dismissed EB-1A Case: Social Media

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2024 In Re: 34886672 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a social media influencer, seeks 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not satisfy 
at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. 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 Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 
203(b)(l)(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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a 
petitioner to submit comparable material if 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) 
( 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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established 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 Director concluded the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the claimed 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains her qualification for four criteria. Issues and 
prior eligibility claims not raised on appeal are waived. See, e.g., Matter ofO-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)). For the reasons 
discussed below, the Petitioner did not demonstrate she meets at least three categories of evidence. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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). 
USCIS determines if the association for which the person claims membership requires that members 
have outstanding achievements in the field as judged by recognized experts in that field. 1 The 
petitioner must show that membership in the association requires outstanding achievements in the field 
for which classification is sought, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 2 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she qualifies 
for this criterion based on her "Platinum Creator" membership on the subscription-based social media 
1 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l ), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual 
2 Id. 
2 
platform I I also known as I 3 Associations may have multiple levels of 
membership. 4 The level of membership afforded to the person must show that in order to obtain that 
level of membership, recognized national or international experts judged the person as having attained 
outstanding achievements in the field for which classification is sought. 5 
Within her RFE response, the Petitioner provided a June 2024 letter from E-Z-, who states he is Chief 
Creative Officer atl 6 "building platforms that help major brands, creators, and influencers 
grow their online enterprises." He states: 
When creating the I IPlatform, we established a points-based system and 
membership tiers to help us promote and prioritize the most active and engaging 
creators on our platform .... based on the money creators earn and the engagement 
they achieve through their content curation. 
[The Petitioner] is a member of our elite "Platinum" creator membership tier. To 
receive this membership level, [the Petitioner] first had to apply to join the platform. 
Unlike other platforms, Platform operates on an application-only 
basis.... Our vision is to curate a community of professional, top-level creators that 
embody our company values and align with our views on civil rights, reproductive 
access, and queer liberation. As a part of this, we also review applications for that "it" 
factor, which transcends gender and encompasses an essence of mystery, swagger, and 
confidence. Following our review, [the Petitioner's] application was promptly 
approved, and she was granted access to the creator platform. 
Since joining thel IPlatform, [the Petitioner] has rapidly risen to the top 
percentage of professional creators we feature on our platform. She has, in rapid 
fashion, amassed 588,281 points and achieved Platinum membership status .... in less 
than a year of activity on our platform. This clear success is a direct result of [the 
Petitioner's] exceptional ability as a content creator. ... 
In addition, the Petitioner provided screenshots of pages from what she asserts is her 
Platform profile page, showing she has achieved Platinum status and earned "588,281 of lMM points 
3 The Petitioner does not pursue her previous claim that her possession of a "verification badge" or "blue check" on her 
Instagram account is a qualifying membership under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). An issue not raised on appeal is waived. 
See, e.g., O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. at 336 n.5. Therefore, we will only respond to the Petitioner's claims regarding her 
Platinum Creator status on the _____ Platform. 
4 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
5 Id. (providing that as a possible example, general membership in an international organization for engineering and 
technology professionals may not meet the requirements of the criterion; however, if that same organization at the fellow 
level requires, in part, that a nominee have accomplishments that have, for example, contributed importantly to the 
advancement or application of engineering, science, and technology, and that a council of expe1is and a committee of 
current fellows judges the nominations for fellows, that higher, fellow level may be qualifying.) 
6 We note that although E-Z- indicates he previously served as CEO of the exclusive content platfo1m his letter is on 
Oletterhead, not that ofl IIn addition, his accompanying employment profiles on linkedin.com, __com, 
and forbes.com do not indicate his employment with I I To the extent that this information is inconsistent with 
E-Z-'s letter, this inconsistency should be resolved in any future filing in this matter. 
3 
earned." The materials indicate she previously completed Silver, and Gold, and that her next 
status is Diamond. 
First, regarding the Petitioner's application to join thel !Platform, the letter from E-Z­
does not explain how aligning with the company's "views on civil rights, reproductive access, and 
queer liberation" and possessing "an essence of mystery, swagger, and confidence" are outstanding 
achievements. In addition, his letter does not address the selecting body who judges the membership 
criteria and whether it is comprised of recognized national or international experts in their fields. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted an article dated 2023 from netinfulence.com, confirming that __ 
celebrated the first anniversary of the subscription-based I I social media platform, and 
articles from studyfinds.org and nytimes.com about the name recognition of the I I brand and 
the prominent effect that I I Magazine has had on popular culture. The issue for this criterion, 
however, is whether the individuals who determine membership are recognized national or 
international experts rather than the reputation of the company who employs them. We are not 
persuaded that every employee who works for a recognized company is also a recognized national or 
international expert in their field. Although the Petitioner submitted articles regarding the reputation 
of the I I company, the Petitioner did not address the selecting body who judges the I I 
I I Platform membership criteria and whether it is comprised of recognized national or 
international experts in their fields. 
Moreover, the documentation submitted does not sufficiently explain how Platinum status is awarded 
tol !Platform members, and that such status requires outstanding achievement as judged 
by experts in the social media influencing field. We note that the screenshots submitted from the 
I !Platform website do not contain the Petitioner's name, to confirm that the information 
pertains to her. Assuming the Petitioner had established it does, the materials indicate a creator 
achieves Platinum status by earning an unstated minimum number of points up to "IMM." Based on 
this limited description of Platinum status, it is an objective, bright-line threshold, and it is reasonable 
to conclude that members who meet the threshold number of points will be granted Platinum status. 
The Petitioner did not establish that the I I Platform requires outstanding achievements 
of their members for Platinum status, as judged by recognized national or international experts in 
their disciplines or fields (emphasis added). 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish she fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
This criterion focuses on volume of sales and box office receipts as a measure of the individual's 
commercial success in the performing arts. Therefore, the mere fact that an individual has performed 
in theatrical, motion picture, or television productions would be insufficient, in and of itself, to meet 
this criterion. The evidence must show that the volume of sales and box office receipts reflect the 
individual's s commercial success relative to others involved in similar pursuits in the performing 
arts. 7 
7 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
4 
The Petitioner maintains eligibility for this criterion based on comparable evidence, including through 
the submission of her "2023 tax return, including her Schedule C (Form 1040) and Schedule I (Form 
1040), confirming [she] is claiming $3,257,612 in profit earned by [her limited liability company] as 
income on her taxes in 2023," and a copy of the 2023 Financial Package for the company confirming 
"that the primary sources of this income are and, therefore, earned through 
[her] activities as a social media influencer and content creator." The Director ultimately determined 
that the Petitioner did not establish how her claims are truly "comparable" to the commercial successes 
criterion. 8 We agree. The above evidence reflects the Petitioner's remuneration for work as a social 
media influencer and content creator rather than showing how her work for has 
received high sales, receipts, or comparable evidence of commercial success relative to others involved 
in similar pursuits in the performing arts. Accordingly, she has not established that she satisfies this 
criterion, including through the submission of comparable evidence. 
B. Prior approval of 0-1 Nonimmigrant Status 
We note that the record reflects that the Petitioner received 0-1 status, a classification reserved for 
nonimmigrants of extraordinary ability. Although USCIS has approved 0-1 nonimmigrant visa 
petitions filed on behalf of the Petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying 
an immigrant visa petition which is adjudicated based on a different standard - statute, regulations, 
and case law. Many Form I-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. of Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 
724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, our 
authority over the USCIS service centers, the office adjudicating the nonimmigrant visa petition, 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 an individual, we are not bound to follow 
that finding in the adjudication of another immigration petition. See La. Philharmonic Orchestra v. 
INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). 9 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish she satisfies the two categories of evidence, including through 
comparable evidence, discussed above. Although the Petitioner also argues eligibility for the 
published material in certain media criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and high salary under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), we need not reach these additional grounds because the Petitioner cannot 
fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We also need 
not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 10 
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding it does not support a 
conclusion that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification 
8 Id. 
9 See also generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2(B)(3). 
10 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, n.7 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is othe1wise ineligible). 
5 
sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already 
at the top of their respective fields, rather than those progressing toward the top. Matter of Price, 
20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes do 
not automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland 
Sec. (Hamal II), No. l 9-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 2021 ), aff'd, 2023 WL 
1156801 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 31, 2023) (determining that EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small 
percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. Dep 't ofHomeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. 
l 9-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) ( citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding 
denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of 
gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even highly accomplished individuals fail to win 
this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914,918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (finding that "arguably 
one of the most famous baseball players in Korean history" did not qualify for visa as a baseball 
coach). Here, the Petitioner has not shown the significance of her work is indicative of the required 
sustained national or international acclaim or it is consistent with 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)(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate the Petitioner has 
garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and she 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 record does not contain sufficient evidence establishing the Petitioner among the 
upper echelon in her field. 
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, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6