dismissed EB-1A Case: Product Management And Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 9045630 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : AUG . 10, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a product manager and consultant, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A) . This 
first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The Director then granted the Petitioner's motion to reopen and reopen the proceeding, and denied the 
petition a second time. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 m 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 their 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 
they 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit 
comparable material if they are able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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 
The Petitioner states that she "is a highly accomplished and respected consultant in the area of technology 
product development and business strategy." Among other P.Ositions, she served as a lead product 
manager for and as director of product at D At the time of filing, she was a 
product lead at She also started her own consulting business called 
~------~ . Shortly before the filing date, two companies engaged the Petitioner's services as 
an advisor on a part-time, contract basis. I ~ 1 hired the Petitioner to work "from April 
2019 to April 2022 as a Product Manager ... responsible for managing the tech team and designers 
responsible for building a mobile app and maintaining and improving a website" used by workers in "the 
beauty tech industry ... to rent chair space on an hourly basis" at participating salons.I I hired 
the Petitioner to "support and supervise with conceptualizing, designing, managing and productizing 
.____ _ ____.t' 
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 claims to have met five criteria, summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner met the fourth criterion, pertaining to participating as a 
judge. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the four other claimed evidentiary criteria, 
1 The chief executive officer of! [ has the same surname as the Petitioner. The record does not say whether 
the two are related, or whether the shared surname is coincidental. 
2 
including the submission of comparable evidence relating to the second criterion (membership in 
associations). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and conclude that it does not show 
that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. We discuss the criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification 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) 
The Petitioner asserts that she meets this criterion through her mentorship work with!.__ _____ __, 
andl I In the alternative, the Petitioner asserts that her work with these organizations should be 
considered comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4) because, to her knowledge, "there are no 
associations ... in [her] field (Product Management) that require outstanding achievements of members 
as determined by recognized experts." 
.__ _____ _.I is "aObased accelerator that aims to support innovative IT startups in the healthcare 
sector." Its executive director states: "Mentors become part of our program through either invitation or 
through an application and screening process. [The Petitioner] was invited to join us because of her 
excellent reputation as a technology consultant as well as her strong experience specifically in the health 
care sector." The same official states: "Our selection team is made of the 3 managing partners at 
The executive director ofl !describes that entity as "an accelerator program that supports startups 
froml I and helps them scale globally." He states: "We selectively recruit mentors who are 
leaders in their field and will be able to provide the best guidance for our members. [The Petitioner] was 
asked to join as a mentor because of her expertise and experience as a leading technology consultant." 
He states that the advisory board responsible for selecting mentors "is currently made up of nine members, 
all leading experts in business and finance." He does not identify these individuals but states that their 
profiles appear on the organization's website. 2 
The Petitioner does not submit any documentary evidence from the two accelerators to establish the 
formal requirements for acceptance as a mentor. The fairly general references to rigorous and exclusive 
mentorship selection processes do not show that mentors are chosen by recognized national or 
international experts in their disciplines or fields. The Petitioner has not established that volunteering for 
mentorship programs is comparable to membership in an association as described in the regulation. 
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) 
2 The web page that identifies the advisory board members is http://ww~ tmentors.html (last visited July 9, 
2020). That page provides no information about the members except their names and links to other pages with further 
information (usually their Linkedln profiles). This information does not establish that the advisory board consists entirely 
of recognized national or international experts. 
3 
The Petitioner submits a number of materials intended to satisfy this criterion. For the reasons explained 
below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Al 12019 piece calling the Petitioner ~---------------~' is a press 
release from~ ______ _.. It appeared verbatim on different websites. There is no credited author, 
but the article names a contact person named j I at a public relations and marketing firm. The 
record does not reveal who hired the public relations firm and commissioned the press release. The article 
includes biographic information about the Petitioner and praise for her abilities, but does not promote any 
particular company or product. Given the nature and uncertain origin of this article, the Petitioner has not 
established that it meets the regulatory requirements for the criterion. 
Similarly, a list of 'I I published on Entrepreneur's website 
appeared under the heading 'I . I Spotlight," with no named author and no date. (The 
printout also lacks a web address that might otherwise corroborate the information.) The Petitioner is one 
of the "Top Leaders" mentioned in the article. A legend beneath the "Spotlight" heading reads: "Where 
brands share their insights," indicating that "Spotlight" articles are promotional pieces originating from 
outside the publication's own staff. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that this article 
meets the regulatory requirements for the criterion. 
Al I 2019 I . I' post on ThriveGlobal calls the Petitioner "one of the lead female figures 
in the field of product management." The author of the article isl I who "currently runs a 
six-figure PR firm." The available evidence indicates that he is the same i I named as the contact 
point in articles credited tol l The ThriveGlobal piece includes a disclaimer that the 
views of "outside contributors ... don't necessarily reflect our own." The Petitioner has not shown that 
this post constitutes qualifying published material. 
A I I 201 7 piece in the Huffington Post named the Petitioner among ' 
I I' The list is identified as a blog post rather than an article of jou._m_a_li-st-ic-re_p_o_rt_a_g_e_-T_h_.e 
record does not show that the Huffington Post takes responsibility for the content of blog posts as it would 
for news articles. 3 Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that this post is a qualifying article. 
Alley Watch interviewed the Petitioner iO 2017 as part of a series involving~--------~ 
I I" The Petitioner has not established that Alley Watch qualifies as a professional or 
major trade publication or other major media; the site has a "Category Rank" of 2088 among "Technology 
News" websites. The website's own media kit refers to a "global audience" but also indicates that the 
"organization [is] focused on thd I startup and tech community." Although the regulation calls 
for a named author, the article is credited collectively to Alley Watch, with no indication as to who wrote 
or asked the questions posed to the Petitioner. The Petitioner asserts that the regulation "does not specify 
that such author must be named as an individual," but a collective attribution does not name the author at 
all when the record does not name the individual comprising that collective. The omission is particularly 
significant in the face of the Petitioner's submission of commissioned articles written by public relations 
firms rather than journalists. 
3 We note that the web address provided for the blog post is no longer active. The online archive of posts by the blogger 
in question does not include the submitted post, or any explanation for the post's deletion. 
4 
Another interview published with no named author al'peared on the website of World News inl I 
2018. The article appeared underl 'credited to I I' about whom the record 
provides no further information. 4 The interviewer's questions repeatedly refer to the Petitioner as a leader 
in the field. For example, the interviewer asked: "How have your [sic] grown and have expectations of 
you changed since becoming a leader in the field?" and "You grew up in technology and are recognized 
as a senior leader, how would you define your strengths?" Because other articles with such an emphasis 
trace back to a public relations firm, this effectively anonymous article carries little weight. The Petitioner 
has not shown that this article is qualifying published material. 
There is a named author for an interview with the Petitioner for 100 Product Managers, a podcast "on a 
mission to interview 100 product managers," with transcripts published on an affiliated website. The 
named interviewer from 100 Product Managers does not refer to the Petitioner as a leader in her field, 
and the nature of the questions does not indicate that the interviewer had significant knowledge about the 
Petitioner or her work before the interview. This interviewer mentioned "looking in [the Petitioner's] 
background" to prepare for the interview, whereas the unidentified World News interviewer phrased the 
questions in a manner that presupposed the Petitioner's prominence in her field. 
The Petitioner does not establish that 100 Product Managers qualifies as a professional or major trade 
publication or other major media. The website's self-description indicates that, rather than focus on 
"famous" individuals, the publication seeks to "include[] all kinds of voices and a wide range of 
experience." The same page invites readers to "request an interview" if they are "somebody who would 
like to participate in the project." 5 
Apart from the interview in 100 Product Managers, which appears to have been predicated only on the 
Petitioner's employment as a project manager and which the Petitioner appears to have initiated through 
the site's open invitation for interview requests, most of the submitted articles appear to originate from a 
public relations firm, published on sites that accept outside contributions. Promotional materials of this 
type do not constitute published material about the Petitioner in professional or major trade publications 
or other major media, relating to her work in the field. In the same way that one cannot establish eligibility 
by awarding oneself a prize or offering oneself a high salary, creating or arranging for media coverage on 
one's own behalf cannot carry the same weight as independent coverage resulting from one's reputation 
in a particular field. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
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) 
We will not disturb the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. If this proceeding 
had reached a final merits determination, we would have taken into account the level at which this judging 
took place (such as local events and an event restricted to alumni of one university). 
4 The record does not show whether the initials c=]in the usemame relate tol I or are coincidental. 
5 Had this proceeding reached a final merits dete1mination, this practice of openly soliciting interview subjects, without 
consideration for their recognition in the field, would have unde1mined any conclusion that 100 Product Managers specifically 
approached the Petitioner due to her acclaim in the field. 
5 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. We disagree. 
The Petitioner was a lead product manager atl I The record establishes I ~s 
distinguished reputation. I h head of broker and bank product management asserts that 
I I is "considered I ~ s most significant strategic step towards embracing 
social media." He states: 
Based on the ieema) metrics gather:d and analysis conducted on this program, it was 
concluded that lhad significant impact and influence of members 
trading and the success members had in pursuing their trading activities. The ... average 
I I members trade 4.1 times more than I I members ... [and] 
generated 2. 7 times more revenue . . . . [I]t is clear the product line did have an important 
impact onl ts success in the market. 
A former corporate treasurer at .... ! ___ _.I states: 
[The Petitioner] essentially was responsible for the strategic development for the 
company's digital products and online branding .... She also helped develop and launch 
technology products in almost every sector within the company's technology suite .... 
Within social media, she led the development and management of a cohesive product suite 
across multiple digital platforms .... 
[The Petitioner's] work undoubtedly directly affected the development and evolution of 
I ~ technology product offerings and it's [sic] trajectory. Therefore in my mind 
she was also critical to the company's growth from a multi-million dollar company to an 
over $2.4 billion company that now serves over 4 million accounts. 
The record indicates that the Petitioner performed in a critical role forl [ thereby satisfying the 
requirements of this criterion. Because the Petitioner's work atl lsuffices to meet the criterion, 
we need not discuss the less persuasive evidence submitted regarding her roles at other organizations. 
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's tax returns show salary income of $102,742 in 2015 and business income ( after expenses) 
of $104,972 in 2016, and $225,779 in 2017. In 2018,I I paid her $99,529 as an employee; pay 
receipts from early 2019 show a rate of $18,333 per month, or $220,000 per year. The Petitioner does 
not identify all the sources of her consulting income, but she documents payments from some individual 
clients in 2017 and 2018; the largest such payment was $211,750 in 2017. Other documented payments 
ranged between $7500 and $33,800. In many instances, the Petitioner has not documented the work she 
performed for these payments, or the amount of time she devoted to each of these clients. 
G 
The regulation requires comparison of the Petitioner's compensation to that of others in the field. The 
comparative evidence is fragmentary and inconsistent. Some former employers assert that the Petitioner 
earned more than others performing similar tasks, but such comparisons are limited. Similarly, private 
survey data relies on non-random self-reporting. In terms of official government figures, the Petitioner 
submits Department of Labor data indicating that the level 4 wage for "Computer Occupations, All Other" 
in thel !metropolitan area was $121,222 per year at the time of filing. This broad category 
includes "Database Architects," "Web Administrators," and "Data Warehousing Specialists." The 
Petitioner did not explain why this category is the best match for product managers. A former~ 
official states that the role of a "Product Director ... is not a software programming role, a function which 
is usually handled by an engineering team, which is directed by the Product Director." This description 
indicates a higher-level, managerial role, in which case it is not correct to compare the Petitioner's 
compensation to that of programmers and engineers. 
The evidence of the Petitioner's remuneration is incomplete, and the Petitioner has not provided a reliable 
basis for comparing her compensation to that of others performing similar work. (The record also does 
not provide sufficient details about the nature of that work.) Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the 
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 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. The Petitioner has 
documented some degree of success in her field, but the record does not consistently point to sustained 
national or international acclaim at the top of her field. Of particular concern, there are serious 
questions regarding the origin of published materials referring to her as a leader in her field; she 
appears to have arranged for their publication, as shown by the documented involvement of public 
relations specialists in their publication. 
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. 
7