dismissed EB-1A Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 13, 2025 In Re: 34602107 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Exceptional Ability) 
The Petitioner, an international supply chain specialist, 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. § 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had demonstrated her extraordinary ability in the totality of the 
circumstances. 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 of Chawathe, 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. 
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. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established three of the regulatory criteria. Upon de novo 
review, we agree. As the Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, we will evaluate 
whether she has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that she is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, 
and that her achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. In a 
final merits determination, we analyze a petitioner's accomplishments and weigh the totality of the 
evidence to determine if her successes are sufficient to demonstrate that she has extraordinary ability 
in the field of endeavor. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not shown her eligibility. 
The Petitioner is an international supply chain specialist. She has a diploma with honor from 
in world economy and has worked in economics, international business, 
and supply chain management. Her career began working for the _______ _.government, 
before she moved into the private sector as a specialist in foreign economic activity and supply chain 
management, and eventually starting her own company, I I As noted in the Director's 
decision, the Petitioner has received press coverage, judged others, and authored professional articles. 
The record 1, however, does not demonstrate that her personal and professional achievements rise to a 
level of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-
723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
Regarding media coverage, the Petitioner offered material relating to her and her work. The Petitioner 
presented two notable articles that covered her and discussed her work. Nonetheless, the remaining 
pieces in the records were not about the Petitioner specifically, but articles on her area of employment 
in which she contributed opinions or information on the respective articles' topics. The articles about 
the Petitioner alone, without more do not demonstrate that such press coverage is consistent with the 
sustained national or international acclaim necessary for this highly restrictive classification. See 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; see also Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76 (standing for the 
1 While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each one. Severalpieces of 
evidence that the Petitioner presented in response to the Requests for Evidence (RFE), including her 2023 Award 
and her book, originated 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). 
2 
proposition that to determine whether a petitioner has met their burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider the quality, relevance, probative value, and credibility of the evidence). 
The Petitioner provided evidence that she served as a judge for the 2023 I I A wards. 
The evidence presented surrounding this role does not demonstrate how her judging represents an 
individual at the very top of the field of endeavor. The record does not bear out what level of 
candidates the Petitioner judged other than the vague statement that participants are "organizations 
and individuals from around the globe who have demonstrated exceptional achievements" in business. 
The Petitioner presented her judging access email, which details that she is to rank participants from 
one to ten. However, it provides no further information on the criteria judges should use to evaluate 
individuals. Another document states that the nominee must outline a "significant accomplishment," 
but no further detail was provided to establish the meaning of that term. The Petitioner's judging 
experience is a relevant consideration as to whether the evidence is indicative ofthe Beneficiary's national 
or international acclaim. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1122. Her experience also consists of one 
competition. Without more evidence setting her apart from others in the field, such as evidence that she 
has a consistent history of reviewing or judging recognized, acclaimed individuals in her field, the 
Petitioner has not shown that her judging experience places her among that small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Additionally, the Petitioner presented evidence of her participation at a conference on importing and 
exporting. Similar to her experience as a judge, the Petitioner's participation in one conference is not 
significant evidence that she has risen to the very top of her field. 
To support the claim that the Petitioner made contributions of major significance, she submitted 
several letters from clients, a former coworker, and a former professor. The letters from her clients 
detail the Petitioner's work on their behalf, and how it assisted their respective companies. 
Nevertheless, the letters do not adequately explain how the Petitioner's work for individual clients 
would be considered of major significance to the supply chain management field. The Petitioner also 
points to her online course as a contribution of major significance. In support of this, the Petitioner 
presented information from the program and letters from a few of the companies that purchased the 
program. Although this evidence demonstrates that clients have found the program useful, she did not 
supply ample information that the program has been employed by or spread through her field in such 
a way as to constitute a contribution of major significance. 
The Petitioner additionally presented a letter from ______ an associate professor with 
the _________ As a matter of discretion, we may use opinion statements submitted 
by a petitioner as advisory. Matter of Caron Int'l, Inc., 19 T&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). 
Nonetheless, we will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is not in accord with other information 
in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Id. We are ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought; the submission of expert 
opinion letters is not presumptive evidence of eligibility. Id. Here the advisory opinion does not 
sufficiently detail the reasoning for its conclusion. It claims that the Petitioner has an "effective" 
algorithm for transactions and an "exclusive methodology for verification of customs values." Yet it 
does not explain further what those are or how they make the program a "significant contribution" as 
claimed. Without further detail on how these are significant contributions, the letter is of little 
3 
probative value. Overall, the evidence presented on the Petitioner's contributions is not adequate to 
establish she is among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Next, we tum to the evidence submitted to show if the Petitioner has earned a high salary or other 
significantly high remuneration2 consistent with this restrictive visa classification. The Petitioner 
presented a letter from her company stating her proposed salary. Additionally, she presented evidence 
showing the 2022 average U.S. wage for logisticians and top executives. Nevertheless, the letter from 
the Petitioner's company states her title as "International Supply Chain Expert," so the average wage 
statistics are not comparable to the Petitioner's role. Moreover, the letter reflects that this is a proposed 
salary. The Petitioner did not supply evidence of what salary she has received. The Petitioner also 
presented documentation regarding her ownership share of her company, to establish that the equity 
holding was equivalent to evidence of a high salary or other renumeration. The records reflect that the 
Petitioner owns 98.15 percent of I I and presents the company's bank account for 2022. 
However, she did not supply information to establish that this was high in relation to the field. As such 
the above evidence does not establish that her earnings or company equity are reflective of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The Petitioner also submitted an expert opinion from Dr. I l an assistant professor in 
entrepreneurship and small business at ______ As noted above, we may use opinion 
statements submitted by a petitioner as advisory but will reject an opinion or give it less weight if it is 
not in accord with other information in the record or if it is in any way questionable. Caron Int 'I, Inc., 
19 I&N Dec. at 795. We are ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
individual's eligibility. Id. Here Dr. considers several pieces of evidence in his analysis, such 
as the Petitioner's book and her I I award, that originated after the time of filing. As noted 
previously, a petitioner must meet eligibility requirements at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), 
(12). While Dr. Iexpresses his opinion about how the Petitioner meets various regulatory criteria, 
his letter does not describe how the Petitioner has received national or international acclaim indicative 
of someone who has risen to the very top of their field. Thus, the letter has little probative value. 
Finally, the Petitioner has presented articles she wrote during her school years and in 2023. We 
acknowledge that the Petitioner has submitted a number of articles from 2023, some from publications 
with comparatively small circulations and others with higher numbers. Nonetheless, as analyzed 
above, the Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to establish by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that she is an individual who is among the small percentage of people that has risen to the 
very top of her field. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. While the articles written by the Petitioner 
in the publications with higher circulations are positive evidence of her career progression, the small 
number are not adequate, without more and in light of the other deficiencies in the record, to establish 
the Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. 
In summary, the Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already 
at the top of their respective fields, rather than for those progressing toward that goal. USCIS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
2 We observe that some of the documentation the Petitioner submitted regarding her salary, such as 2023 bank record and 
documentation on the average salary of supply chain experts, originated after the filing of the petition. As noted above, a 
petitioner must meet all of the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12). 
4 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Matter ofPrice, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1994). The 
Petitioner's evidence confirms that she has received attention from those in her field. However, she has 
not submitted extensive documentation exhibiting, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she has 
attained a level of expertise placing her among that small percentage that has risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor. Chmvathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. 
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. In visa petition 
proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. The 
Petitioner has not met that burden here. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5