dismissed EB-1A Case: Trade And Diplomatic Relations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5057049 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 25, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an international strategic consulting firm, seeks classification of the Beneficiary , a senior 
director and expert in the field of I I trade and diplomatic relations, as an alien 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 established 
that the Beneficiary had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet 
at least three . 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence and asserts that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria . 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient 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 he or she is able to demonstrate that 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 
The Petitioner currently employs the Beneficiary as an advisor in the field of trade and diplomatic 
relations. 1 The Beneficiary served as thel I from 2007 through 2013, 
and holds a master of public policy froml !University and a bachelor of science in foreign 
service froml !University. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must demonstrate that he satisfies at least three of the alternate 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Beneficiary met two 
of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to leading or critical role and salary. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to 
published material and scholarly articles and newly claims that he meets the criterion for original 
contributions. It also requests that we consider additional documentation as comparable evidence for 
the artistic display criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 2 After reviewing all of the evidence in the 
record, we find that the record does not support a finding that the Beneficiary meets at least three of 
the evidentiary criteria, as required. 
1 The Petitioner indicates that the Beneficiary currently holds Hl-B status. 
2 The Director determined that the Petitioner's evidence did not meet the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) because the submitted material was not about him. The Petitioner contests that determination on appeal, 
but also asserts on appeal that media coverage should be evaluated as comparable evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Director previously determined that the Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to 
establish that the Beneficiary met this criterion. In the appellate brief, the Petitioner lists four articles 
that it asserts establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. 
Two of these are about the Beneficiar and relate to his work. The first ' 
~----~I' published on the Business Insider website (businessinsider.corn), is an interview with 
the Beneficiary from his perspective as a former di lornat. The second, ublished on the Yahoo 
Finance website (finance.yahoo.corn), .__----,------.-------------------,-J 
is about meetings the Beneficiary held with .__ __ _.conglomerates, and their views on the trade 
agreement. The Petitioner also provides the online circulation statistics for finance.yahoo.corn. 
However, it does not include comparable data for other websites, or other relevant evidence, that might 
show that the on-line circulation for these websites is high in relation, or that they otherwise rise to 
the level of major media, as required. 
As it relates to businessinsider.corn, the Petitioner submits a printout from insider-inc.corn containing 
the total number of unique visitors, monthly video views, "fans and followers," and average monthly 
interactions for that website. This document does not provide on-line circulation statistics for 
businessinsider.corn, the website on which the published material appeared. The Petitioner does not 
otherwise show how on-line circulation statistics for insider-inc.corn demonstrate 
businessinsider.corn's status as a major medium. 
The remaining articles quote the Beneficiary, but are not about him. The first article, c====J, 
I , , t was published in print and online by L______J 
I I and in several newspapers owned by that company. 3 The article is predominantly about the 
diplomatic community's response to a leaked transcript of a phone conversation between the United 
States President and thel !President. The second, I I 
I l" was published online at qz.corn. The article's focus is the diplomatic 
relations between thel L Articles that are not about a petitioner do not meet this 
regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 
8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor.) As an additional 
matter, we note that while the Petitioner provides circulation statistics for both the I • I 
I land qz.corn, it does not provide comparable data to show that these values are high relative 
to that of other newspaper companies or websites, respectively, or otherwise show that this company 
or website rise to the level of major media. 4 
3 The record also reflects that this article was reprinted online in the Miami Herald, the Idaho Statesman, The Sydnev 
Morning Herald, the Greenfield Recorder, the Brisbane Times, and the Sacramento Bee, I ] I I. 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
3 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility 
for this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
For the first time on appeal the Petitioner asserts the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. It 
~cally references the Beneficiary's "novel approach" in "meeting with leaders from each of 
l___Js provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions" when 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has the beneficiary made contributions that were original but that they have been of major significance 
in the field. For example, a petitioner may show that the beneficiary's contributions have been widely 
implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted the field, or have otherwise risen to a 
level of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner submits expert testimonials from senior elected officials, former diplomats, and 
business consultants discussing the Beneficiary's work in the field. 
,__ ______ __,from 2006 to 2012, notes that the Beneficiary built "solid ties with interlocutors 
at the highest levels of th~I I government," and was "invaluable in promoting both I I 
companies with interests in! I investment i~ I' However, his testimony does 
not provide specific examples showing how the Beneficiary built these relationships with I I 
government officials, or otherwise indicate how this approach is an original contribution in the 
Beneficiary's field. The correspondence further lacks specific examples of how this approach has 
widely impacted or been widely implemented in the field. Letters that lack specifics do not add value, 
and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 
.__ _________ ___, , who served a from 2006 to 2012, 
references the Beneficiary's "unique ~ach" in visiting "every single.__ _____ __, where he 
secured meetings with Governors andl___) Secretaries." She provides examples of the Beneficiary's 
actions, and asserts that "[a]s a result of [the Beneficiary's] efforts, important provinces ... sent high-
level delegations td I received I I business delegations, and entered into commercial 
agreements withl I bxp
1
rters." She further contends that this novel strategy "led to an increase 
in..c==J exports to from US 3.2 billion in 2007 to US 9.1 billion in 2012." I I 
L__J managing director and portfolio manager at.,.... __ .,--_ ___,, describes the Beneficiary as 
being "instrumental in orchestrating a delegation to of top-level representatives of the 
I I" .........,......,.....,...-----,----,-! explains that this delegation was 
"crucial" both because it included the "heads of provincial branches" and because "it was the first time 
such high-level I I executives had visited! I' He asserts that these efforts "led to 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (noting that evidence of published material about the 
alien in major media should establish that its circulation ( on-line or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics. 
4 While we discuss a sampling of the articles here, we have reviewed the record in its entirety. 
4 
17s opening operations inl I and to increased I I direct investment in I I from 
r===]provincial entities." Opinion letters from experts in the field may establish eligibility under 
this criterion, if they contain a probative analysis articulating the significance of an individual's 
contributions and their impact on the field; however, letters that lack specifics do not add value and 
are not considered probative evidence to establish eligibility. 5 Here, while descriptive of the 
Beneficiary's achievements, the testimonial letters do not explain how his work on behalf of1 I 
has impacted the broader field of trade and diplomatic relations. Without analysis explaining how the 
Beneficiary's work has been of major significance to the field, the letters do not establish eligibility 
for this criterion. 
The record also includes a translated statement from the '-------~~---------' titled 
'--------------~---~----'' media coverage of trade deals, photographs 
of the Beneficiar 's meetin s with.__ __ _.provincial leaders, and a table entitled 'I I 
,,__ _________ __,..---,,, extracted from the article 'I I 
' authored byl 16 While these documents 
~d_e_m_o_n_s-tr_a_t_e_a_c_h-ie_v_e_m_e_n_t_s~in trade during the Beneficiary's time asl lthey do not identify 
his role in accomplishing them, or otherwise demonstrate that his role has widely impacted or 
influenced the broader field of trade and diplomatic relations. For example, while the documrt fro1 
th9 I announcing a bilateral agreement to export pork from 
~--~I notes that the Beneficiary participated in thel I, the record lacks evidence 
showing the role he played in securing this agreement, or demonstrating that others in his field have 
used his approach. The news article and a er extract in the record also discuss trade deals occlrring I 
durin the Beneficiar ' but do not reference him specifically. The article' 
' discusses how the bank has "conducted extensive and fruitful L...-----------------t-----, exchanges and cooperation with the.__ __ ~ government," but does not differentiate the Beneficiary's 
role in these meetin s from that of other officials. The article '-----------------' only notes that....,_ __ ~__. s history in I I "began in 2010" when it sigled a joint venture 
agreement with ~--~ceramic manufacturer, leading to an increase in sales in The extract 
from the paper indicates the increase in exports during the time that the Beneficiary wasl I 
but does not demonstrate the relationship between his actions and the resulting increase in trade, or 
otherwise establish that the Beneficiary's approach has been widely implemented in or widely 
impacted his field. Finally, while the photographs of the Beneficiary demonstrate that he met with 
various I I officials, they do not indicate the purpose or significance of his visits. The record 
lacks media, meeting agendas, or other evidence that might demonstrate the Beneficiary's novel trade 
approach. Accordingly, these materials are insufficient to establish that his actions a~ I in 
relation to these outcomes, or that his approach has impact and analysis has subsequently been 
implemented widely in the field of diplomatic and trade relations, or is otherwise of major significance 
in this field. 
In addition to the expert testimony, the record reflects that the Beneficiar .---------~-----~-----. his work. For example, he published a chap,....te_r_e_n_t_it_le_d~----------------
1 
I in the book~-----------------~ 
I published by the Brookings Institute." He also delivered guest lectures lectured at 
5 
the University of and for thel I University's ~I-----~ 
Program. Publications and presentations, however, are not sufficient under 8 .....,.,..=--...,.........,.....,......,-----...,....,........,...,..... C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance." See Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. There is no presumption 
that every published article or conference presentation is a contribution of major significance in the 
field; rather, a petitioner must document the actual impact of the beneficiary's article or presentation. 7 
The record does not show that the Petitioner's published and presented work has affected his field in a 
substantial way or that it otherwise equates to original contributions of major significance in the field. 
The Petitioner provides letters from at I I and from I I I Professor of Public Manageme._nt_a_t_,..1----,.lu-n-iv_e_r_si-ty__,, 
regarding the Beneficiary's presentations at these institutions. I I notes that atl I "he 
presented a thought-provoking and original thesis comparing the political models of thel I I I and I b" and that this lecture "quickly 
became a reference point for I I and scholars as it contributed to new parameters for 
comparative study of one-party political systems." I I discusses the Beneficiary's role as 
guest lecturer onl lwith thd I Program, stating, "[h]is 
lectures were extremely engaging and substantive .... " However.I ts letter does not contain 
specific examples of how the Beneficiary's thesis became a reference point or how it widely impacted 
the field such that it rises to the level of a contribution of major significance in the field. I ts 
letter similarly lacks detailed examples of the wide impact of the Beneficiary's lectures on the field. 
As we note above, letters that lack specifics do not add value, and are not considered to be probative 
evidence that may form the basis for meeting this criterion. 8 
The record further reflects that the Beneficiary has been quoted in articles appearing in The New York 
Times, The Guardian and online at newsweek.com, among other sources. However, the Petitioner 
does not s~w being quoted in these sources demonstrates that the Beneficiary's I I 
methods inL__J have been widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted the 
field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
For the aforementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
As mentioned above, the record includes evidence establishin that the Beneficiar has authored a 
chapter entitled, ' ' in the 
book~-------------------------~ published by the 
Brookings Institute. It also reflects that the Beneficiary wrote a policy report entitled I I 
7 Generally, citations can confirm that the field has taken interest in a scholar's work. The Petitioner submitted Google 
rankings indicating that others have cited to these papers; however these citations do not reflect that his work was singled 
out as pa1iicularly impoliant. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the citations to his work, considered both 
individually and collectively, are commensurate with contributions "of major significance in the field." 
8 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra at 8, 9. 
6 
.__ __________________ ___.?" published by the Atlantic Council's Adrienne 
Arsht Latin America Center. The record includes sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this work 
constitutes a scholarly article in a professional publication. 9 Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
established that the Beneficiary meets this criterion, and we will withdraw the Director's finding in 
this matter. 
Evidence 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) 
We find that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based upon his I I ._ ______ ____. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner established that the Beneficiary has commanded a high 
salary in relation to others in the field, and thus met this criterion. Upon review, we find evidence in 
the record does not sufficiently establish this. First, we note that the record does not establish the 
salary commanded by the Beneficiary. With its initial filing, the Petitioner indicates that it will employ 
the Beneficiary "at a minimum annual base salary of $150,000 plus commissions and bonuses," 10 and 
provides the Beneficiary's 2017 Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, showing that he earned 
$417,577.20 in that year. On appeal, the brief asserts that the Beneficiary "commands a high salary 
relative to others in his field ($435,000)." The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591-92 (BIA 1988). Here the record does not provide sufficient documentation to establish the 
Beneficiary's base salary and other remuneration. 
Even were we to find that the record established the Beneficiary's salary, the Petitioner does not submit 
position-appropriate evidence sufficient to establish that he has commanded a high salary relative to 
other~----------~experts. Specifically, the record contains a printout from the 
Department of Labor's Office of Foreign Labor Certification Online Wage Library providing wage 
ranges for economists. However, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how the Beneficiary's role as 
an advisor in the field ofl I is equivalent to the role of an economist such 
that this printout shows the salaries of others in the field. 11 
For the abovementioned reasons, the Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate 
that the Beneficiary meets this criterion, and we will withdraw the Director's finding to the contrary 
in this matter. 
9 A scholarly article should be written for "learned" persons in the field. "Learned" is defined as having or demonstrating 
profound knowledge or scholarship. Learned persons include all persons having profound knowledge of a field. See 
USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-000J 1 rnnra at 9 
10 The record also includes a letter from I managing partner for the Petitioner, confirming that the 
Petitioner intends to employ the Beneficiary at a minimum annual base salary of $150,000 per year plus commissions and 
bonuses. 
11 This printout indicates that economists command a level 4 wage of $150,218 annually. 
7 
B. Comparable Evidence 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that "magazine articles and op-eds published in major media, quotes 
by him in major media articles, and public speeches before prestigious audiences" should be 
considered as comparable evidence of the eligibility criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), a criterion 
that requires "[ e ]vidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases." 12 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed 
criteria do not readily apply to his occupation. A petitioner should explain why he has not submitted 
evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as 
why the evidence he has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 13 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the listed criteria do not readily apply to his occupation. He 
has not asserted or demonstrated that he cannot offer evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
criteria. As discussed, the Petitioner has claimed to meet more than three criteria. Moreover, the 
Petitioner has not shown that senior directors with expertise in diplomatic and trade relations cannot 
present evidence relating to the other regulatory criteria such as receiving awards for excellence and 
membership. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (ii). As such, the Petitioner has not established that 
he is eligible to meet the initial evidence requirements through the submission of comparable 
evidence. 14 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that 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 )(l)(A) 
12 We note that our decision addressed the Beneficiary's published articles and opinion pieces, speaking engagements. and 
quotes under the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Furthermore, as discussed above, we found 
that the Beneficiar 's ublished works entitled 
I I and~--------------------~ folfilled the authorship of scholarly 
articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
13 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
14 On appeal, the Petitioner cites an AAO non-precedent decision for the proposition that to prove eligibility under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4). one must only demonstrate that at least one criterion is not applicable, and that the submitted evidence is 
comparable to that criterion. This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS officers 
in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Instead, we are bound by the published policy memorandum referenced 
above. 
8 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he 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). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his 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. 
9