dismissed EB-1A Case: Product Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 17, 2024 In Re: 31265392 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a senior director of product management, 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 the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he had received a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) or 
that he satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria, as required for the requested 
classification. The Petitioner filed a subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider, which the Director 
granted. After reopening and reconsidering the matter, the Director again denied the petition, 
concluding that the Petitioner did satisfy the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification but 
did not establish in a final merits determination, as required, that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim and is among the small percentage at the very top of his field. The matter is now 
before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the [ noncitizen] 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 [noncitizen] seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the [ noncitizen' 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 recognition 
of their 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 they 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 detennination); 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 technology product manager with more than 16 years of international experience 
managing technology product strategy. He states that his engineering and product expertise with 
product lifecycle management and model-based simulation and testing has been applied in various 
industries, including "automotive, industrial automation, medical devices, semiconductor, and 
aerospace/defense." He states that he intends to continue his work in the United States managing 
"groundbreaking hyper-niche system engineering technologies." 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
As the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must demonstrate that he meets the initial evidence requirements by satisfying 
at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner initially claimed that 
he could meet eight of these criteria: 
• (i), Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published materials in major trade or professional publications or other major 
media; 
• (iv), Participating as a judge of the work of others in the field; 
2 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media; 
• (viii), Performing in leading or critical roles for organizations or establishments with a 
distinguished reputation; and 
• (ix), Commanding a high salary, or other significantly high remuneration for services, 
in relation to others in the field. 
After the initial filing, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), notifying the Petitioner that 
the evidence in the record was not sufficient to demonstrate that he met any of the claimed criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and allowed the Petitioner an opportunity to submit additional evidence. 
Upon review of the Petitioner's response to the RFE, in a decision dated April 28, 2023, the Director 
concluded that the record did not demonstrate that he satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary 
criteria, as required for the requested classification. However, after granting the Petitioner's 
subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider, the Director issued a new decision, dated October 16, 
2023, concluding that the Petitioner demonstrated that he met three of the ten criteria. Specifically, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi), and (viii), 
having participated as a judge of the work of others in the field, authored scholarly articles in major 
trade or professional publications, and performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a 
distinguished reputation. 
The Director fully discussed and analyzed each of the total eight claimed criteria in the RFE and in 
two separate decisions. She explained the deficiencies in the evidence in the record as it relates to 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (v), and (ix). However, because the Petitioner demonstrated that he 
met the initial evidence requirements of three criteria, the Director proceeded to a final merits 
determination. In a final merits determination, the Director must analyze the petitioner's 
accomplishments together and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if their successes are 
sufficient to demonstrate that they have extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. As noted above, 
in a final merits determination, the Director looks at 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 section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); 
see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 1 
B. Final Merits Determination 
The Director concluded that the record, as a whole, did not establish that the Petitioner garnered 
sustained national or international acclaim and that he has risen to that small percentage at the very 
top of the field of endeavor. The Director noted that the record demonstrates that the Petitioner has 
garnered some attention in the field and has been recognized for his work; however, it does not support 
the Petitioner's claims that his work has made an impact in the field of technology product 
management, or that he has achieved sustained national or international acclaim based on his 
achievements. 
1 See also 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
3 
In determining whether a petitioner has enjoyed sustained national or international acclaim, we 
consider that such acclaim must be maintained, and the individual's achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also 6 USCJS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(A)(l). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief referencing the same arguments and evidence previously 
submitted. The Petitioner asserts that by satisfying three of the ten criteria that are required to 
demonstrate extraordinary ability, he met the preponderance of the evidence standard and thus 
qualifies for the requested classification. It appears, however, that the Petitioner focuses entirely on 
his ability to meet at least three of ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) as the basis for 
claiming that he is an individual of extraordinary ability. We disagree. As noted above, and as 
previously stated both in the Director's RFE and two decisions, meeting the minimum requirements 
by providing evidence to meet at least three initial criteria is not sufficient to establish that the 
Petitioner is an individual of extraordinary ability, but instead is only the fust step. See 
generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(2). Here, the second step of the process is based 
on a comprehensive qualitative analysis of the evidence. 
The Director concluded in a final merits determination that the Petitioner did not establish by a 
preponderance of the evidence that he has demonstrated sustained national or international acclaim to 
establish that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See id. Although the Petitioner reemphasizes his career successes and skills on appeal, he 
does not address the Director's final merits determination analysis and instead continues to focus 
exclusively on the fact that the minimum evidentiary requirements were satisfied. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the abuse of discretion of one particular officer negatively 
influenced the decision in this matter. He asserts that after granting the motion to reopen and 
reconsider and withdrawing the initial decision, the same officer should not have been allowed to 
continue to adjudicate the petition. Here, we note that the Petitioner makes several incorrect 
statements about the adjudication of this matter. 2 First, he incorrectly states that the Administrative 
Appeals Office (AAO) granted the Petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider the matter. In fact, 
this decision was made by the Director and not the AAO. 
Next, the Petitioner incorrectly states that evidence submitted with the combined motions was "prima 
facie evidence" that he had established two of the initial evidence criteria, and that the motion decision 
"specifically address[ ed] the elite nature of [his membership in an association that requires outstanding 
achievements]." The Director's decision granting the combined motions states that the "evidence 
submitted ... overcomes the grounds stated for denial," but makes no determination that the Petitioner 
had satisfied the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), membership in an association that requires 
outstanding achievements. Nor does it state that the Petitioner met any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Instead, the Director's separate decision following reopening, dated October 16, 
2023, addresses the criteria he met. 
2 On appeal, the Petitioner's representative requests a refund of the filing fee paid for Premium Processing service. 
However, we do not handle filing fees and exercise no control over requests such as the one made by counsel. 
4 
Additionally, the Petitioner incorrectly states that the Director determined that he met only two of the 
claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x). As noted above, the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had established that he met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi), and (viii), having 
participated as a judge of the work of others in the field, authored scholarly articles in major trade or 
professional publications, and performed in a leading or critical role for organizations with a 
distinguished reputation. Therefore, the Director found that the Petitioner met three initially required 
criteria to progress to consideration under a final merits determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also asserts that the Director erred in not issuing a RFE to allow him an 
opportunity to submit additional evidence demonstrating his national acclaim. He states, "Having 
previously stated no basis for any putative deficiency regarding acclaim, [the Director] is therefore 
barred from raising this issue of acclaim at this point." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) lists the initial evidence that is required when filing a petition 
seeking classification as an individual of extraordinary ability, which includes evidence that the 
individual "has sustained national or international acclaim." As noted above, in determining sustained 
national or international acclaim, not only does the Director examine the evidence in the record meant 
to satisfy the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x), but the second step of the process requires a 
comprehensive qualitative analysis of the evidence. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at 
F.2(B)(2)(stating, "the officer should consider the petition in its entirety to determine eligibility 
according to the standard"). Here, the Director did issue a detailed RFE and two decisions informing 
the Petitioner of deficiencies in the evidence in the record in demonstrating his eligibility as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. As noted above, in the second decision, dated October 16, 2023, 
the Director considered the totality of the material provided, including evidence related to the 
Petitioner's eight claimed criteria, in a final merits determination to 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, and concluded that it did not. We note that the 
Petitioner did not submit additional evidence on appeal related to any aspect of the case, although he 
had the opportunity to do so. 
The Petitioner also asserts that the Director ignored evidence in the record, specifically a "technical 
scholarly white paper" discussing "complex hardware and software simulation on real-time simulation 
and testing." The Petitioner asserts that "this white paper alone represents acclaim." We conclude 
that the record reflects the Director's consideration of all evidence in the totality even though she did 
not address each piece of evidence individually. The five-page white paper does not indicate the name 
of the author and does not include a date of publication. The paper appears to be promotional in nature, 
describing a solution for real-time testing and simulation developed by the Petitioner's employer. The 
Petitioner, himself, is not mentioned in the paper. When USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to 
the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim 
the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence the petitioner 
presents. Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 
973, 976 (1st Cir.1992); see also Kazemzadeh v. US. Atty. Gen., 577 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 
2009); Casalena v. US. INS, 984 F.2d 105, 107 (4th Cir. 1993). 
5 
Although the Petitioner met three of the initial criteria to reach a final merits determination, and 
therefore, a full discussion of the remaining criteria is not necessary, we will briefly address them to 
the extent that they may have added to any final merits determination. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his inclusion on the list of "40 Under 40 Innovators" from 
_________ in 2022 "constitutes at least a degree of recognition of [his] acclaim." In 
the RFE and both decisions, the Director considered this evidence and noted that the Petitioner did not 
establish that this constitutes a prize or award based on the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Although this mention may be considered some degree of recognition for the Petitioner, we agree with 
the Director that the record does not establish that the Petitioner was the recipient of a prize or award. 
Nor does this recognition demonstrate a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
The Petitioner also asserts that his original contributions to the field demonstrate his national acclaim, 
including "documented breakthroughs in the 'hyper niche field' of real-time simulation," authoring a 
white paper that has been cited and republished, and presenting "declassified military age tech to 
commercial civil manufacturing" at an automation fair conference. The Director also addressed these 
contributions as described in letters of recommendation in the record in conducting a final merits 
determination. The Director determined that, while the letters praise the Petitioner and his work, the 
record "does not include corroborating evidence to show that he is viewed by the overall field as being 
among that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor." The USCIS Policy Manual 
notes that, "Detailed letters from experts in the field explaining the nature and significance of the 
person's contributions may also provide valuable context for evaluating the claimed original 
contributions of major significance, particularly when the record includes documentation 
corroborating the claimed significance." 6 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). We agree with 
the Director's analysis. The attestations describe the Petitioner's accomplishments, but the record 
does not include corroborating evidence to support that these accomplishments are original 
contributions of major significance demonstrating an achievement of national or international acclaim 
and recognition in the field of technology product management. 
The Director further determined that the record did not include evidence corroborating that the 
Petitioner's presentation influenced attendees or resulted in national or international acclaim for the 
Petitioner. As noted above, the Petitioner does not submit additional evidence on appeal to overcome 
this deficiency. 
In considering the Petitioner's white paper, as noted above, the paper does not credit the Petitioner as 
author and appears to be promoting technology developed by the Petitioner's employer. The paper 
does not credit the Petitioner with any original contribution to the field. 
The Petitioner asserts that his high level of remuneration also demonstrates his national acclaim. Here, 
the Petitioner relies on tax records reflecting his wages in 2021 and 2022 and provides salary 
information from ZipRecruiter.com for comparison. The Director analyzed this evidence in the RFE 
and in both decisions, noting deficiencies in the salary information used for comparison. Specifically, 
the Director noted that the salary information from ZipRecruiter.com is based on self-reported 
information where accuracy cannot be confirmed. She further noted that the ZipRecruiter.com salary 
6 
information is for 2023 and does not correspond to the evidence of the Petitioner's wages in 2021 and 
2022. The Petitioner does not provide new evidence on appeal to address these deficiencies. 
The Petitioner points to a statement from a talent acquisition specialist attesting to his high salary. The 
statement makes no mention of the Petitioner's actual salary or remuneration. The author states, "Both 
[the Petitioner's] past and current salaries have steadily remained while already at the ninety-fifth 
percentile among graduates with this degree and in this field, represents a fraction of his earning 
potential." However, the author of the statement does not provide any citation or explanation of how 
the Petitioner's salary is calculated to be at the 95th percentile. Nor does the author reference any data 
points to define the meaning or relevance of "the 95th percentile." Without corroborating evidence we 
cannot consider this statement to demonstrate that the Petitioner's compensation is high relative to that 
of others working in the field or of his national acclaim. 
The Petitioner also asserts that his membership in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 
(IEEE) demonstrates his national acclaim. On appeal, the Petitioner states that, in granting the motion 
to reopen and reconsider, there were "implicit instructions" that he satisfied multiple criteria related 
to his association with the IEEE. As we have noted above, the Director's decision to grant the motion 
to reopen and reconsider in this matter did not make any determination as to the Petitioner's eligibility 
or state that the Petitioner met any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Instead, the Director 
acknowledged that the Petitioner met the three initial criteria in her decision of October 16, 2023. The 
motion decision did not give any instructions or discuss at all the Petitioner's membership in the IEEE. 
While the Director did conclude, in her October 16, 2023 decision, that the Petitioner satisfied two 
criteria based on his work in the IEEE - 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (viii), having participated as a 
judge of the work of others in the field and performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
with a distinguished reputation - the Director also analyzed this membership in making a final merits 
determination. Here, the Director noted that the IEEE bylaws do not establish "that requirements for 
membership reflect outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts, nor does it represent an individual who is among the small percentage at the very top of the 
field." The Petitioner does not provide new evidence on appeal to address this. Although the 
Petitioner expresses disagreement with the Director's analysis of his membership in the IEEE, he does 
not explain how the Director's analysis was contrary to law or policy. While the Petitioner states that 
the Director "refuses to concede the elite nature of [the] Senior Membership of which less than ten 
percent (10%) of the global membership is ever elevated," the record does not include evidence to 
support this statement. The Petitioner must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible 
evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
Upon review of the totality of the evidence, we conclude that the Director thoroughly analyzed the 
Petitioner's evidence and arguments and provided him with a complete decision reaching the correct 
conclusion. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner here has not demonstrated sustained 
national or international acclaim to demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at the very top 
of the field of endeavor and has not established eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. 3 
3 As the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, we need not 
consider whether he will continue to work in his area of extraordinary ability, or whether his entry will substantially benefit 
the United States under section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) , (iii) of the Act. Accordingly, we decline to reach and hereby reserve 
these issues. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings 
7 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the recognition of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim required by section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act or demonstrates a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 
526 n. 7 (BIA 20 l 5) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
8