dismissed EB-1A Case: Supply Chain Management / Erp Software

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 25462962 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 23, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The self-Petitioner seeks classification as a noncitizen of"extraordinary ability" in the field of improving 
business supply chains with enterprise resource planning (ERP) software . See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . The requested, first­
preference category provides immigrant visas to noncitizens who demonstrate extraordinary ability 
based on "sustained national or international acclaim" and submit "extensive documentation" showing 
recognition of achievements in their fields. Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition . The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met two of ten preliminary , evidentiary standards - one less than the three required for the 
requested classification. On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence. He contends that, 
contrary to the Director's finding, he belonged to associations in his field requiring outstanding 
achievements of their members by the petition's filing. He also asserts his demonstration of his 
performance in leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of establishing eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance 
of evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Exercising de novo 
appellate review , see Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec . 357, 357 n.2 (AAO 2015) , we conclude 
that the Petitioner has not demonstrated his satisfaction of a third evidentiary standard . We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the requested immigrant visa category, a petitioner must demonstrate that: 
• They have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• They seek to continue work in their field of extraordinary ability in the United States; and 
• Their work would substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise commensurate with "one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Evidence 
of extraordinary ability must demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, international 
recognized award" or satisfaction of at least three of ten lesser evidentiary standards. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). If a petitioner meets either of these requirements, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) must then determine whether an overall record establishes sustained national or 
international acclaim, demonstrating a noncitizen's ranking among the small percentage at the very 
top of their field. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F .3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010) (requiring a two­
part analysis of extraordinary ability). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of India, earned two bachelor of science degrees in his home 
country: one in mathematics; the other in textile chemistry. He worked about six years for textile 
manufacturers and machinery companies, gaining knowledge of end-to-end supply chain processes. 
The Petitioner then obtained a post-graduate diploma in management and ERP software certificates in 
supply chain manufacturing, advanced planning, and optimization. For about the past 20 years, he has 
worked as a software consultant in India and the United States, helping to improve supply chains of 
multinational companies in a variety of industries, including: textile; automotive; food manufacturing; 
and aerospace and defense. He contends he has extraordinary ability in improving business supply 
chains with ERP software. 
The Petitioner did not claim or demonstrate his receipt of a major, international award. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). But the record supports the Director's findings that he met two of the ten alternate 
evidentiary standards. The record demonstrates his authorship of scholarly articles about ERP 
software and business supply chain processes. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). He also established his 
participation as a judge of others' work in the field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in finding that he did not meet at least a third 
evidentiary standard. He asserts his membership in associations in his field that require outstanding 
achievements of their members, and his performance in leading or critical roles for organizations with 
distinguished reputations. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (viii). 
A. Membership in Associations in the Field Requiring Outstanding Achievements 
This evidentiary standard requires "[d]ocumentation of 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." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In response to the Director's July 7, 2022 request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner 
submitted documentation of his purported affiliations with various organizations, including: the Royal 
Academy of Engineers in the United Kingdom; the publisher of "Who's Who in America;" and Nest, 
a U.S. nonprofit organization supporting growth of handmade goods around the world. The Director 
found that, because the Petitioner's documents bear dates after the petition's June 28, 2022 filing, the 
evidence does not establish his claimed memberships in these organizations at the time of the petition's 
2 
filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1) (requiring a petitioner to demonstrate eligibility "at the time of filing 
the benefit request"). The Director therefore concluded that the documentation did not meet the 
evidentiary standard. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he joined the organizations before the 
petition's filing. 
1. The Royal Academy of Engineers 
In his RFE response, the Petitioner stated his "role as a mentor for [the] Engineering Leaders 
Scholarship program at the prestigious Royal Academy of Engineering[,] developing and supporting 
the next generation of leaders in Engineering." He submitted the first five pages of a purported ten­
page academy document outlining "the expectations of being a mentor" in the program and printouts 
of pages on the academy's website regarding the organization's "strategy" for 2020 to 2025. The 
academy's website states that the organization "harness[es] the power of engineering to build a 
sustainable society and an inclusive economy that works for everyone." Royal Acad. of Eng'g, 
https://raeng.org.uk/. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits copies of June 2022 emails between him and the manager of the 
Royal Academy of Engineering's mentoring program. 1 The copies show that, on June 9, the Petitioner 
messaged the British academy, stating his interest in "mentoring opportunities" and asking whether 
he could participate from his location in the United States. The academy manager responded the same 
day, stating that, as long as the Petitioner and his "mentee" agree on suitable times for online video 
meetings, the Petitioner's location in the United States would not bar his participation in the program. 
The manager also asked the Petitioner about his background and how he learned of the mentoring 
opportunity. He responded the same day, attaching a copy of his curriculum vitae and stating that an 
academy official had emailed him about the opportunity. On June 13, the manager messaged the 
Petitioner that the academy "would love to onboard you as a Mentor for our Engineering Leaders 
Scholarship" and thanked him for his "generous offer to support our engineering students." The email 
also explained how he could create an online, "mentoring profile" to be matched with a mentee. The 
Petitioner contends that the email exchange demonstrates his June 13, 2022 approval as an academy 
mentor, before the petition's June 28, 2022 filing. 
The Petitioner has demonstrated his acceptance as a mentor with the Royal Academy of Engineering 
before the petition's filing. But the Petitioner's materials do not meet the evidentiary standard at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). A petitioner must demonstrate their membership in an association and that 
the membership required judgments by recognized national or international experts that the noncitizen 
attained outstanding achievements in their field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2), App'x.: 
Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence, https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. If an association has multiple levels of membership, a petitioner must show that, to obtain 
their membership level, recognized national or international experts judged the noncitizen's 
achievements in the field to be outstanding. Id. 
1 If a petitioner received sufficient, prior notice ofrequired proof and a reasonable opportunity to provide it, we generally 
disregard evidence on appeal. See Matter of Izaguirre, 27 T&N Dec. 67, 71 (BIA 2017). The Director's RFE did not notify 
the Petitioner that his evidence had to establish his eligibility "at the time of filing the benefit request." See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). We will therefore consider the Petitioner's evidence on appeal. 
3 
The Petitioner's evidence does not establish his membership in the Royal Academy of Engineering. 
Rather, the materials indicate only his acceptance as a mentor in an academy program. Our review of 
the academy's website did not find any information about "membership." Rather, the site refers to an 
academy "fellowship," which stems from annual elections of academy "fellows" in recognition of 
their "outstanding and continuing contributions to the profession." Id., at https://raeng.org.uk/about­
us/fellowship. The Petitioner, however, has neither claimed to be an academy "fellow" nor 
demonstrated his election as one. 
Further, even if the Petitioner's acceptance as a mentor qualified him as a member of the Royal 
Academy of Engineering, he would not have established that his membership required judgments by 
recognized national or international experts of his attainment of outstanding achievements in his field. 
The Petitioner submitted mentoring program documentation describing a mentor as "an established or 
experienced person." But the documents do not detail any other qualifications. We therefore conclude 
that the Petitioner's evidence of his mentorship at the engineering academy does not meet the standard 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
2. "Who's Who in America" 
The Petitioner's RFE response stated his inclusion in "Who's Who in America," an online directory 
containing short biographies of distinguished Americans in various fields. An August 5, 2022 letter 
from the publisher's editorial team congratulates the Petitioner on his inclusion in the directory. The 
letter states that the registry seeks "to profile those individuals who have made a difference by virtue 
of the positions of responsibility they hold and/or due to noteworthy accomplishments they have 
made." According to a certificate the Petitioner received from the publications board, inclusion in the 
directory "is limited to individuals who possess professional integrity, demonstrate outstanding 
achievement in their respective fields and have made innumerable contributions to society as a whole." 
A printout from the publisher's website states the company's receipt of nominations from "personal 
referrals, industry surveys, review of significant publications, and through our continual monitoring 
of newspapers, magazines, awards, grants, educational and corporate records." The printout states 
"we select individuals for inclusion based on professional and personal accomplishments, education, 
contributions to society, and involvement with important institutions or events." 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a copy of a June 22, 2022 email, congratulating him on his 
nomination for inclusion in "Who's Who in America" and urging him to "[aa ]ccept your nomination to 
verify your information and provide the details of your accomplishments." Blaming "long processing 
times and administrative delays," the Petitioner admits that he did not receive notice of his inclusion 
in the directory until after the petition's June 28, 2022 filing. But he asserts that the June 22 email 
from the publisher shows that his "nomination/selection" and "actual inclusion" in the directory 
predated the petition's filing. 
The June 22, 2022 email, however, does not support the Petitioner's assertion. The email indicates 
that the Petitioner's nomination did not guarantee his inclusion in the directory. The email states: 
"Your information will be reviewed to determine qualification. Upon confirmation, you will be listed 
among 1.5 million of the world's most successful professionals in our online registry." Thus, the June 
22 email does not constitute approval of the Petitioner's listing in the registry. Rather, the message 
indicates that approval would not occur until "confirmation" of his "qualification." The email 
4 
therefore does not establish the Petitioner's inclusion in "Who's Who in America" before the petition's 
filing. Thus, he has not demonstrated his satisfaction of the evidentiary standard "at the time of filing 
the benefit request." See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Also, while the Petitioner's certificate states the directory's inclusion of people who, in part, 
"demonstrate outstanding achievement in their respective fields," the Petitioner has not established 
that "recognized national or international experts" in his field judged his achievements to be 
outstanding. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The printout from the publisher's website states "we 
select individuals for inclusion," indicating that the publisher's employees judge candidates' 
accomplishments. ( emphasis added). Reportedly, "an editorial team of 70, including 12 researchers, 
make the call on who's notable and who's not." William L. Hamilton, "Who Are You? Why Are 
You Here?" The New York Times (Nov. 13, 2005), https://www.nytimes.com/2005/l l/13/fashion/ 
sundaystyles/who-are-you-why-are-you-here.html. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
editorial team that selected him for inclusion in "Who's Who in America" included recognized 
national or international experts in his field. For this additional reason, the documentation of his 
inclusion in the directory does not meet the evidentiary standard at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
3. The Nonprofit Fellowship 
The Petitioner's RFE response also included copies of emails regarding his interest in becoming a 
fellow at the nonprofit organization. A printout of the nonprofit' s website describes the fellowships 
as "virtual consulting opportunities ... to work on a unique project in support of an artisan business." 
The emails show that, on June 18, 2022, the Petitioner messaged the nonprofit, identifying himself as 
a "textile engineering graduate" and asking about "the process for becoming a fellow." Three days 
later, an organization official responded to him, providing information about the fellowship program 
and, if he was still interested in the role, asking him to complete an "intake survey." That same day, 
the Petitioner replied to the official, stating his completion of the survey and asking for "an official 
certificate of professional fellow that I am part of this fellowship program at an advisory level based 
on my industry and technology expertise." The official did not respond to the Petitioner until 
September 13, 2022, indicating the nonprofit's acceptance of his fellowship. The message states: "We 
are thrilled to have you on board for this impactful program. More details will be shared shortly." 
The official also stated that, although the organization did not issue fellowship certificates, it would 
consider doing so in the future. 
On appeal, the Petitioner downplays the significance of his June 21, 2022 email to the nonprofit, 
describing it as "a follow-up email asking for a certificate." He contends that he completed the "actual 
formalities" of becoming a fellow on that date, before the petition's June 28, 2022 filing. 
The Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating the nonprofit's acceptance of his fellowship 
before the petition's filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Even ifhe did, however, the Petitioner would 
not satisfy the evidentiary standard. He has not established that his fellowship required recognized 
national or international experts in his field to find his attainment of outstanding achievements. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). Thus, the Petitioner's proof of his fellowship at the nonprofit does not meet 
the evidentiary standard. 
5 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated his satisfaction of the evidentiary standard at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii). We will therefore affirm that portion of the Director's decision. 
B. Performance in Leading or Critical Roles for Organizations with Distinguished Reputations 
The Petitioner contends that he met another evidentiary standard. This provision requires "[ee ]vidence 
that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have 
a distinguished reputation." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
In assessing eligibility under this standard, USCIS first determines whether the evidence demonstrates 
a petitioner's performance in a leading or critical role. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2), 
App'x: Extraordinary Ability Petitions - First Step of Reviewing Evidence. A leading role means 
that a petitioner "is ( or was) a leader within the organization or establishment or a division or 
department thereof." Id. A critical role means that a noncitizen "has contributed in a way that is of 
significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those of a 
division or department of the organization or establishment." Id. 
Next, USCIS determines whether an organization, establishment, department, or division for which a 
petitioner held a leading or critical role has a distinguished reputation. A distinguished reputation 
finding must stem from consideration of multiple factors, not just "the relative size or longevity of an 
organization or establishment." Id. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate his performance in a leading or critical 
role. As proof of his purported qualifying roles, the Petitioner submitted seven letters from officials 
of his current and former employers, and one from an official of a former client. The Director found 
that the letters do not: 
illustrate how [the Petitioner's] role made him more valuable than other colleagues at 
his places of employment. The evidence indicates that the petitioner is successful at 
accomplishing his job duties, but the record does not contain evidence to show that he 
was responsible for any organization's success or standing to a degree consistent with 
the meaning of "leading or critical role." 
The Petitioner contends that "recognized and reputable leaders" wrote the letters for him. He states 
that his roles have been leading and critical because they required "cross-functional skills to manage 
programs/projects of significant importance to the distinguished organizations." 
The letters state that the Petitioner played "key" and "critical" roles in multiple supply chain software 
projects. As the Director found, however, the letters lack sufficient details to explain how his roles 
were leading or critical. For example, letters from two senior information technology executives at 
the Petitioner's current employer praise his role in integrating the business of an acquired company 
into the employer's supply chain operations. They state that he led an "important" integration of the 
employer's tomato business onto a modernized platform to better manage the acquired tomato 
operations. But the letters do not detail the Petitioner's activities, whom or how he led the integration 
6 
efforts, challenges he faced, or how he overcame them. 2 Also, although the letters describe the 
integration of the tomato businesses as "important," the documents do not explain why the project was 
important or why company officials chose the Petitioner to purportedly lead it. 
Some letters from the Petitioner's current and former employers are also unreliable. As the Director's 
RFE states, the bodies of the two letters from the executives at the Petitioner's current employer 
virtually match. The letters' common language suggests that the same person drafted both documents, 
casting doubt on the signatories' purported knowledge and descriptions of the Petitioner's work. See 
Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658, 665 (BIA 2015) (holding that numerous and obvious similarities 
between documents supported an adverse credibility determination). In the Petitioner's RFE response, 
one signatory asserted that he wrote his letter. The other admitted that "I did ask [the Petitioner] to 
write up a bullet sheet of the activities he performs for my organization, but I can assure you that what 
I have written ... is an honest and accurate representation of the work and effort [he] put forth." 
Further, much of an undated letter from an executive at a former employer of the Petitioner matches a 
portion of a 2009 letter from another official of the employer. The employer submitted the 2009 letter 
to a U.S. Consulate in India in support of the issuance of a nonimmigrant work visa to the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner's inclusion of a copy of the 2009 letter in his RFE response revealed the similarities 
between the 2009 letter and the previously submitted document from the executive. Also, the 
executive's document was not printed on company or even his personal letterhead, casting doubt on 
its authenticity. 
The Petitioner's support letters lack sufficient details to establish the purported leading and critical 
roles he performed for his current and former employers. Similarities between the letters also cast 
doubt on their accuracy and reliability. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated that he met the 
evidentiary standard at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time award or satisfaction 
of at least three of the ten lesser criteria. We therefore need not make a final merits determination on 
his claimed possession of extraordinary ability. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we 
reviewed the entire record and concluded that it does not support the Petitioner's receipt of the level 
of acclaim and recognition required for the requested classification. The record also does not 
otherwise demonstrate his rank among the small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field 
of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established his eligibility for classification as a noncitizen of extraordinary 
ability. We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 The record contains details about software projects on which the Petitioner purportedly worked. But he appears to have 
written this information. The information is unreliable because the Petitioner may be biased in describing his roles on the 
projects. Also, the record lacks sufficient evidence corroborating his statements. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.(2)(B)(l) ("statements made by ... witnesses should be corroborated by documentary evidence in the record"). 
7