dismissed O-1A Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 13, 2024 In Re: 34150375 
Appeal of Vermont Service Center Decision 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a mobile application and software development business, seeks to classify the 
Beneficiary, a Senior IOS Developer, as an individual of extraordinary ability. This 0-1 nonimmigrant 
visa classification is available to individuals 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 10l(a)(l5)(O)(i), 8 U.S.C. § l 101(a)(15)(O)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Beneficiary had not 
satisfied the initial evidentiary criteria applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability in business: 
either receipt of 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) . The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant 
to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter afChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter a/Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 10l(a)(l5)(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 (DHS) regulations defme "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, DHS 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 10l(a)(l5)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iii).1 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner did not indicate or establish the Beneficiary has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, it must demonstrate the Beneficiary satisfies at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l)-(8). The Director determined that the 
Petitioner submitted evidence related to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii)(B)(l)-( 7) and 
concluded the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for any of those criteria.2 
Furthermore, the Petitioner makes additional eligibility claims and presents new evidence that were 
never argued or presented before the Director in this proceeding. Specifically, for the first time on 
appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Beneficiary fulfills the criterion relating to high salary under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8). However, as the Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiary's eligibility 
for this criterion before the Director, either at the time it filed the petition or in response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), we will not consider this claim in our adjudication of this 
appeal.3 See Matter of Soriano, 19 l&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (providing that if "the petitioner 
was put on notice of the required evidence and given a reasonable opportunity to provide it for the 
record before the denial, we will not consider evidence submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that 
"we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of proceedings" before the Director); see also 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec 533 (BIA 1988). For the same reason, we will not consider the 
new evidence the Petitioner presented for the first time on appeal pertaining to judging under 8 C.F .R. 
§ 214.2 (o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l l) (requiring all requested evidence be 
submitted together at one time). 
Documentation ofthe alien 's receipt ofnationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field ofendeavor . 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0 )(3)(iii)(B)(l). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argues that it satisfies this criterion based upon the Beneficiary's receipt of 
a 2023 ItIt claims a award is "a prestigious distinction in the 
business sector" and that selection for this award is based "on the merit of the individual's 
1 See also 2 USCJS Policy Manual, M.4(C)(2), https://www.uscis.gov /policymanual. 
2 We consider any previous eligibility claims not raised on appeal to be waived. See, e.g., Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 l&N Dec. 
330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M- , 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)). 
3 In the RFE, the Director specifically indicated that the Petitioner "did not submit any evidence for this option." In 
response, the Petitioner did not claim the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion. 
2 
achievements . . . . which includes assessment by a panel of independent judges and publication of 
achievements in prestigious media outlets." 
According to screenshots from the awarding entity __________ is "thethe is 
_____ lbusiness awards program, celebrating the finest achievements in entrepreneurship, 
innovation, and corporate responsibility ." These materials claim that "[ w ]ith a rigorous evaluation 
process and an esteemed panel of international judges, we ensure that the accolades we bestow reflect 
the pinnacle of success" based upon the association's "5 years recognizing remarkable service, 12,400 
remarkable business entries, and 8 objective measurement criteria." The screenshots encourage 
visitors to "[a]pply today and be a winner;" the application form requests applicants to indicate their 
industry and whether they are applying as a company or an individual. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(I) requires "the alien's receipt of nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." 4 Although the 
Petitioner submitted evidence about the from its website, which claims that "[w]inning an award 
boosts a company's credibility," "distinguishes it from competitors," and "can boost team morale and 
provide recognition for employees' hard work," this evidence does not indicate the national or 
international recognition for excellence in the field. The material does not show how the field views 
winning the as being tantamount to a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence. Additionally, the record lacks "the 8 objective measurement criteria" this entity relied 
upon to select the winners of this accolade. Further, the screenshots do not indicate that winners 
receive a level of media coverage that is commensurate with a nationally or internationally recognized 
award in the business field. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal, under the heading entitled "Appeal To The Comparable 
Evidence," 5 that "[w]hile not traditional 'awards,' [the Beneficiary's ] roles as a thought leader, key 
speaker at major industry events, and his publications in respected trade magazines offer substantial 
proof of his professional esteem and recognition in the tech community," and recommendation letters 
from C-G and D-H- "provide a perspective on his reputation beyond conventional awards .... " 
Because the Petitioner did not articulate a comparable evidence claim of eligibility under one or more 
of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) at initial filing, or in response to the Director's RFE, we 
will not consider this basis as it was not presented before the Director. See Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 
766; see also Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish the Beneficiary's eligibility for this 
criterion. 
4 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2)(appendix) . 
5 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C) provides that "[i]fthe criteria in paragraph (o)(3)(iii) of this section do not 
readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may submit comparable evidence in order to establish the 
beneficiary's e ligibility." Thus, a petitioner must demonstrate why the regulatory criterion does not pertain to a 
beneficiary's occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii) . See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(3) (instructing that a general unsupported 
assertion that the listed criterion does not readily apply to the beneficiary 's occupation is not probative, and officers do not 
consider comparable evidence if the petitioner submits evidence in lieu of a particular criterion that is readily applicable 
to the beneficiary's occupation simply because the beneficiary cannot satisfy the criterion). 
3 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication 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). 
The Petitioner claims that the Beneficiary meets this criterion based on his membership with Grupo 
de Lideres Empresariais in I I Florida (LIDE I I and the Central Florida Brazilian 
American Chamber of Commerce (CFBACC). 6 
The Petitioner submitted two letters from G-P-G-, the CEO of LIDE I I The first letter states 
that the Beneficiary was admitted as an "associate" of LIDE I I in March 2023. 7 The second, 
undated letter, indicates: 
To become a member of LIDE, qualifications of a stringent and high caliber are 
required from an entrepreneur. Among the criteria evaluated are highly specialized 
knowledge in the field of work, notable and above-average stream of revenue in the 
field of work, the practice of corporate governance, valuing human beings at all levels, 
respecting the environment and offering support for social responsibility programs, and 
the notoriety of organizations, maintaining a renowned and reputable public image in 
Brazil and abroad. 
In addition, G-P-G- provides "it was a pleasure to induct [the Beneficiary] as the Chief Technology 
Officer (CTO) of the LIDE I I group" and claims that "IT Leaders associated with LIDE are 
people who must be known to drive the profit, growth and sales of their respective associations." 
Moreover, he states that the Beneficiary is on LIDE I IExecutive Membership Board. The 
letters do not cite to any governing authority or other supporting evidence as a basis for LIDE 
I I membership requirements as an associate, CTO, or on the Executive Membership Board of 
the organization. 
In order to meet this criterion, a petitioner must not only establish that membership in the association 
requires outstanding achievements of its members, but those outstanding achievements are judged by 
recognized national or international experts for membership within the association. 8 The letters do not 
explain how having "highly specialized knowledge," "notable and above-average stream of revenue," 
and being "known to drive the profit, growth and sales of their respective associations" are outstanding 
achievements. In addition, the letters do not address the selecting body who judges the membership 
criteria and whether it is comprised of recognized national or international experts in the business field. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has provided no evidence explaining how a position on the Executive 
Membership Board is awarded to LIDE I I members and that such position requires outstanding 
achievement as judged by experts in the business field. 
6 The Petitioner does not pursue on appeal its claim below that the Beneficiary also meets this criterion based upon his 
membership in the Strategic Consortium of Intelligence Professionals. 
7 We note that G-P-G-' s first, foreign language letter is unsigned and therefore has limited credibility and evidentiary 
value. 
8 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2)(appendix). 
4 
Regarding the CFBACC, the Petitioner submitted the Beneficiary's membership certificate, and a 
letter from the association's president, who indicates that the Beneficiary was "onboarded" in 2023 as 
"a Committee Member to play the Digital Marketing roles at CFBACC." She provides that he "has 
impacted several Brazilian entrepreneur groups in the region delivering guidance in his field." 
The record does not contain evidence (such as bylaws or rules of admission) showing that CFBACC 
requires outstanding achievements of its members or committee members as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in the Beneficiary's field. The Petitioner cannot meet the plain 
language of this evidentiary criterion by submitting a copy of the Beneficiary's membership certificate 
in the association. While the Petitioner has submitted a letter from CFBACC's president, the letter 
does not mention the requirements for membership in the organization, and, therefore, does not 
establish that membership represents outstanding achievements as judged by recognized national or 
international experts. 
Further, the Petitioner asserts on appeal, under the heading entitled "Appeal To The Comparable 
Evidence," that the recommendation letters from C-G and D-H- "provide a perspective on his 
reputation beyond ... memberships." Again, because the Petitioner did not articulate a comparable 
evidence claim of eligibility under one or more of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii) at initial 
filing, or in response to the Director's RFE, we will not consider this basis as it was not presented 
before the Director. See Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766; see also Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's eligibility for 
this criterion. 
Published material in professional or major trade publications or other 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 ofsuch published material, and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 
The Petitioner claims the Beneficiary's eligibility for this criterion based on a 2014 article entitled, 
published in Jornal Estado de I In order to 
fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about the Beneficiary in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material. 9 As noted by the Director, the article is not about the Beneficiary relating to his work 
but is about the importance of mentoring for startup companies, "to overcome difficulties, 
professionalize the company and make them progress." It provides several examples of mentoring, 
including the Beneficiary being mentored one of his engineering clients, and includes an interview on 
the topic with business consultant and angel investor J-K-. Because the Petitioner did not show the 
article qualifies as published material about the Beneficiary we need not make a determination relating 
to the standing of the publication. 10 
9 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2)(appendix). 
10 See 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2)(appendix) (reflecting that in evaluating whether a submitted 
publication is a professional publication, major trade publication, or major media, relevant factors include the intended 
audience (for professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or viewership (for major 
trade publications and other major media)). 
5 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an article about the Beneficiary published inl 12023 in 
the Brazilian newspaper Nossa Gente, subsequent to the filing of the petition in June 2023. As the 
Director noted, the Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration 
benefit have been satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b)(1 ). Further, the Petitioner submitted articles authored by the Beneficiary to satisfy this 
criterion. 11 The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) requires that the 
published material be "about" the Beneficiary, relating to his work. The self-authored articles are only 
about his work, not articles about him relating to his work. Cf., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-
ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not 
about the actor). 12 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that the Beneficiary fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's participation on a panel, or individually as a judge ofthe work of 
others in the same or in an alliedfield ofspecialization to that for which class[fication is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4). 
The Petitioner asserts that the Beneficiary meets this criterion "as a judge" of events at the Brazilian 
Brazil I I The'-------------------------------' Petitioner's initial evidence included a letter thanking the Beneficiary for accepting the invitation to 
mentor the startups participating in the Incubator of Projects Program at the I I School of 
Business atl I In addition, the Petitioner submitted two letter from A-R- ofl for 
Startups, who states that the Beneficiary "was a mentor in several of our programs, such as mentoring 
for technology startups." 13 Further, it provided photographs of the Beneficiary's 2018 lecture, 
"Development of Applications Practice" for Mobile Marketing class." 
Within the Petitioner's RFE response, it included the Beneficiary's statement that for the Incubator 
of Projects Program, he applied his technology and business knowledge "to guide and support 
promising entrepreneurs on their journeys." For example, for the startup project 
I I he provided "insights" and "guidance" on issues related to its "business model, 
technological development, and the integration between the marketplace and the SAAS platform." 
For the startup I he provided "feedback" and "guidance" on "refining the business model, 
developing the platform, and validating the proposal." In addition, the Beneficiary stated he 
participated in the "2019 1st semester Bootcam of the and on "11/09/2022 -
Mentoring for the Silver Startup Program ____ program" for "entrepreneurs over 50 years 
old." 
The record includes a participation certificate indicating the Beneficiary participated as a volunteer 
mentor in the 11th Project Incubator Program at the School of Business 
11 Although these publications are not relevant to this criterion, such evidence may be considered as it relates to the significance 
of a beneficiary's contributions and scholarly articles, as well as whether they have the requisite sustained acclaim and have 
established that they have reached the very top of their field. 
12 See also 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2) (appendix) (providing that published material that includes only 
a brief citation or passing reference to the beneficiary's work is not "about" the beneficiary, relating to the beneficiary's 
work in the field, as required under this criterion). 
13 We note that A-R- 's first foreign language letter is unsigned and therefore has limited credibility and evidentiary value. 
6 
held from October 2020 to April 2021, and that "[t]hroughout the program, he dedicated 4 hours of 
online mentoring in order to support development of startups participating in the program." The 
Petitioner also provided a certificate from I Istating that the Beneficiary "[p ]articipated as 
a Mentor in the Bootcamp of the Startup Program - SO in the 1st semester of 2019." Further, the 
Petitioner's RFE response contained a copy of the Beneficiary's slideshow presentation for "FAIR OF 
Entrepreneur! Ientitled "How to use applications in your business!" 
Upon review, the record does not include documentary evidence to corroborate the Beneficiary's 
statement regarding his role "as a judge." It is not apparent from the submitted documentation that 
the Beneficiary was invited to serve as a judge or jury panel member for the above I I 
Project Incubator Program Bootcamp or Bootcamp of the Startup Program events in those years. 
Rather, according to the above descriptions, his participation in the programs was strictly as a mentor 
involved in evaluating the students' work. As the plain language of this criterion requires evidence of 
the Beneficiary's "participation ... as a judge," evidence of working as a mentor who evaluates students 
as a part of that role does not meet this requirement. Here, the record lacks specificity and detail of 
the Beneficiary's role with the claimed I Project Incubator Program Bootcamp and 
Bootcamp of the Startup Program events. 
Accordingly, we find that this evidence does not sufficiently establish the Beneficiary's qualification 
under this criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, or business-related contributions 
of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5). 
Analysis under this criterion focuses on whether the beneficiary's original work constitutes major, 
significant contributions in the field. 14 The Petitioner asserts the submission of testimonial letters 
established the Beneficiary's contributions of major significance. In its initial submission it argued 
his achievements "express his consistent service to a large community of companies of distinct 
reputation." Within its RFE response and on appeal, the Petitioner maintains that the Beneficiary's 
digital innovation, shown in his development of several applications and platforms, contributed to the 
growth of various business. On appeal, it references recommendations letters it submitted from two 
of the Beneficiary's colleagues, M-M-M- and C-G-. 15 
Although the letters highly praise the Beneficiary for his work for various companies, they do not 
identify the Beneficiary's contributions in the field, and explain how they have been majorly 
significant in the field. Instead, the letters make broad claims regarding his work. For instance, in 
two letters, M-M-M-, a digital operations lead, states that between 2000 and 2003 he worked with the 
Beneficiary at and describes the Beneficiary's software 
development and creation of a web-based banking system as "a critical development for I I 
and the financial sector in Brazil as a whole" as "it helped facilitate billions of dollars' worth of 
transactions" and met mandatory deadlines set by the I I C-G-, an information 
technology executive and the Beneficiary's manager at the Ibookstore chain, relates 
14 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual. supra, at M.4(C)(2)(appendix). 
15 While we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered each one. We note that the majority of the 
letters, including the first, foreign language letters of M-M-M- and C-G-, are unsigned and therefore have limited 
credibility and evidentiary value. 
7 
that he developed a new e-commerce platform and "helped create ... what later became the company's 
digital platform for sourcing movies and e-books to the public, the very first in Latin America." 
Further, M-V-, the technology coordinator of I I which maintains platforms for private 
highway operators, says the Beneficiary's I I roadside assistance mobile app "has been 
responsible for hundreds of SOS calls" and "has become crucial on the highways of Brazil." 
As evidenced above, the letters reflect how much his employers and clients valued the Beneficiary's 
contributions to their companies. However, the letters do not explain what the Beneficiary has 
contributed in the field, and how those contributions are considered to be of major significance in the 
field. In addition, the letters make general claims and point to the Beneficiary's impact on the 
individual companies rather than on the overall field. 16 Moreover, the letters do not articulate how the 
Beneficiary's performances in his roles at ______________ and with I 
somehow influenced or affected the field in a significantly major manner. 
Detailed letters from experts in the field explaining the nature and significance of the person's 
contribution may also provide valuable context for evaluating the claimed original contributions of 
major significance, particularly when the record includes documentation corroborating the claimed 
significance. 17 Submitted letters should specifically describe the person's contribution and its 
significance to the field and should also set forth the basis of the writer's knowledge and expertise. 18 
In this case, the letters lack specific, detailed information explaining how the Beneficiary has made 
original contributions of major significance. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 
1756, Inc. v. The US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Moreover, on appeal the Petitioner states that the advisory opinion letter from D-H-, an associate 
professor of computer science and information systems, which was not discussed by the Director, 
"outlines [ the Beneficiary's] exceptional contributions" and "asserts that his role requires an individual 
of extraordinary ability, directly aligning with the O-lA visa requirements." The letter from D-H­
satisfies the Petitioner's burden to submit a written advisory opinion from an appropriate consulting 
entity. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(D). The regulations also require evidence satisfying the regulatory 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). As discussed above, the Petitioner has not provided 
such evidence. Moreover, D-H- does not detail what particular evidence he reviewed in issuing his 
letter. 19 Regardless, consultations are advisory and are not binding on us. 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2( o )( 5)(i)(D). 
It remains the Petitioner's burden to provide the specific documentation mandated by the regulations 
in addition to the consultation. 
Further, the Petitioner argued that the Beneficiary's lectures at I I and his publications 
"contributed to entrepreneurial growth" by having disseminated valuable knowledge and fostered skill 
development. Evidence that the beneficiary's work was funded, patented, or published, while 
16 Cf, Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not 
met a similar criterion in the immigrant classification for individuals of extraordinary ability under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
17 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual. supra, at M.4(C)(2)(appendix). 
18Id. 
19 We note the advis01y opinion and prior counsel's RFE response contain many instances of similar language, raising 
questions regarding whether the advisory opinion letter reflects the professional opinion ofD-H-. 
8 
I 
potentially demonstrating the work's originality, will not necessarily establish, on its own, the work is 
of major significance in the field. 20 Here, the Petitioner did not show how the publication of his work 
automatically demonstrates the work to be original contributions of major significance. 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts on appeal, under the heading entitled "Appeal To The Comparable 
Evidence," that "[ the Beneficiary's] creation ofl Iis an "achievement[] that traditional O-lA 
criteria may not fully recognize" and his "role in integrating complex IT solutions across different 
industries ... demonstrates a breadth of impact and depth of expertise that traditional benchmarks may 
fail to capture." However, as stated, because the Petitioner did not articulate a comparable evidence 
claim of eligibility under one or more of the criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2( o )(3)(iii) at initial filing, or in 
response to the Director's RFE, we will not consider this basis as it was not presented before the 
Director. See Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766; see also Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 533. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown the Beneficiary has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary satisfies the criteria relating to awards, 
membership, published material, judging, or original contributions. Although the Petitioner maintains 
the Beneficiary's eligibility for two further criteria on appeal, pertaining to scholarly articles and 
employment in a critical or essential capacity under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)( 6) and (7), we need 
not reach these grounds, because it cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of at least three 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). We also need not provide a totality determination to 
establish whether the Beneficiary has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the 
small percentage who has arisen to the very top of the field. See section 101(a)(l5)(O)(i) of the Act 
and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) and (iii). 21 Accordingly, we reserve these issues. 22 Consequently, the 
Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's eligibility for the 0-1 visa classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 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. 
20 See generally 2 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(C)(2)(appendix). 
21 See also 2 USC1S Policy Manual, supra, at M.4(B). 
22 See INS v. Bagamashad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where applicants do not othe1wise meet their burden of proof). 
9