I ... as a whole." Based 
on this statement, it appears that the Director incorrectly applied a standard applicable to the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). As noted above, a title, with matching duties, can support a determination 
that a role was "leading"; this criterion does not require a petitioner to demonstrate that their role 
impacted the industry. The Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence documenting her job title and 
duties to establish that she met this requirement as a managing director assigned tol I 
Further, we disagree with the Director's determination that the record "does not contain information 
about any awards, recognition or achievements garnered by the organization" that would demonstrate 
its distinguished reputation. The Petitioner submitted media reports s and evidence of industry awards 
sufficient to establish that the organization, including the subsidiary, enjoys a distinguished 
reputation. 
After reviewing all the evidence, we conclude that the Petitioner met her burden to establish that she 
meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) based on her most recent position as a senior 
executive with the Roche group of companies. 
9 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra. at F.2(B)(2) appendix (noting that Merriam-Webster's online dictionary 
defines "distinguished" as "marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence or befitting an eminent person"), 
10 The record contains evidence that the Petitioner's employment contract's with the 
I I and that she accepted an international assignment with 
10 
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 meet this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that their salary or remuneration is high relative 
to the compensation paid to others working in the field. The burden is on the petitioner to provide 
appropriate comparative evidence. Examples may include, but are not limited to, geographical or 
position-appropriate compensation surveys. 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. 11 
The Director determined that the Petitioner "submitted copies of compensation reports in a foreign 
language which are not accompanied by English language translations," and stated that such 
documents would not be considered. The Director further concluded that the Petitioner did not provide 
evidence of objective earnings data sufficient to establish that she has earned a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration in relation to other similarly employed workers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and maintains that the previously submitted 
evidence included English-language evidence demonstrating her past earnings. We agree that the 
Petitioner sufficiently documented her remuneration withl A letter from I I I Human Resources indicated that the Petitioner earned a base salary of CHF 364,332 in 
2019. This letter was accompanied by English-language compensation statements and other 
documentary evidence of her earnings in the period between 2017 and 2019. Although the evidence 
included Venezuelan tax returns that were not accompanied by English translations, the record 
includes other relevant, probative evidence of the Petitioner's past remuneration. 
The record before the Director, however, did not include relevant comparative data to support the 
Petitioner's claim that she commanded a high salary, or significantly high remuneration, in relation to 
others. As noted, persons working outside the United States should be evaluated based on the wage 
statistics or comparable evidence in the country of employment, rather than converting their salary to 
U.S. dollars and submitting comparative U.S. wage data. Here, the Petitioner's salary was provided 
in Swiss francs, and she worked in both Venezuela and India during the period for which 
documentation of her earnings was provided. Rather than converting her salary to Venezuelan and/or 
Indian currency and providing compensation data from one or both of those countries, she converted 
it to U.S. dollars and provided data reflecting U.S. salaries for executives from online sources 
including Study.com and PayScale. For this reason, we agree with the Director's determination that 
the Petitioner did not provide relevant comparative wage statistics to support her claim that she has 
commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. 
The Petitioner submits additional evidence on appeal. We note that this criterion was addressed in the 
Director's RFE and the Petitioner had an opportunity to submit supplemental evidence, including 
"geographical or position appropriate compensation surveys," prior to the denial. Where, as here, a 
Petitioner has been put on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to 
respond to that deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on 
11 See 6 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2) appendix. 
11 
appeal. Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 
(BIA 1988). 12 
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the Petitioner's evidence did not 
establish that she satisfies 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 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. 
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. See Matter of Price, 
20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (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 II), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021) (determining that 
EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. 
Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 19-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"). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance 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 the Petitioner has 
garnered sustained national or international acclaim in the field, and she is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2). 
12 The record on appeal includes the Petitioner's Indian Income Tax Return for Assessment Year 2019-20 which shows 
her annual earnings from _________ The "gross salary" figure reported is INR80,674,391, of which 
TNR37,273,83 l was paid in salary (with the remainder categorized as "value of perquisites"). The Petitioner also provides 
comparative wage data for CEO salaries for India from three online sources and notes in her brief that one of those sources 
(PayScale) indicates that the "average salary for a CEO in India" is TNR35,947,500. We observe that the Petitioner's base 
salary, as reported on her tax return, is only slightly above this reported average salary and the evidence, even if submitted 
prior to the denial of the petition, is not sufficient to establish that she earns a "high salary" in relation to others in her field. 
Although she provided evidence of her total remuneration, the record does not contain evidence that would allow a 
comparison of her total remuneration with that of others working in the same type of position in India and therefore does 
not support a determination that her total remuneration is "significantly high." 
12 
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, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
13