remanded EB-1A Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22654821 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 10, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification of the Beneficiary 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 met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing 
the Beneficiary 's receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, or by meeting three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de novo review, we will withdraw the Director's 
decision and remand this matter for the entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. 
I. LAW 
An individual is eligible for the extraordinary ability classification if they have extraordinary ability 
in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and their achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation; they seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
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 may demonstrate 
international recognition of a beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). Absent such an achievement , a petitioner must 
provide sufficient qualifying documentation demonstrating that a beneficiary meets at least three of 
the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . 
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 Beneficiary is a marketing executive who has received recognition for his achievements in the 
development of numerous advertising campaigns for notable clients during his employment with 
several agencies. The Beneficiary's most recent work with the Petitioner resulted in his appointment 
as chief executive officer, and the Petitioner intends for the Beneficiary to continue his employment 
in that position. 
Although the Petitioner initially presented evidence to establish that the Beneficiary received a major, 
internationally recognized award-as well as evidence satisfying alternate criteria-the Director did 
not acknowledge that evidence as such; the Director denied the petition, determining only that the 
record did not contain evidence to satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he presented evidence that the 
Beneficiary received a major, internationally recognized award, as well as evidence that he meets five 
criteria addressed in the Director's final decision. As more fully discussed below, we conclude that 
the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Also discussed below, based 
on review of the Director's decision as it relates to the evidence submitted to demonstrate several other 
evidentiary criteria, we will remand the matter for the entry of a new decision. 
We conclude that the Director's decision did not provide a sufficient analysis of the evidence ofrecord 
with regard to several criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). An officer must fully explain the reasons for 
denying a visa petition to allow the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow 
us an opportunity for meaningful appellate review. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also Matter of 
M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the reasons for denying 
a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination on appeal). 
Because the Director did not adequately explain the reasons for denial of the petition, on remand, the 
Director should fully review the evidence of record relating to the Beneficiary's claim of a qualifying 
one-time achievement under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Absent such an achievement, the Director should 
fully review the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (ix). 
We also find that the Director erroneously assessed the evidence of record based on a misinterpretation 
of the field of extraordinary ability for which the petition requests consideration. The decision stated, 
"It appears that the awards are not in the beneficiary's field because the petitioner has indicated that 
the beneficiary's field is that of a chief executive. However, the awards submitted are for advertising 
campaigns and being an influencer." The Director's decision does not include an explanation of his 
interpretation of the chief executive officer position as a field unto itself. The present petition requests 
consideration of the Beneficiary's extraordinary business ability as a marketing executive currently 
2 
serving as the chief executive officer for an advertising agency; the petition proposes continued 
employment for the Beneficiary in that position, and the evidence demonstrates that he has held 
various positions performing crucial roles in the development of campaigns for the Petitioner's agency 
and for several international agencies. On remand, the Director should evaluate the Beneficiary as a 
chief executive officer in the field of marketing. 
A. One-time Achievement 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that a petitioner may submit evidence of a one-time 
achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. The record includes evidence showing 
that the Beneficiary's advertising campaign teams received two Cannes Lions Awards when he served 
as Account Supervisor atl I and Vice President of Planning at I 
Although the Petitioner argues that the Beneficiary's Cannes Lions constitute major, internationally 
recognized awards, the Director's decision assessed these awards and other award documentation in 
terms of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), concluding, 'There is no objective evidence to 
ascertain whether the awards or prizes are nationally recognized or internationally recognized for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. ... " However, the record contains information from several 
reputable news sources regarding the nature of the awards and the Cannes Lions International Festival 
of Creativity itself-the annual event at which awards are issued to entrants from multiple countries. 
A USA Today article describes the event as "the Academy Awards for advertising," and an article from 
CBS News states, "The Cannes Lions Awards are, to the ad industry, their Oscars. It's where the good 
and the great gather to celebrate their best and brightest, every year." The record includes media 
reports discussing award winners for internationally recognized brands and rules for judging, as well 
as information from the Cannes Lions organization concerning entrant profiles and juror credentials. 
The Director's decision does not analyze whether the Cannes Lions Awards qualify as major, 
internationally recognized awards that demonstrate international recognition of the Beneficiary's 
achievements in the field of marketing. On remand, the Director should fully evaluate all evidence 
submitted in support of the Beneficiary's claim of a qualifying one-time achievement to determine if 
it meets the requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Absent such an achievement, the Director should 
fully review the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (ix) as further 
detailed below. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
In addition to evidence to establish that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, the Petitioner submitted evidence to demonstrate at least three of the alternate 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted 
evidence relating to seven criteria: 
• (i) Receipt of a lesser nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in the 
field of endeavor, 
• (ii) Membership in associations in the field, 
• (iii) Published material about the individual, 
• (iv) Participation as a judge of the work of others in the field, 
• (v) Original contributions of major significance, 
3 
• (vi) Authorship of scholarly articles in the field, 
• (viii) Performance of leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished 
reputations, and 
• (ix) High salary or other significantly high remuneration in relation to others. 
The Director determined that the record did not contain evidence sufficient to satisfy any of the above­
listed criteria necessary for qualification as an individual of extraordinary ability in a specific field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the record includes evidence to establish eligibility for five of 
the alternate criteria. 
Documentation of the individual's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of the Beneficiary's Effie Awards, WARC Award, Global/4A's Jay 
Chiat Award, and CLIO Award, and the record includes information from the awards organizations 
and from objective media sources concerning previous winners and judging criteria. As described 
above, the Director concluded that these awards were not granted to the Beneficiary in the field for 
which he currently seeks classification; the Director misinterpreted the Beneficiary's field as that of 
chief executive officer, specifically, yet the awards were given for his achievements in the field of 
marketing. The Director's decision does not properly analyze the awards as they relate to the field of 
marketing. 
The Director also determined that, "while these prizes or awards reflect institutional recognition for 
excellence, they do not reflect national or international recognition for excellence in the field." The 
Director did not provide an analysis for his conclusion concerning the scope of recognition conferred 
by these awards. 
The Director also concluded, "The plain language of this criterion requires the petitioner to document 
the beneficiary's own receipt of the award .... [T]he awards appear to have been conferred to the 
specific advertising campaigns or to the beneficiary's employer. Awards presented to a third party or 
organization are not sufficient to establish eligibility under this criterion because the beneficiary did 
not actually receive the award." USCIS policy generally emphasizes consideration of an individual 
beneficiary's receipt of an award, as opposed to the receipt of an award by the individual's employer. 1 
In this case, however, the awards were conferred to the Beneficiary as one member of a small team 
receiving recognition for its accomplishments; the evidence from the award organizations and from 
media sources identifies the Beneficiary by name as winning numerous awards for his work in leading 
roles on several teams. The Director did not provide an explanation for his conclusion that the 
Beneficiary did not receive each award. On remand, the Director should fully evaluate all evidence 
related to the Beneficiary's Effie Awards, WARC Award, Global/4A's Jay Chiat Award, and CLIO 
Award to determine ifit meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
1 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, Appendices, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-
2. 
4 
We note that the Director acknowledged that thel I Award was conferred solely to the 
Beneficiary. However, citing Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971), he points 
out that the Beneficiary received the award during a ceremony that took place from June 29, 2021, to 
July 1, 2021-after the June 16, 2021, filing date of the petition-concluding that receipt of the 
I IA ward does not demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility at the time of filing. The Petitioner 
has not submitted sufficient evidence indicating that the Beneficiary received thel A ward 
before the filing date of the petition. 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field/or which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or field. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner does not dispute the Director's conclusion regarding this criterion on appeal. Therefore, 
we deem this issue to be waived, and we will not address this criterion further. See, e.g., Matter of M­
A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the individual's work in the field/or which class[fication 
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). 
We first note that several articles submitted by the Petitioner pertain to the Beneficiary's ___ 
award. This material cannot be evaluated as relevant and probative evidence because it was generated 
after the filing date of the petition. 2 
As to the remaining articles, the Director's decision states, 'The criterion was not met because the 
material submitted does not contain the title, date, author of the material or evidence that the published 
material qualifies as professional or major trade publications or other major media." Review of the 
record shows that some of the articles submitted do include these identifiers. Further, although the 
Director identified the articles as incomplete in a list of evidence submitted, the decision does not 
provide an analysis of the content presented; the Director concluded that the "material only cites, 
quotes, or references the beneficiary," and that there "is no discussion of the beneficiary or the 
beneficiary's work." The record contains several articles for which the Beneficiary was interviewed, 
as well as articles discussing advertisements that, as corroborated by letters of endorsement from his 
employers and colleagues, the Beneficiary was instrumental in creating. Articles also discuss! I 
I I a marketing tool utilizing Google technology for which the Beneficiary is lauded in letters of 
endorsement for developing. On remand, the Director should fully evaluate all evidence submitted in 
support of this criterion to determine if it meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of spec[fication for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
2 See Matter of Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. at 49. 
5 
As evidence of the Beneficiary's participation as a judge of others' work in the field of marketing, the 
Petitioner submitted letters from representatives from the Effie A wards, from the SME A wards, and 
from thel I School; the letters detail the Beneficiary's repeated participation as a juror, 
including as president. The Director's decision concluded that the Beneficiary served as a judge in 
the field of advertising and, again, applied an erroneous interpretation of the Beneficiary's field in 
analyzing this criterion; "While the evidence does establish that the beneficiary acted in the role of a 
judge in the field of advertising, the plain language of this criterion requires that the beneficiary judge 
the work of others in his field .... The petitioner has indicated on the Form I-140 that the beneficiary's 
field and intended employment is that of a Chief Executive Officer." On remand, the Director should 
fully evaluate all evidence submitted in support of this criterion to determine if it meets the 
requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) in the Beneficiary's field of marketing. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner does not dispute the Director's conclusion regarding this criterion on appeal. Therefore, 
we deem this issue to be waived, and we will not address this criterion further. See, e.g., Matter of M­
A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. at 767 n.2. 
Evidence of the individual'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). 
The Petitioner submitted articles authored by the Beneficiary. However, the decision provided a 
conclusory statement indicating the criteria was not met without analysis of the evidence submitted. 
On remand, the Director should fully evaluate all evidence submitted in support of this criterion to 
determine ifit meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the individual 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). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The decision acknowledged the numerous letters of endorsement from the Beneficiary's previous 
employers and colleagues and provided the following analysis: 
The letters do not show that the beneficiary was in a position of leadership for the 
organization or establishment or explain how the accomplishments went beyond a 
department or project of the organization or establishment and impacted the 
organization or establishment as a whole. 
Any organization or establishment that retains the services of an individual requires 
someone competent to provide those services. In the case of a leading role, the 
petitioner must demonstrate how the beneficiary's role fits within the overall hierarchy 
of the organization or establishment. In the case of a critical role, the beneficiary must 
have contributed to the success of the establishment or organization beyond merely 
providing necessary services. 
6 
As such, the submitted evidence does not meet this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "did not properly discuss, address, or analyze the 
evidence presented [or] explain in any fashion whatsoever why the evidence on record was allegedly 
insufficient to meet the required burden of proof" The letters of endorsement do, in fact, attest to the 
Beneficiary's leading and critical roles while working with several organizations; they detail his 
contributions to the development of successful ad campaigns and the awards those campaigns 
garnered, and they commend the Beneficiary's formation of a new marketing tool in collaboration 
I I For example, a letter from I I education lead for Latin America states ( quoted as 
written), 
Google is focused on generating value I for its clients through new technological 
capabilities, especially through Cloud Platform. This platform, though 
technologically very advanced, is still finding its way into the marketing world, and 
I I work with I I is doing an outstanding job in getting 
these two concepts together, to the great benefit of both and 
A letter from the marketing and innovation director of states ( quoted as written), 
One of I most extraordinar achievements is the ideation and implementation 
of .. ... This model was a key selection factor when 
we decided to work with _ We have gained business against our competitors 
and some of our recent work is now considered globally best in class marketing. 
The chief strategy officer at states of the Beneficiary ( quoted as written), 
He was able to design a partnership with I I to add Big Data and analytical 
capabilities to I I that were missing before. This new breakthrough 
innovation ... has become a major commercial success that helped the company to win 
1m ortant new accounts and projects likel I Toyota, [ and] Coca-Cola .... One of 
m lihmn i hfr 
Of a campaign led by the Beneficiary for a low-performing client prepared to leavd __ a strategy 
consultant states, 
[It] was first launched in Canada in 2016. The strategy was so strong and 
resonant ... that multiple creative executions were further developed, keeping the 
campaign running for over 3 years. It was later adopted in Argentina and Australia. 
[The campaign] contributed to I I achieving its highest sales volume and 
market share results since the brand launched and outpaced category growth 3: 1. 
A letter from the chief executive officer at attests to the Beneficiary's 
contributions to the firm's recognition in the advertising field by Cannes, Adweek, and Fast Company. 
7 
In contrast to the analysis provided in the Director's decision, the evidence shows that the Beneficiary 
made a significant impact on organizations having distinguished reputations in the realms of 
advertising and technology. We conclude that the Petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence that 
meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
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 found that the information from various websites submitted as evidence of the 
Beneficiary's high salary relative to other comparable positions in his field was not sufficient to 
establish eligibility. Specifically, the decision stated that the positions of advertising executives and 
senior account executives for which salary information was submitted were not comparable to those 
of chief executive officers. On remand, the Director should fully evaluate all evidence submitted in 
support of this criterion to determine if it meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) as it 
pertains to the Beneficiary's expertise in the field of marketing. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Based upon the deficiencies discussed above, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand 
the matter for further review and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director should request any 
additional evidence deemed warranted to address whether the Beneficiary received a major, 
internationally recognized award in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Absent such an 
achievement, the Director should fully review the alternative evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (ix). If the Director determines that the Petitioner has provided 
sufficient evidence of a one-time achievement or at least three of the types of alternative evidence 
listed in the regulations, the new decision should include an analysis of the totality of the record 
evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, the 
Beneficiary's sustained national or international acclaim and whether the record demonstrates 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 )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
8