dismissed O-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 12018535 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 29, 2021 
Form 1-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a tech platform for connecting vendors to enterprises, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as 
a foreign national of extraordinary ability in business. To do so, the Petitioner seeks 0-1 nonimmigrant 
classification, available to foreign nationals who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through 
sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 101(a)(15)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy, as required, the alternative evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability 
in business, either a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms 
of documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers additional evidence and asserts that the Beneficiary meets the 
regulatory requirements for 0-1 classification. 
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 nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(O)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area 
of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (OHS) regulations define "extraordinary 
ability in the field of science, education, business, or athletics" as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, OHS regulations set forth alternative evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either 
of "a major, internationally recognized award, such as a Nobel Prize," or of at least three of eight listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). 
The submission of documents satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for 0-1 classification. See 59 Fed. Reg. 41818, 41820 (Aug. 15, 1994) ("The 
evidence submitted by the petitioner is not the standard for the classification, but merely the 
mechanism to establish whether the standard has been met.") Accordingly, where a petitioner 
provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will determine whether the 
totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows sustained national or international acclaim 
such that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See 
section 101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii).1 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Beneficiary's curriculum vitae indicates his most recent employment since 2016 as a global 
account manager of.__ ______ ___, at I I in Israel. The Petitioner, a Delaware 
corporation co-founded by the Beneficiary in December 2018 and based in New York, is self-described 
as a platform that "connects young startups without a marketing and sales team with experienced 
marketing professionals." The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as Chief Revenue Officer. It 
describes him as "an extraordinary business professional and innovator in Entrepreneurship Development 
Strategy in the Hi-Tech Industry." 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). 
The Petitioner submitted evidence relating to five of the eight alternate regulatory criteria. In denying 
the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled two of the initial evidentiary criteria, 
employment in a critical or essential capacity for distinguish organizations at 8 C.F.R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7) and high salary or other remuneration at 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). We 
will not disturb the Director's determination that these criteria have been met. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets three additional criteria. After reviewing 
all the evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established that the Beneficiary 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2) 
1 See also Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), in which we held that, "truth is to be determined not 
by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality." 
2 
The Petitioner did not initially claim that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. Within the Petitioner's 
response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), it asserted that the Beneficiary satisfies this 
criterion based upon his membership in the Forbes Business Council. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner's evidence did not fulfill this criterion. In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must 
show that the Beneficiary is a member of an association and that such membership is based on being 
judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field 
for which classification is sought. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from~-------~------- ....... for Forbes 
Councils, who confirms that since December 2019 the Beneficiary has been a member of the Forbes 
Business Council, "an invitation-only organization for business owners and leaders." She also 
provides that "[w]e don't share every detail of the selection process" but explains that "certain core 
criteria" are that prospective members of the Forbes Business Council must be the "owner, founder, 
or executive leader of a business ... [g]enerating at least $500,000 in annual revenue or funding." In 
addition, the Petitioner highlighted statements from the organization's website, reflecting that 
membership is based on "an application and committee review" and that "[m]embers are selected for 
the Council based on their depth and diversity of experience." Based on the limited description of the 
selection process, it does not appear to involve additional requirements or substantive review by 
national or international experts to determine whether a given applicant has demonstrated outstanding 
achievements. 
The record does not substantiate that the Forbes Business Council selection process extends beyond 
requiring that an applicant be an owner, founder or executive leader of a company that meets the stated 
income or financing requirements, which in-and-of-itself the Petitioner did not show is tantamount to 
an outstanding achievement. According to the information provided regarding the membership 
requirements, it is reasonable to conclude that an applicant will be granted membership who meets 
this threshold. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that membership with Forbes Business 
Council is judged by recognized national or international experts. The Petitioner did not establish, 
therefore, that Forbes Business Council requires outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about 
the alien, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought, 
which shall include the title, date, and author of such published material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) 
The Director determined that the published materials submitted do not meet this criterion, because the 
Petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to demonstrate that they were published in professional 
or major trade publications or major media. The Director also found that the documentation provided 
does not meet this criterion, because it does not address how "the [B]eneficiary's achievements are 
outstanding, that he has a record of sustained national or international recognition and is acknowledged 
as one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of his field." On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserts that the level of the Beneficiary's expertise as discussed in the articles should not be the 
determining factor of whether the published materials meet this criterion. We agree. If the Petitioner 
3 
submits published material in professional or major trade publications or other major media about the 
Beneficiary relating to his work in the field, we will conclude that the evidence satisfies the plain language 
of this criterion. 2 
The Petitioner provided an article entitled .__ ___________ ____. [the petitioning 
organization],___ _____ .....,.. published on the English-language Israeli website CTech. The 
article announced the Petitioner's seed round, noted that the Beneficiary is its co-founder, and related that 
it connects young startups without a marketing and sales team with experienced marketing professionals. 
However, the article does not include the author of the material and is missing the date of publication. 
The inclusion of the title, date, and author of the material is not optional but a regulatory requirement. 
In addition, the article was not accompanied by supporting evidence demonstrating that it was 
published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The record contains 
ranking and traffic data from www.similarweb.com, www.tmnww.com, www.ifra.com, and 
www.calcalist.co.il regarding the website of CTech's parent company, Calcalist, but not regarding 
CTech. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an article entitled 
~-----------------------------~ ," published 
on the Israeli website www.themarker.com. The article discusses the Beneficiary's decision.to relocate 
to the United States, describes how the petitioning company works to connect young startups with 
experienced marketing professionals, and mentions his prior work experience in hi-tech technical, 
operational, and international sales positions. The article is missing the date of publication. Further, 
although the Petitioner submitted supporting evidence from SimilarWeb, it does not establish that The 
Marker, which ranks 34th among Israeli business websites and 59th in Israel overall, is considered to 
be a major medium. While the Petitioner's submission on appeal includes articles dated 2020 from 
the websites www.journalism.co.il and www.globes.co.il reporting, respectively, the findings of a 
2019 survey showing an increase in newspaper exposure, including for the print edition of The Marker, 
and indicating The Marker leads Globes and Calcalist in monthly user data, the Petitioner did not 
explain or show the significance of the figures, indicating major status or standing for the online 
version of The Marker. 
The Petitioner also provided online articles about the Beneficiary and related to his work which were 
published by www.geektime.com and www.alleywatch.com. The article from www.alleywatch.com 
does not include the author of the material. In addition, the articles were not accompanied by 
supporting evidence demonstrating that they were published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. A screenshot from www.advertising.alleywatch.com indicates it 
is "a global media, technology, and branding company .... " A screenshot from www.geektime.com 
states it is "the largest and leading technology site in Israel." On appeal, the Petitioner provides a 
screenshot from www.crunchbase.com in which Geektime indicates it is "the largest international tech 
blog located outside the U.S." and "boasts a reader base of more than 1M unique visitors a month." 
2 The level of the Beneficiary's expertise would be more relevant to an examination of the totality of the evidence. As 
discussed above, where a petitioner provides qualifying evidence satisfying the initial evidentiary criteria, we will 
determine whether the totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows that the beneficiary has achieved a level 
of expertise indicating that he is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor and that 
the beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and that his achievements have been recognized in the field of 
expertise through extensive documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii),(iii). 
4 
An excerpt from Geektime's 2017 annual report indicates the company "boasts a reader base of more 
than 2,000,000 unique visitors a month around the world." USCIS need not rely solely on self-serving 
assertions.3 The Petitioner did not provide on-line circulation figures for these publications or 
comparative circulation or distribution figures in support of a claim that either of these publications 
would be considered major media consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Further, the Petitioner submitted a S oti 
I I' titled .___ _________________ ___. The Petitioner claimed 
that the podcast reflected an interview of the Beneficiary. However, the Petitioner did not provide a 
transcription of the podcast demonstrating published material about the Beneficiary relating to his 
work. Moreover, the Petitioner did not establish that,__ _____ - __ ___,' represents a major 
medium. 
The remaining articles do not show published material about the Beneficiary relating to his work. 
Although they briefly mention his name or quote him for source material, they are not about him but 
pertain to such topics as starting a business in another country and common mistakes found in sales 
teams. For example, the Petitioner provided an article from www.resources.workable.com, self­
described as "the world's leading hiring platform," in which the Beneficiary is quoted regarding the 
~--------' The record also contains an article from www.blog.powertofly.com, described as 
a company launched "to connect Fortune 500 companies and fast-growing startups with women." The 
Beneficiary is quoted as recommending,__ ___________________ ___, 
I I Those articles do not discuss the Beneficiary. Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that either of the websites constitute professional or major trade publications or other major. While a 
screenshot from Power to Fly provided statistics, such as "12 countries, 1.55M+ Slack messages," as 
discussed previously, USCIS need not rely solely on self-serving assertions. The Petitioner did not 
provide on-line circulation figures for these websites or comparative circulation or distribution figures, 
indicating major status or standing. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field in professional 
journals, or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6) 
The Petitioner did not initially claim that the Beneficiary satisfies this criterion. Within the Petitioner's 
RFE res onse it asserted that the Beneficia satisfies this criterion based upon the Beneficiary's 
article,__ _________________ ~ ___ ___.' pub I ished on the website 
www.forbes.com. 4 The Director determined that the article did not meet this criterion because it was 
published onl • I 2020, subsequent to the filing of this petition on January 3, 2020. On appeal, 
the Petitioner argues that the article satisfies this criterion because it was accepted for pub I ication prior 
3 See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding 
that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major 
media). 
4 The Petitioner prevjousl~ claimed that the Beneficiary also meets this criterion based on an article published on 
www.forbes.com inl I ?.020. On appeal, the Petitioner claims eligibility based on the article mentioned above 
and does not address this article. 
5 
to the date of filing, and points to documentation in the record suggesting that the article was accepted 
for publication orf I 2019. 
The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). The 
regulation requires evidence of scholarly articles in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. Thus, the only evidence we can consider is evidence of scholarly articles that had already 
appeared in such publications prior to or at the time of filing. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The record does not satisfy, as required, the evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary 
ability in business: a major, internationally recognized award or at least three of eight possible forms of 
documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii){A)-(B). Consequently, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Beneficiary is eligible for the 0-1 visa classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
business. 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. 
6