dismissed EB-1A Case: Retail Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2024 In Re: 34693081 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Exceptional Ability) 
The Petitioner, a retail manager, seeks first preference immigrant classification as an individual 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 satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria listed 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions 
in this matter de novo. Matter of 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 alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, 
or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) or qualifying documentation that 
meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items 
such as awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small 
percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th 
Cir. 2010) ( 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). 
II. ANALYSTS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established her receipt of a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the regulatory criteria. The Petitioner claims 
that she meets five of the regulatory criteria, namely that she had received a lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized award or prize, that she had participated as a judge of others work, that 
she made original contributions of major significance, that she has performed in a leading or 
critical role for a distinguished organization or establishment, and that she had a high salary or 
other significantly high remuneration in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), 
(iv), (v), (viii), and (ix). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not establish any of the claimed criteria. Upon de 
novo review, we agree with the Director's determination. 
Receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the 
field ofendeavor 
This evidentiary standard requires "[d]ocumentation of the [noncitizen'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). When assessing whether a petitioner meets this criterion, users first 
determines whether they received prizes or awards. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. users then examines whether 
their rewards were "in the field of endeavor" and "nationally or internationally recognized." Id. 
Considerations include: the criteria used to grant the awards or prizes; their national or 
international significance; the number ofrecipients; and any limitations on competitors. Id. 
The Petitioner presented several work-related training certificates, a letter from her former 
employer,~-----~ stating she was chosen as Employee of the Year, and another letter 
stating she was the recipient of her employer's Employee Referral A ward. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the awards she received were lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
2 
In regards to the work training certificates, they reflect that they were presented for the completion 
of training, and therefore are not awards or prizes. Moreover, the Petitioner has not presented 
sufficient evidence that the remaining awards she received are lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized awards for excellence. In support of the criterion, the Petitioner presented two letters 
from her former employer. The letters explain that she received the Employee of the Year and 
Employee Referral awards and discuss generally the Petitioner's actions that led to her receipt of 
the awards but provided no further detail on the awards. The Petitioner also provided a copy of 
the "About" page from her former employer's website. This evidence demonstrates that the 
company manages a portfolio of companies across several industries but does not provide further 
information. The Petitioner did not present other additional evidence on the awards, such as 
evidence explaining the company's criteria, the awards national or international significance, the 
number of awardees or recipients, limitations on competitors, or similar information. 
Based on the record presented there is not sufficient information on the awards to determine if they 
are lesser nationally or internationally recognized prized or awards. The Petitioner contends that 
the awards she received should be considered as having national significance as they were issued 
by~------~ which she claims has "significant influence across the entire field." 
However, contentions require support to underpin them, as assertions themselves do not constitute 
evidence. See, e.g., Matter of S-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998) ("statements in a brief, 
motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiary weight"). 
The Petitioner's evidence is not adequate to support her arguments. As such, the Petitioner has 
not established the criterion. 
Participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge ofthe work ofothers in the same or an 
allied field ofspec(fication for which class(fication is sought 
To establish this criterion, a petitioner must show that they have not only been invited to judge the 
work of others, but also that the petitioner actually participated in the judging of the work of others 
in the same or allied field of specialization. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at 
F.2(B). For example, a petitioner might document the person's peer review work by submitting a 
copy of a request from a journal to the person to do the review, accompanied by evidence 
confirming that the person actually completed the review. Id. 
The Petitioner claims that she "serve[ d] as a judge at the prestigious high-profile fashion shows." 
To support her claim, the Petitioner presented letters from her past employer. The letters are not 
consistent with the Petitioner's description of her role. The letters describe how the Petitioner 
"[i]n this role, she was responsible for selecting models" for fashion shows as part of her 
employment. The Petitioner selecting models to work at fashion shows does not constitute acting 
as a judge of the work ofothers, in the retail or an allied field, as required under the plain language 
of the criterion. The Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish how this action 
would constitute the judging of the work of others in hers or an allied field. Therefore, the 
Petitioner has not established the criterion. 
3 
Original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major 
significance in the.field 
To meet this criterion, a petitioner must submit"[ e ]vidence of the [ non citizen's] original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." 8 
e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). users first determines whether a noncitizen has made original 
contributions in their field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(8). If so, users 
should then determine whether any are of "major significance." Id. 
Evidence of significant contributions can include published research that has provoked widespread 
commentary on its importance from others in the field, or documentation that research generated 
a high amount of citations relative to others' work in the field. Id. When determining whether 
original contributions have major significance, detailed letters from experts in the field explaining 
the nature and significance of the contributions may provide valuable context, especially if 
accompanied by corroborating documentation. Id. 
The appeal brief contends that the Petitioner's work for I I constituted a 
contribution of major significance. To establish this criterion, the Petitioner presented letters from 
her past employer explaining her roles and responsibilities during her employment. However, the 
evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the Petitioner's work for this company was an 
original contribution to her field or of major significance. The roles described in the letters, such 
as curating relevant product collections and developing a new sales technique for her team, 
certainly assisted the company. Yet the letters lack farther details as to how such actions were 
original contributions to the overall field, or of major significance. Thus, the record does not 
contain sufficient information to establish the criterion. 
Peiformed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation 
When adjudicating this requirement, users first determines whether a petitioner has performed 
in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment. See generally 6 USCIS Policy 
Manual, supra, at F .2(8). A leading role means that the person is ( or was) a leader within the 
organization or establishment. Id. In contrast, a petitioner in a critical role "has contributed in a 
way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's 
activities." Id. A petitioner's role, rather than their title, determines whether their role is ( or was) 
critical. Id. 
Second, users determines whether the organization or establishment for which a petitioner holds 
( or held) a leading or critical role has a distinguished reputation. Id. users policy reflects that 
organizations or establishments that enjoy a distinguished reputation are "marked by eminence, 
distinction, or excellence." See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(8) ( citing to the 
definition of distinguished, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam­
webster.com/dictionary/distinguished). The Petitioner must submit evidence satisfying both these 
elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
4 
The appeal brief claims this criterion based on the Petitioner's role at~-----~ After 
reviewing the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner's role with this company was 
not leading or critical. In support of the criterion, the Petitioner presented letters from her former 
employer. While these documents explain that the Petitioner was a good employee, they do not 
adequately convey how the Petitioner's position as a senior sales representative was leading or 
critical was leading or critical to the company. 
Furthermore, she has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the company has a 
distinguished reputation. To establish the company's reputation, the Petitioner provided several 
letters from employees at the company discussing the Petitioner's work and a copy of the "About" 
page from their website. The letters explain that the company works in retail across several 
different brands. The website states that the company manages a portfolio of companies across 
several industries. Nevertheless, this evidence does not provide further information on the 
company's reputation. On the record available, the Petitioner has not satisfactorily demonstrated 
that the company has a distinguished reputation. Thus, she has not established the criterion. 
Has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to 
others in the field 
The Petitioner presented two statements from her past employers detailing her past salaries and 
statistics from the Glassdoor website noting the salary for a retail manager, assistant manager, and 
a sales executive in Qatar. We observe that the evidence presented from Glassdoor was published 
after the filing of the petition. A petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the 
petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12). Moreover, the evidence does not show 
that the relevant salary range for the periods of employment. As such, there is not sufficient 
evidence to establish that the salary the Petitioner received was high compared to others in her 
field. As such, the Petitioner has not established the criterion. 
As the Petitioner has not established that she meets at least three of the evidentiary criteria, she 
cannot be classified as an individual of extraordinary ability. Accordingly, we need not provide 
the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
III. CONCLUSION 
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. 
5