remanded EB-1A Case: Packaging Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 23070824 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR . 01, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a packaging engineer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
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 Petitioner'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. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter ofChawathe , 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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for 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 )(1 )(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 their 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 they meet 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 Petitioner is currently employed by Amazon in a position titled Senior Product Manager, 
Technical. He is a packaging engineer specializing in pharmaceutical packaging. The record includes 
documentation to demonstrate his achievements and innovations while employed by several 
manufacturing companies and while working atl I State University. The Petitioner intends to 
continue his work as a product manager at Amazon. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet any of the regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv), (v), (vi), and 
(viii). He states that the Director did not apply the governing standard of review, preponderance of 
the evidence. 1 The Petitioner also states that the Director failed to consider the totality of the evidence, 
that the Director's review of the evidence included inaccuracies, and that the Director did not address 
certain evidence. After review of the evidence of record, we conclude that the Petitioner has 
established he has met eligibility requirements for criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (v), and (viii). 
Because the Petitioner has shown that he satisfies at least three criteria, we will remand the matter to 
the Director to evaluate the totality of the evidence in the context of a final merits determination to 
determine whether the Petitioner has demonstrated his sustained national or international acclaim, his 
status as one of the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor, and that his achievements 
have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
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). 
As evidence of his participation on a panel or as a judge of the work of others in his field, the Petitioner 
submitted letters of endorsement. The Director determined that these letters did not show the 
Petitioner's involvement in reviewing work or provide judging criteria. However, one of the letters 
1 See INS v. Cardoza-Foncesca. 480 U.S. 421,431 (1987) (discussing "more likely than not" as a greater than 50% chance 
of an occurrence taking place). 
2 
from a senior officer atl I that was written during his employment with the company 
sufficiently describes his participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of 
specification for which classification is sought. Specifically, the letter states that he "has contributed 
to judging and advancing of innovative packaging ideas developed by external entrepreneurs and start 
up business communities through " which "holds competitions focused 
on targeting un-met patient needs with winning concept funding." The letter further states that the 
Petitioner was involved in judging packaging concepts in these competitions. This sufficiently 
demonstrates that the Petitioner satisfied the basic elements of this criterion's requirements. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's decision regarding this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion based on his 
submission of letters of endorsement, stating that evidence must show that his contributions "went 
beyond the business and the business' clients and impacted [ or was] of major significance to the field 
as a whole." We note that most of the letters referenced in the decision are from individuals who 
worked directly with the Petitioner; these individuals provided detailed descriptions of his original 
contributions to the field of packaging engineering. For example, a senior director atl I I I citing the Petitioner's design of a unique plastic alternative to a problematic glass tuberculosis 
tube stated, 'I !solution was so significant to user safety that it was endorsed by the World 
Health Association (WHO)." And with regard to the Petitioner's role as the technical leader for the 
implementation of a new manufacturing platform, another senior executive at I lstated, 
As the technical leader of this project, I I specialized and unique knowledge 
of pharmaceutical operations, polymer technology, and engineering economics was 
crucial to the success and commercialization of [this platform] for pharmaceutical 
packaging. [This] was ground-breaking as it was the first major technology innovation 
for oral solids packaging since the invention of injection blow molding .... 
A senior director at stated of the Petitioner's work, 
[He] enabled D to progress product development in areas previously not possible. 
An example being the development and validation of a package which provides both 
chemical and physical protection to an Orally Dissolving Tablet .... The uniqueness of 
this innovative solution is that the package was required to meet the most stringent 
Child Resistant (CR) standard, due to the safety profile of the drug. Prior tol I 
involvement, a solution meeting the safety and business requirements was not 
available. 
The Director refers to all of the letters of record as "[l]etters of recommendation written by experts" 
and states that, although USCIS may use such letters as advisory opinions submitted by expert 
witnesses, 2 the significance of the Petitioner's work must be demonstrated by preexisting, 
2 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2, Appendices, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-
2. 
3 
independent, and objective evidence. While the record does include correspondence from experts in 
the field that purport to objectively evaluate the originality and significance of the Petitioner's 
contributions, the Director appears to have miscategorized all of the endorsement letters as such; the 
detailed letters from the Petitioner's former colleagues were not analyzed as a part of the Director's 
decision, despite the fact that the Director's request for evidence stated that any letters of support 
submitted must include details concerning the Petitioner's contributions. Upon review of the record, 
we conclude that the evidence satisfies the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, we withdraw 
the Director's decision regarding this criterion. 
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's decision references the letters of endorsement concerning the Petitioner's work and 
states that they do not explain how his accomplishments impacted his employers. However, the 
evidence of record appears to the contrary; several of the letters include detailed descriptions of the 
Petitioner's role and impact on the companies for which he worked. For example, the letter from 
I ]explains that the Petitioner was instrumental in the development and launch 
of a technology that "fundamentally changed production" of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 
beverage bottles. The letter provides the following (quoted as written): 
This innovation single handedly allowed! Ito gain global contracts with early 
adopters, such as Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Due to I involvement in this project, 
___ claimed a spot as one of the top global PET packaging mold makers. 
Further, because of his effective leadership, I along with other members of 
I I leadershi team was the recipient of Canada's 50 Best Managed 
Companies award for consecutive years, recognized by the consortium of 
Additionally, 
because O ___ contributions, was recognized by Profit Magazine 
in "The Hall of Fame" as one of the "Most Profitable Companies in Canada" for 
consecutive years. 
As another example, the letter from a former executive at d discusses how the 
Petitioner's work to solve a complex issue related to leaking detergent containers resulted in securing 
the company's multi-year contract of $80 million per year with its largest client. The letter includes a 
description of how the Petitioner's redevelopment of a capital equipment quoting process resulted in 
new business contracts with British Petroleum and Colgate. Another example includes the 
aforementioned letter froml I that details the Petitioner's critical role in developing 
solutions for the company with regard to child-resistant (CR) packaging. The letter also states that the 
Petitioner's "expertise allow[ed] the business to pursue new innovative formats [through] his work in 
developing a CR sachet in support of the development of a Tylenol granules product for children." 
The record includes evidence that explains how the Petitioner's work as a project manager, plant 
manager, vice president of operations, director of engineering, program director, and director of global 
consumer packaging significantly impacted several notable companies. The Director also determined 
that the record did not include evidence that the organizations for which the Petitioner may have served 
in a critical or leading role have distinguished reputations. As per the letters of endorsement in the 
record and internet open-source information, I I is a multi-million-dollar company and 
4 
generates approximately $2 billion in annual revenues. 
are multi-billion-dollar companies that each employ tens of thousands of employees and 
operate worldwide. We conclude that the evidence of record satisfies the requirements of this 
criterion. Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's decision regarding this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Because we conclude that the Petitioner meets at least three of the ten initial criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for further review and 
entry of a new decision. The new decision should include a final merits determination based on an 
analysis of the totality of the record evaluating whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or international acclaim, his status as one of the 
small percentage at the very top of his 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); 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. 
5