dismissed EB-1A Case: Public Relations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 16, 2024 In Re: 31108967 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. The matter 
is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner may demonstrate 
international recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is, a 
major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement, a petitioner must provide 
sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that they meet at least three of the ten criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
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. 20 l 0) 
( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a public relations (PR) specialist whose experience includes organizing promotional 
campaigns and events for company brands and artists in the entertainment industry. She intends to 
continue her work promoting artists and causes in the arts and entertainment industry in the United 
States. 
As a preliminary matter, we acknowledge that the Petitioner previously had a O-lA petition approved, 
the classification reserved for nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved 
at least one O-IA nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner, this prior approval does 
not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition that does not meet evidentiary 
requirements. Many Form 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior 
nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C 2003); 
IKEA US v. US Dept. ofJustice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd., 724 Supp. 
At 1103. Some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. See Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. 
INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 
1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an 
extension of the original visa based on a reassessment of the individual's qualifications). 
We are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been demonstrated 
merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of Church of 
Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593,597 (Comm. 1988). Agencies need not treat acknowledged errors 
as binding precedent. See Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgome,y, 825 F .2d 1084, 1090 ( 6th Cir. 1987), 
cert. denied, 485 U.S. I 008 (1988). Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable 
to the relationship between a court of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director has 
approved a nonimmigrant petition on behalf of the individual, we would not be bound to follow the 
contradictory decision of a service center. See Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 248 F.3d 
1139 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she 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 Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vii), (viii), or (ix). On appeal, the Petitioner does not address the 
Director's conclusions with regard to the criteria at (v), (vii), (viii), and (ix); we therefore consider the 
2 
issues of these criteria to be abandoned. 1 The Petitioner asserts on appeal that she meets the criteria 
at (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv). As more fully discussed below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not met 
at least three of the required criteria. 
Documentation ofthe individual's receipt oflesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner initially submitted documentation of awards received by her previous employer, a 
public relations agency. The Director determined the Petitioner did not meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion because she did not establish that she was the individual recipient of the 
awards. The Director further explained that the evidence demonstrated that it was the employer who 
received the awards, not the Petitioner, noting that the plain language of the regulation requires awards 
be conferred to the individual. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that 
the awards were recognized nationally or internationally. Although the record initially referenced 
awards from several entities granted to the agency and inferred a connection between the awards and 
the Petitioner's work, on appeal, the Petitioner only discusses awards received from the Bulgarian 
Association of PR Agencies, or BAPRA. While the Petitioner acknowledges the USCIS Policy 
Manual's guidance 2 that the regulation requires prizes or awards to be received by an individual, rather 
than an employer, the Petitioner reasserts her contention that she was the "actual recipient" of the 
awards because a letter from her previous employer characterizes her as the "de facto recipient." The 
Petitioner points to a letter from the agency's director of administrative, legal, and financial affairs 
discussing the BAPRA Bright Awards received by the agency stating the following: 
The BAPRA Bright Awards are the only internationally recognized PR awards in 
Bulgaria and award excellence in PR. However, they are not given to individuals even 
though it is the individual PR specialist who leads a certain campaign who is the real 
wmner .... 
I would therefore like to expressly confirm that the BAPRA Bright A wards won ... 
were awarded to our company only due to [the Petitioner's] work. Her results and 
leadership are the reason why [the company] won these PR awards and numerous other 
recognitions and are a direct result of the projects she managed, including the most 
prestigious _______ a category based on the overall success of the 
projects of the company for the previous year. 
While we acknowledge the agency's assertions regarding the Petitioner's positive role while employed 
by the company, her former employer is not the awarding organization. On appeal, the Petitioner cites 
a letter she initially submitted from BAPRA describing its award issuance process. The letter specifies 
the following (quoted as written): 
1 An issue not raised on appeal is waived. See. e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing 
Matter ofR-A-M-, I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F .2(B)( 1 ), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
3 
BAPRA doesn't accept individual submissions from Publicists who are not employed 
by a PR firm or an internal PR department. BAPRA only accepts entries from 
registered firms in the field of PR, Marketing, Advertising and in-house PR teams 
within corporations, based in Bulgaria. 
The letter from BAPRA does not specify whether the association assesses the impact of any 
individual's role in an agency's receipt of a particular award. However, the statement above does 
appear to indicate that it would accept an individual submission for an award from a publicist 
employed by a PR firm, but here, there is little indication from the submitted evidence that the 
discussed awards from BAPRA were individually awarded to the Petitioner. Involvement in an award­
winning campaign does not necessarily reflect the awarding entity's intention to award an individual 
participant. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence or statements from BAPRA to confirm that her 
contributions to her previous employer's campaigns weighed significantly on the selection of the 
award recipients, such that the awards constituted recognition of her individual excellence in her field. 
With regard to whether the awards are nationally or internationally recognized, the Petitioner 
emphasizes evidence previously submitted from BAPRA discussing the judging process for 
administering awards and public information about the awards. The Petitioner asserts that this 
"affirm[ s] their national and international reputation." The Petitioner submitted several brief articles 
from websites listing BAPRA award winners. The record contains little objective evidence to 
demonstrate that the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The Petitioner must support 
her assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 T&N Dec. 
at 376. 
As such, the Petitioner has not met the requirements for this criterion. 
Documentation of the individual'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 Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion because she 
did not submit objective evidence to demonstrate that she was a member of organizations requiring 
outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or international experts in her field. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the provided evidence establishes her qualification under this 
criterion-specifically her membership in the Bulgarian Public Relations Association (BPRA). A 
letter from the BPRA confirms the Petitioner's membership, adding, "All our members are established 
professionals with [a] proven record of successful projects and impactful careers." The letter provides 
the following membership criteria: 
• Experience: A minimum of 5 years of relevant work in public relations or related 
fields demonstrating a track record of outstanding achievements in PR-working 
on diverse campaigns, projects, or clients to showcase versatility. 
• Demonstrated success in planning and executing effective PR campaigns that 
achieved measurable and impressive results in the Public Relations Sector in 
Bulgaria. 
4 
• A portfolio of communications projects, showcasing creativity, strategic thinking, 
and influence. 
• Current occupation-the current employment of the potential member must be in 
the field of PR, Marketing, or a related field. If the occupation changes to a 
different field unrelated to PR, the member must inform the Board and the Board 
saves the right to end the membership. 
• Recommendation letter by a member of the Bulgarian Public Relations 
Association. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director "overlook[ ed] the substantive details provided" in 
this letter concerning "the high standards and achievements required for membership." However, the 
letter does not articulate what BPRA considers to be "outstanding" or how such achievements are 
assessed. A copy of the BPRA's bylaws provides additional information concerning membership, 
including requirements related to a code of ethics and a membership fee; the bylaws do not, however, 
describe what achievements are recognized or how they are evaluated to be "outstanding." While the 
letter lists the board members present when the Petitioner was granted membership and the record 
includes additional documentation demonstrating that they are nationally recognized experts in their 
fields, neither the letter nor the bylaws sufficiently establish the requirements for outstanding 
achievements, as opposed to merely requiring a record of success in an applicant's field. 
The Petitioner further discussed additional evidence of memberships she claimed qualify her under 
this criterion, including an email and a welcome letter from the Music Business Association (also 
referred to as Music Biz) which reference her membership application and payment. Another provided 
email from Music Biz states, "Members are reviewed by our Board of Directors and are officially 
approved at quarterly meetings. Criteria is that your [sic] involved in the business of music in some 
way." The Petitioner also submitted documentation from the Public Relations and Communications 
Association (PRCA), describing itself as "the world's largest professional PR body" and stating that 
membership requires an application and an annual fee. In addition, the Petitioner provided a letter 
from the International Music Managers Forum (IMMF) stating the following (quoted as written): 
This is to confirm that [the Petitioner] in her capacity of an Artist Relations Manager 
and CEO of Music PR and Artist Management company! Iis the founder 
of which is a member of the global umbrella 
organisation - International Music managers Forum (IMMF). 
However, the submitted letters and evidence related to the Petitioner's membership in additional 
organizations does not demonstrate that these entities require outstanding achievements by prospective 
members as judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts in the field. The Petitioner has 
not established that any of the organizations of which she was or is currently a member require 
outstanding achievements in one's field for membership. As such, the Petitioner has not met the 
requirements of this criterion. 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's vork 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). 
5 
The Petitioner initially submitted letters from radio stations attesting to having interviewed the 
Petitioner on several occasions during segments related to the music industry and lifestyle events. She 
also submitted an online news article in which she was interviewed about a music industry scandal 
linked to Bulgaria. The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) requesting transcripts of the 
radio interviews and evidence identifying the author of the internet article. In response the RFE, the 
Petitioner stated that the radio shows were not recorded and emphasized the details provided in the 
letters of support that recalled the interviews and the topics discussed. The Director concluded that 
the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion because she did not submit transcripts of 
asserted radio interviews she was involved in, nor did she demonstrate that an article in which she was 
interviewed was from a major publication. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that USCIS "erred" in its 
determination and "did not properly consider the totality of the evidence submitted pertaining to major 
media and/or professional/trade publications." The Petitioner, however, does not specify how the 
Director erred or what factors in the decision were erroneous. 3 
The Petitioner emphasizes that her radio interviews and the news article, titled _______ 
was related to her work in her field and that '-----------------------' this was more than sufficient to satisfy this criterion. The Petitioner, however, did not identify the 
author of the online news article, as required by the plain language of the criterion. She provided web 
traffic data for the article's website but did not indicate or document how that data established the 
website as a major media publication. Further, the Petitioner did not provide supporting evidence 
demonstrating that the radio interviews took place or establishing their content. The Petitioner 
submitted articles from major media publications that covered events and projects she was involved 
in planning; however, as the Director noted in the decision, these articles were not specifically about 
the Petitioner or her work, but concerned topics related to these events, such as the causes they 
promoted or the celebrities that they featured. As such, the Petitioner has not met her burden of proof 
to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner submitted correspondence and supporting documentation from several entities for 
whom she judged the work of candidates in artistic fields. The Director determined that the Petitioner 
did not meet this criterion because the work she judged was not created by "other public relations 
specialists or others in an allied field." On appeal, the Petitioner contends that these individuals and 
their work fall within the definition of allied fields. She provides the following: 
Her judging responsibilities . . . required her to evaluate communication strategies, 
marketability, and public relations potential for projects. These aspects are integral 
to the field of public relations and demonstrate her expertise and influence in 
areas directly related to her primary field of work. The letter from the Secretary 
General of the French Institute in the US substantiates this by highlighting that while 
3 An appeal must specifically identify any enoneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
6 
[the Petitioner] did not judge PR specialists directly, her role involved critical 
assessment of elements that are fundamental to public relations. This aligns with 
the broader interpretation of "allied fields," where her skills and knowledge in public 
relations are directly applicable and influential in the judging process. 
Moreover, the letter ... explicitly states that her judging role was in an allied field 
of PR, as it involved evaluation communication strategies, marketability, and the 
public relations potential of projects. [Emphasis in the original.] 
The record includes documentation that provides information about the artistic forums in which the 
Petitioner was invited as a judge. The Petitioner also submitted letters from individuals overseeing 
these events detailing the reasons the Petitioner was chosen as a judge. The record further includes 
documentation showing the specialties of other judges chosen to participate and reflecting these 
specialties and the nature of the competitions centering on art, music, and entertainment. The 
Petitioner also provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that she specializes in public relations in 
the arts and entertainment industry. Therefore, we conclude that the Petitioner has satisfied 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 lesser 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 conclusion 
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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services has long held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not 
automatically meet the "extraordinary ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the record indicates that the Petitioner has engaged in successful 
campaigns for some high-profile clients, but it does not show that this success has translated into 
individual recognition for the Petitioner at a level that rises to sustained national or international 
acclaim or demonstrates 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 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). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7