dismissed EB-1A Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8707564 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 25, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an architect, seeks classification as an alien 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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
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 can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying 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 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates employment as a partner and lea.~d:.....a=r-=-ch:...:..:i:..:..:te:...:c..:..t ...:..w:..:..it:::..;h~.__ _______ __. 
I I and as a director of the ______ ~teaching committee with 
I 1- Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that he has 
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 met 
two of the evidentiary criteria relating to scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) and leading or 
critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets two additional criteria. After reviewing all of the 
evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish that he fulfills the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien'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 argues that he meets this criterion based on: 1) a "Silver Award" at the 2002 D 
Architectural Design Awards, 2) the "Professional Architect Award" from the 
~A-r-ch-it-ec-tu_r_e_S-oc-ie~ty of China (ASC) in 2010, and 3) a "Double Gold Award" at the 20151 I 
I !Architectural Planning and Design Competition from ASC. In order to fulfill this 
criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate that he received the prizes or awards, and they are nationally 
or internationally recognized for excellence in the field of endeavor.1 Relevant considerations 
regarding whether the basis for granting the prizes or awards was excellence in the field include, but 
are not limited to, the criteria used to grant the prizes or awards, the national or international 
significance of the prizes or awards in the field, and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well 
as any limitations on competitors.2 
Although the Petitioner provided certificates reflecting that he received the awards, either individually 
or specifically mentioned as part of a group, he did not establish any of the awards' national or 
international recognition for excellence in the field. As it relates to the 2002 award, the Petitioner did 
not provide any supporting documentation showing the national or international significance of the 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/po I icymanual/HTM L/Po I icyManual. htm I. 
2 Id. 
2 
"Silver Award" in the field. Here, the Petitioner's submission of an "Honorary Certificate" evidencing 
his receipt of the award is insufficient to also demonstrate the award's national or international 
recognition for excellence in the field. Moreover, while the Petitioner made various claims at the 
initial filing, in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), and on appeal, he did not 
corroborate his assertions with supporting evidence. 3 
Regarding the 2010 and 2015 ASC awards, the record contains screenshots from ASC's website that 
describe the history, background, and purpose of the society but does not show that either of its 
bestowed awards qualify as nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence in the field. 
Although the screenshots claim that "[i]n order to support and encourage the work and contribution of 
the architectural engineering professionals, ASC awards over [a] dozen prizes including China 
Architectural Design Award andl !Architecture Medal which is the supreme honor in the 
Chinese architectural field," the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the field recognizes the ASC 
awards as national or international awards for excellence beyond ASC's own assertions. 
Similarly, the Petitioner submitted a self-promotional article posted on ASC's website reporting on 
the 2015 competition. While the article boasts about the competition, such as "the event has been 
successfully held tori I years," "the contestants are strong," "the scope of the competition 
is wide," "the high level of award-winning projects reflects the highest and latest level of construction, 
planning, environment and technology in China," and "the demonstration effect is strong," the 
Petitioner did not establish that the 2015 award enjoys status as a nationally or internationally 
recognized award for excellence in the field. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not provide any 
independent, objective evidence outside of ASC showing the field's recognition of the award. 
On appeal, as it pertains to the 2010 award, the Petitioner submits an article from I I announcing 
ASC's award list for the "Professional Architect Award," claiming that "[t]his award is the highest 
award among Chinese professional architects." However, as mentioned above, ASC asserted that the 
I !Architecture Medal ... is the supreme honor in the Chinese architectural field." 
Moreover, the article indicated that "[t]his is the first time in 8 years" since ASC presented the award, 
doubting its significance in the field. Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how a single article 
reporting on the award represents a level of media coverage for a nationally or internationally 
recognized award for excellence in the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification 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). 
The Petitioner contends that he fulfills this criterion based on articles published in Designer, China 
Architecture Mold Net, and ArchDaily. In order to satisfy this criterion, the Petitioner must 
3 For instance, although he asserted that "[t]he~----~ Engineering Survey an~ Design Award is the highest 
national award in China's engineering survey and design industry, includinglArchitectural Design Project, 
excellent engineering construction standard design, and excellent engineering survey," the Petitioner did not supplement 
the record to support his claims. 
3 
demonstrate published material about him in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, as well as the title, date, and author of the material.4 
Regarding the Designer article, it reflects published material about the Petitioner relating to his work. 
However, the Petitioner did not establish the author of the material. Although he provided a translation 
indicating the .___ _______ __.' and I I' the Petitioner did not 
specifically identify the actual author of the article. 
As it relates to the China Architecture Mold Net and ArchDaily articles, the Petitioner provided 
screenshots of articles posted on mojiatong.com and archdaily.cn. The Petitioner, however, did not 
support the record with evidence of rn1blicatjon in China trchitecture Mold Net and ArchDaily. 
Furthermore, the articles are about thel Renovation. While the mojiatong.com 
article interviewed the Petitioner, the questions are entirely about the renovation project without any 
discussion about the Petitioner. Likewise, the archdaily.cn article is exclusively about the renovation 
project rather than about the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner's name is only mentioned once in being 
listed as one of the chief architects on the project. Articles that are not about an alien do not fulfill 
this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., 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). 
Finally, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that Designer, mojiatong.com, or archdaily.cn represents a 
professional or major trade publication or other major medium. Although he contends on appeal that 
the articles appeared in professional publications, the Petitioner did not provide any corroborating 
evidence. 5 In fact, as it relates to this criterion, the Petitioner only submitted the articles and 
translations without documentation relating to the publications or websites. Moreover, the Petitioner 
references his prior arguments he made in response to the Director's RFE; however, his previous 
assertions referenced material not offered into the record, such as "Alexa Web Traffic Report." In the 
case here, the Petitioner's unsubstantiated claims and unsupported references are not sufficient to 
establish the professional or major trade publication or other major medium status. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that he fulfills this criterion. 
111. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
4 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Although the Petitioner has designed architectural projects, the record does not contain sufficient 
evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility 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. 
5