sustained EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-K-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 26,2017 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, co-founder of a mini electrical grid development company, seeks classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability in business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(I )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, 
the Director found that he had satisfied only a single criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director mischaracterized his field and that he actually 
meets several additional criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act describes qualified immigrants for this classification as follows: 
(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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
.
Matter of M-K-S-
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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement that is a major, 
internationally recognized award. Alternatively, he or she must provide 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). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
filings 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. 201 0). 1 This two-step 
analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence 
for relevance, probative value, and credibility , both individually and within the context of the totality 
of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe , 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner previously worked as an engineer before obtaining a degree in Master of Business 
Administration from the and co-founding The 
company develops mini-grid electrical plants that utilize rice husk biomass as an energy source in 
locations not served by a major electric grid. The Director found that while the Petitioner performed 
in a leading or critical role for which enjoys a distinguished reputation, 2 he did not meet any 
additional criteria. The Director discounted any documentation he considered to be outside the 
general field of business management. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his field is management of a startup focused on renewable 
energy.3 While we find that description too narrow, we agree that evidence of the Petitioner's 
expertise in renewable energy business operations is relevant. Although the appellate brief addresses 
several additional criteria, we will discuss the most persuasive assertions below. Based on a review 
ofthe record, we conclude that the Petitioner has also been the subject of published material in major 
media and has judged the work of others in the same or a related field.4 · 
1 This case discusses 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. USC!S, 772 F. Supp . 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 2011). 
2 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(viii). 
3 The Petitioner initially organized his company in India under a different name in 2007 . 
4 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (iv). 
2 
.
Matter ofM-K-S-
A. Initial Evidentiary Criteria 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for 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). 
While we agree with the Director that much of the published material is not about the Petitioner but 
his business, there is documentation in the record that meets this criterion. Specifically, ' 
which appeared in the begins by discussing the Petitioner's 
childhood and education before describing how he formed with two other individuals. We are 
satisfied that this article is sufficiently "about" the Petitioner, relating to his work in the field. In 
addition, the is major media. Accordingly, the Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation , either individually or on a panel, as a judge ofthe work ol 
others in the same or an allied field of spectfication for which class~fication is sought. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
As the Director noted , much of the material relating to this criterion confirms that various entities 
invited the Petitioner to serve as a judge, but not that he did so. Nevertheless, the Petitioner has 
presented evidence corroborating that he actually served as a judge. Specifically, an email message 
from thanks him for volunteering as a semi-final judge for the 
at the and notes that he has "a fev~· projects that 
have yet to be scored ." As her wording indicates that he had completed at least some of his assigned 
reviews, the record demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that he indeed judged 
submissions for the event. chief executive officer (CEO) of 
explains that in this role for the Petitioner evaluated business plans and provided 
extensive feedback to participants. 5 For the above reasons, he has satisfied this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
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. If so, a petitioner has met the requisite burden of proof and 
established eligibility for visa classification as an individual of "extraordinary ability." 
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. 
5 While we agree with the Director that who professes no affiliation with or the 
does not have firsthand knowledge of the Petitioner ' s participation , we will consider his explanation of 
what that competition involves . 
3 
.
Matter of M-K-S-
The strongest items 
The company was a 
The documentation in the record supports a _finding of extraordinary ability. 
relate to the prestige of which the Petitioner founded and still manages. 
finalist for the and won an 
) Taking several exhibits together, the preponderance of the evidence confirms that 
has received significant financing from independent sources. For example, the 
made a grant of $750,000 to fund an project. In addition , a Memorandum of 
Understanding among (an organization that promotes human rights) , and the 
reflects that will 
provide funding to and for a mini-grid project. 
has also been the subject of articles in major media and case studies at prestigious independent 
institutions, such as the A post-filing nine-minute interview with the 
Petitioner about on a nationally broadcast program on a television station shows that 
recognition of and his work continues. That the Petitioner co-founded and continues to serve in 
an executive capacity for this company is commensurate with acclaim in the field. In addition , the 
fact that the detailed how the Petitioner came to form and that the 
with which he has no affiliation; requested him to judge business plans for the 
event are indicative of his recognition in the field well beyond his immediate circle of 
colleagues. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has offered additional materials that support a finding of eligibility. For 
example, he has verified that he served as a judge at the event and demonstrated that he was 
invited to do so on multiple occasions by independent institutions such as the 
and the The invitation from from the 
indicates that he is asking the Petitioner to serve as a judge based on his management of a 
"successful multiple bottom line" company. 
In addition, organizers of several summits, workshops, and conferences sent personal requests to the 
Petitioner seeking his attendance as a guest speaker, panel moderator, or chair. For example, the 
requested that he participate in a ministerial roundtable. The · 
Petitioner also participated m 
a panel at a conference that the 
the and the organized. Post filing, 
of asked the Petitioner to speak at a summit that 
expects 400 invite-only guests from across the clean energy value chain. Finally, the 
covered the Petitioner ' s travel and lodging expenses to participate as an energy access expert at 
a workshop. All of the above documents in the aggregate corroborate that the Petitioner qualifies for 
the classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in business. 
6 While other awards are referenced in the record , the evidence is either ambiguous , unsigned , or is from individuals who 
do not profess firsthand knowledge of the awards . 
4 
Matter of M-K-S-
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability through the 
satisfaction of three criteria and evidence indicative of his recognition in the field. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of M-K-S-, ID# 430647 (AAO July 26, 2017) 
5