dismissed EB-1A Case: Author

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 02 252 5 1707 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: ApR 2 7 263: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinarv Abilitv Pursuant to - - 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 u.s.c.-$ 11536)(1)(~) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
, 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 02 252 5 1707 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. The director determined the petitioner hall not established the sustained national or international acclaim 
necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director dismissed the evidence without sufficient explanation. While the 
director's analysis of each regulatory criterion is brief, we find that the petitioner had sufficient notice of the 
deficiencies in the record. We wiIl discuss the criteria claimed by the petitioner in more detail below. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -+ An alien is described in this subparagraph 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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the individual 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability as an author. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international acclaim through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a, major, international recognized award). Barring the alien's 
receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied for an alien 
to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
In her decision, the director stated that mqeting three criteria "does not automatically establish the 
[petitioner's] eligibility for the classification" sbught. While we may not agree with the exact wording of this 
EAC 02 252 5 1707 
Page 3 
statement, we do not read the director's decision as concluding that the petitioner was eligible under the 
regulations but that the petition was not approyable. A more rational interpretation of the director's decision 
is that the petitioner submitted documentation that related to or addressed three criteria, but that the evidence 
itself did not demonstrate national or international acclaim. A petitioner cannot establish eligibility for this 
classification merely by submitting evidence that simply relates to at least three criteria. In determining 
whether a petitioner meets a specific criterion, the evidence itself must be evaluated in terms of whether it is 
indicative of or consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner received the following awards limited by region or age: 
1. Outstanding Librarian Award from the Tieling City Library in December 2001; 
2. Two Golden Cup Awards in Chinese Poem for Youngsters Contest organized by the China Essay 
and Poetry Association, the China Contemporary Writers Friendship Association and the China 
Poetry Association in October 2000; 
3. Third Prize of Public Library Service Achievements of Liaoning Province for the Year[s] 1995- 
1997; 
4. Outstanding Achievements Award for Cultural Promotion from the Cultural Bureau of Tieling 
City in April 1997; 
5. Second Prize of Public Library Service Achievements of Liaoning Province for 1990; 
6. First Prize in the Speech Contest of Tieling City in May 1990; 
7. Outstanding Achievements Award for Commercial Economy Promotion for 1998 from the 
Cultural Bureau of Tieling City in December 1988; and 
8. Individual Especially Remarkable Achievements Award from the Cultural Bureau of Liaoning 
Province in February 1988. 
The record lacks evidence that the above awards are nationally or internationally recognized. Rather, they 
appear limited to a region or by age. In 1993, a collection edited by the petitioner received a "China National 
Excellent Bestsellers in the National Publicatiofi Evaluation" certificate. In 2002, the petitioner received the 
Second Prize in the First Chinese Contemporary Poetry Contest organized by the Luxun Literature Academy of 
Chinese Writers Association. 
1 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
EAC 02 252 5 1707 
Page 4 
The director concluded that the awards submitted were mostly issued well before the petition was filed and that 
the petitioner had not submitted evidence ''that would demonstrated the significance of these awards, to include 
who was eligible to compete for the award and the criteria used to grant the award." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the statute and regulations do not require the awards to be recent. The petitioner 
1 provides additional materials on the "National Book Prize" issued by the China News and Publishing Bureau, 
the highest prize for books, and the Luxun Literature Academy that sponsored the 2002 poetry contest where the 
petitioner received an award. 
The statute, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act quoted above, states that eligibility for the classification sought is 
"demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim." (Emphasis added.) Thus, while the evidence 
submitted to meet each criterion need not be recent, the record must contain evidence indicating that any prior 
acclaim has been sustained up until the time of filing. Thus, the director did not err in noting when the awards 
were issued. 
More significantly, the petitioner has not established that the awards he has won are nationally or internationally 
recognized awards. The petitioner has now submitted evidence regarding the prestige of the National Book 
Prize. The record, however, does not indicate that the petitioner won this award. The bestseller certification for 
the book edited by the petitioner is issued by the Evaluating Association of the China National Excellent 
Publications. The petitioner has not demonsttated that this association is the same as the China News and 
Publishing Bureau, the entity that issues the National Book Prize. Moreover, the petitioner has not established 
that the bestseller certification is the same as the National Book Prize. Regardless, the award was issued to a 
book edited by the petitioner. The record is not 'persuasive that such certification is indicative of the petitioner's 
acclaim as an author. 
The record now establishes the prestige of the Luxun Literature Academy, China's first and only higher 
educational institute to train literature professionals. Nevertheless, the record still lacks evidence of the 
significance of the First Chinese Contemporary Poetry Contest sponsored by that school and the awards 
presented there. Specifically, the record does not reflect the number of applicants, whether the applicants 
originated from all over China, and how many prizes were issued. Thus, the record still does not establish that 
the petitioner received a nationally or internationally recognized award or prize. 
Documentation of the alien 3 membership in associations in the Jield for which classijication is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their discipIines or fields. 
The petitioner is a member of the following associations: 
1. The World Chinese Writers Association; 
2. The North-East Region of China Bssay and Poetry Research Association; 
3. The China Contemporary Writers Friendship Association; 
4. The Tieling Writers Association; 
5. The Tieling City Literature and Arts Circle Union; and 
6. The Library Association of Liaoniqg Province. 
EAC 02 252 5 1707 
Page 5 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not established membership in associations that require 
outstanding achievements of their members. Oli appeal, counsel asserts that the Chinese Writers Association "is 
an elite organization of Chinese writes and literature professionals." The petitioner submits the bylaws of this 
association, which provide: 
Those who endorse this Bylaws [sic], have published with certain level of standards literature 
creation, theoretic research, translation, or engaged in edition, teaching and management and 
have great accomplishments are eligible to apply for membership. A candidate shall make 
application with recommendation from provincial writers association. Then the applications 
shall be reviewed for approval by Secretariat Meeting. 
The portion of the bylaws translated, however, does not provide the more specific membership requirements. 
Specifically, "great accomplishments" are not defined and no examples are provided. Any poet or novelist who 
makes a living as a poet or novelist must publish his work. Thus, mere publication is not an outstanding 
achievement in the field. Moreover, this office consistently holds that recommendations fiom current 
association members are not outstanding achievements. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of director and consulting responsibilities with other associations. 
Positions within an association are not memberships and do not relate to this ~riterion.~ In light of the above, we 
concur that the petitioner has not met this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientzjk, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signiJcance in the$eld 
The director concluded that the record contained no evidence of the petitioner's contributions of major 
significance to his field. We agree with counsel that more discussion of this criterion is warranted. 
WR 
Vice Editor-In-Chief of China Art, asserts that the petitioner has "won appraisal" fiom Chinese 
retgn writers and that he has a ''very high reputation across Chinese literature circles. 
continues that Chinese publishing houses have published "[olver tens" of the petitioner's boo 
Director of the China Prose and Poetry Association, praises the petitioner's abilities as a poet and asserts that the 
petitioner's poems have been published in China and abroad in different languages. Feng Hong asserts that, in 
won two "Prize of the Best Chinese Writers." Those awards are not part of the 
record. 
The characteristics of his creation combine national traditions and modern awareness, and take 
every object as the medium to express the ideal and pursuit of human life. It covers all the 
meanings of life while he himself stands at a higher altitude of humanity. 
Wei Fan, Editor-in-Chief of the Publication and Editing Department of the Shenyang Literature Association and 
a Director of the China Contemporary Poem Eublishing Foundation, asserts that the petitioner's novels are 
bestsellers in China and have sold over 100,000 dopies. All of these references purport to be good friends of the 
2 The petitioner has not submitted evidence about the reputation these entities enjoy, the nature of his 
responsibilities as a director or consultant and the number of others holding a similar position with these entities 
that would warrant consideration under other criteria not claimed. 
EAC 02 252 5 1707 
Page 6 
petitioner. Letters fiom the petitioner's immediate circle of colleagues cannot demonstrate that he is known 
beyond those colleagues. Whil 
6 
Bs not purport to be a good friend of the petitioner, he provides 
only the most general praise oft e petitioner's work. None of the references explain how the petitioner has 
already impacted the field of literature. 
The Tieling City Library affirms that the petitioner "has made great contribution to the development of the 
library." This attestation does not identify the contribution or explain how it has impacted the field of literature. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner lists his "pen name" on his resume a rd contains no independent 
confirmation of this alias. The petiti 
"Death, Desertion and Empty Boat" 
bmitted a summary of an 
asserts that this poet has sold over 3.5 million copies of his work. The 
translation of this summary, however, is not certified as required by th at 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3). 
Regardless, the record contains no evidence explaining the relationship o o the petitioner. 
with the introduction to "The Collection of Cultural New Wave on the Campus in the 
is also listed as the editor of the volumes and the individual who selected the poems to be included for some 
=e volumes.' This collection received the China National Excellent Bestsellers award in November 1993. 
Finally, the record contains a certificate from the Tieling City Library Association verifying that the petitioner 
presented his theses, The Social Eflect ofthe Science and Technology Consulting Services and The Service 
Achievement of the Star-Fire Project, at an acadeimic seminar sponsored by that association in December 1987. 
Writing poetry is not authorship of scholarly ai-ticles about the field of poetry. The introduction ba 
merely contains reflections about poetry, and is not a scholarly analysis of the subject. The petitioner has not 
established that his theses are published. The record is absent evidence that the petitioner has authored scholarly 
analysis of poetry or other literature published in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box ofice receipts or record, cassette, 
compact disk, or video sales. 
While the petitioner does not claim to meet this criterion, we note that evidence of significantly high sales of the 
petitioner's authored work in comparison with other poets might be considered comparable evidence to meet 
this criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). The record, however, does not contain any 
objective evidence of the petitioner's book sales or evidence that would allow us to compare those sales with the 
sales by other poets. 
3 The record contains insufficient evidence regarding the selection process and responsibilities of the editor 
such that we could evaluate this evidence under another criterion not claimed. 
EAC 02 252 5 1707 
Page 7 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
In addition the discussion above, we note that on the petitioner's resume, he lists his professional title as 
"intermediate" and his "post" as "amateur poet, writer of Chinese Liberalism." The record contains the 
petitioner's "intermediate" credentials. These characteristics are not consistent with a writer of national or 
international acclaim. Nor do they suggest that the petitioner is one of the very few at the top of his field. We 
note that his references are "advanced" poets, suggesting that the top of the petitioner's field is higher than the 
level he has attained. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a poet to such an extent 
that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small 
percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence indicates that the petitioner shows talent as a poet, but is 
not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the 
petition may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.