remanded EB-1A Case: Business Executive

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 18, 2024 In Re: 31839868 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business executive, seeks 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 satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and 
reconsider. 
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). Upon review, we will grant the motion 
and remand the matter for further proceedings. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. Specifically, the Petitioner 
disputes our conclusion that the record contains discrepancies relating to his compensation. 
A petitioner can establish extraordinary ability by submitting evidence that meets at least three of the 
ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), and then establishing, through a final merits 
determination, that the individual has achieved 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). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had met only one of the ten criteria, relating to performing 
in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment that has a distinguished reputation. In 
our appellate decision, we granted a second criterion, relating to published material about the 
individual in professional or major trade publications or other major media. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and (iii). 
The outcome of the appeal hinged on 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), which requires evidence that the 
individual has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in 
relation to others in the field. 
In our December 2023 appellate decision, we acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of salary 
survey data, and did not question the reliability or accuracy of that data. Instead, our decision focused 
on perceived discrepancies in the Petitioner's own salary information. 
We agreed with the Director that the Petitioner had submitted two different sets of salary figures for 
2019-2021. We determined that the discrepancies cast doubt on the reliability and credibility of the 
financial evidence in the record. We cited Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988), which 
requires a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the trnth lies. We concluded: "Because the Petitioner has not reliably established his annual income 
amounts, he has not demonstrated that he has commanded a high salary in relation to others in the 
business management field." 
Our conclusion about the reliability of the Petitioner's evidence rested significantly on an apparent 
discrepancy in the Petitioner's tax documents for 2021. In particular, tax documents submitted with 
the petition show a ¥730, 715 tax payment on June 6, 2021, that does not appear on revised documents 
submitted in response to a request for evidence. We stated that "[t]he second tax record set supports 
the Petitioner's claimed income amounts" for 2019 and 2020, but that "his claimed annual income 
amounts for 2019 and 2020 ... lack credibility" because the perceived discrepancy in the 2021 
documents raised broader questions of credibility. 
Review of the record shows that the June 2021 tax payment consistently appears in the Chinese­
language tax documents the Petitioner has submitted. The payment is missing only from the English 
translation of one of those documents. Thus, the major discrepancy we identified in our decision is 
attributable to a translation error. 
The Petitioner's submission of two different sets of salary figures raises questions. But we must also 
acknowledge the Petitioner's submission of tax documents to corroborate the second version of those 
figures. Even if there is some doubt as to the trnth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence that leads us to believe that the claim is "more likely than not" or "probably" trne, 
the petitioner has satisfied the standard of proof. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 T&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010). Also, the difference between the two sets of figures does not appear to be so great that 
the Petitioner's salary would qualify as high under one set but not the other. 
Upon reconsideration, we conclude that the Petitioner has met his burden of proof to meet a third 
regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). This, by itself, is not sufficient to establish eligibility 
2 
for the highly restncttve immigrant classification he seeks. The next step ts the final merits 
determination described in Kazarian. 
The Director's decision denying the petition did not include a final merits determination. Therefore, 
we will remand the matter to the Director for such a determination. The Director must evaluate 
whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national 
or international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3