dismissed EB-1A Case: Small Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 25, 2023 In Re: 28355068 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a chief executive in the field of small business development, seeks classification under 
the employment-based , fust-preference (EB-1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with 
"extraordinary ability." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). Noncitizens may obtain U.S. permanent residence in this category if they 
demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and, through extensive documentation, 
recognition of their achievements in their fields of expertise. Id. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that that the Petitioner met three of the ten eligibility criteria found at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3). 
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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner provided sufficient documentation to establish his 
eligibility under two ( of the ten) regulatory criteria; namely, 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 
specialization for which classification is sought; and evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly 
articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. However, the 
Director determined that he did not meet any of the remaining eight criteria. The Petitioner provided 
evidence under the following criteria: 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; the alien's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field; the 
alien's performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation; and the alien's command of a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). 
On appeal, the Petitioner provided a "covering letter," listing six points: 1. Benefits for the USA; 
2. Associations; 3. Refereeing; 4. Contribution to the field of activity; 5. Contribution to the company; 
and 6. Income. 1 The Petitioner's only argument, which relates to the high salary or other significantly 
high remuneration criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), is as follows: 
"[ a ]fter receiving the RFE, in the income section, here the income is presented 
additionally (to the contract received in the case dated 09/21/2021), which significantly 
increases the average monthly salary reflected in the "Reference for calculating the 
payment of bonuses and remunerations" Also presented is an additional agreement to 
the contract and certificates of bonuses." 
Citing to Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 1988), the Director noted discrepancies in the record 
related to the Petitioner's monthly salary. In the documents he initially submitted, his salary is 230,000 
rubles, and in response to the RFE, it appears that his salary is 207,000 rubles. Moreover, the Director 
explained that the record lacked objective evidence to establish the Petitioner's high salary or 
remuneration relative to other chief executives. We agree. 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not address the Director's concerns regarding the lack of objectivity in 
the evidence or the discrepancy in his salary. As the Director pointed out in the RFE, the Rosstat 
information is related to development directors and the Petitioner has not shown that his position, and 
those of a development director, are comparable, such that the salary of a development director is a 
proper basis for comparison. The Petitioner must present evidence showing that he has earned a high 
salary or significantly high remuneration in comparison with those performing similar services in the 
field. See Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) ( considering a professional 
golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 
420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for those performing lesser 
duties is not a comparison to others in the field); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 
1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 
440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL 
defensemen). Here, the comparative salary data is insufficient objective evidence for comparison to 
his salary and position. 
In addition, if the Petitioner wishes us to consider evidence of remuneration in the form of year-end 
and quarterly bonuses, he must also provide objective evidence of the year-end and quarterly bonuses 
offered others in his field in order for us to evaluate whether his remuneration is "significantly high" 
1 The evidence, in the form of a personal statement dated January 20, 2023, provided to establish points 1-5 was previously 
submitted in response to the request for evidence (RFE). 
2 
in relation to others. Here, the Petitioner has not met his burden under the plain language of the 
regulation. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
Because the Petitioner did not raise any other arguments or provide evidence related to the other 
eligibility criteria, we consider them waived. See, e.g., Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 
(BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3