dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Z-C-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB.27,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a technological entrepreneur. seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )( l)(A), 8 U .S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(I )(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria. of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief. contending that he satisfies 
at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 intemational 
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. 
.
lvfaller of Z-C-P-
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 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). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 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 requirement s, 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. USC IS. 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(discussing 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 (O .D.C. 2013) : RUal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011 ). 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 qualit y:' as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance. probative value , and credibility. both individ ually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence , to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true.' ' Malter o(Chawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
H. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner currently works as a consultant for in Calitornia. 
Because he has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally recognized 
award. he must satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying 
the petition, the Director f(mnd that the Petitioner had not met any of the initial evidentiary criteria . 
On appeal. the Petitioner maintains that he meets three criteria. as discussed below.' We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it docs not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisJies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
1 
While the Petitioner previously claimed eligibility for the original contributions cntenon under 8 C.F.R. 
~ 204.5(h)(3)(v). he does not continue to do so on appeal, nor does the record support a finding that he meets it. 
Accordingly, we will not further address this criterion in our decision. 
2 
.
;Hatter l?fZ-C-P-
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. relating IO the alien's ·work in the fleldfhr v.:hich classf{ication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include ihe title. date. and author of'the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(J)(iii). 
On appeaL the Petitioner provides a certified translation of an article published in the Hungarian 
edition of reflecting published material about him in a major medium. Accordingly. the 
Petitioner established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence lhar the alien has perfiJrmed in a leading or critical role fhr organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished repulalion. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3){viii). 
The Petitioner argues that he meets this criterion based on his roles with 
and As support for this contention, he references 
recommendation letters from chief Internet evangelist for and 
former country manager for In addition, the Petitioner indicates that he provided media 
articles and scrcenshots. but the Director "essentially dismissed this evidence. even though it was 
highly probative." As specifically discussed by the Director, the Petitioner presented English 
language translations that were not properly certified. Any document in a foreign language must be 
accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. ~ 103.2(b)(3). The translator must 
certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. /d. On appeaL the Petitioner ofters 
certified English language translations for 11 of the previously submitted articles and screenshots. 
which will be considered below. \Vith respect to the remaining evidence. because the Petitioner did 
not submit properly certified English language translations, we cannot meaningfully determine 
whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports his claims. 
Regarding a leading role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner is a leader. A title. with 
appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is, in fact. leading. 2 Here. the Petitioner"s 
evidence docs not express how his roles were leading to the companies at large. For instance, the 
Petitioner provides a screenshot from http:/ which announces appointment of 
him as its IIungarian country representative. Similarly, the Petitioner submits screenshots from 
http:i , and http:. describing his promotion to vice president of 
classified media section responsible for Hungary from managing director of the company's website, 
The documentation. however, does not indicate how his roles as a country 
representative and vice president of the classified media section were leading to the companies in 
their entirety. The Petitioner did not show, for example, where he tit in the overall reporting 
structure of or 
2 
See USC IS Policy :V1emorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions: Revisions to the Adjudicalor ·s Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22. 2. AFM Updalf: A Dll-14 10 (Dec. 22. 20 I 0). 
http://www.uscis.gov/lawslpolicy-memoranda. 
3 
.
1\Iatter of Z-C-P-
Similarly, even though stated that the Petitioner served as the marketing. advet1ising sales. 
and public relations manager for in Hungary and "had a leading role to the entire 
organization,'' he did not describe how this position differentiated from the other managerial 
positions at the same oftice or compared to the leadership positions in as a whole. Repeating 
the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof F'edin 
Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. II 03. 1108 (E.D.N. Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990);A,.yr Associates. Inc. v. A1eissner. 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
As it pertains to a critical role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner has contributed in a way 
that is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. lt is 
not the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the 
role is critical. 3 Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his contributions were signiticantly 
important to the outcome of the organizations' activities. For instance, although claimed 
that the Petitioner "has been the catalyst for accessing the platform for accessing the Internet in 
households and businesses in Hungary" and "[h]is tenure of was the period of the most 
aggressive growth in Internet penetration in Hungary," the letter does not explain the correlation 
between the Petitioner's work at and 
the grow1h of the Internet in Hungary. 
Regarding the Petitioner provides screensbots from http:/, and 
http:, indicating that "has not made any profit so far'' and ''is not 
profitable at the moment.'' Further, the Petitioner submits an article from refiecting 
an interview of him pertaining to partial acquisition of 
and an article from relating to an interview about him and his opinions on various topics. 
The evidence, however, does not indicate that the Petitioner's work with earned any 
profits or that he was responsible for purchase of nor has 
the Petitioner estab1ished the significance of the acquisition. 
Finally. the Petitioner otTers four screenshots from http:/. and http:/ reflecting 
quotes from him announcing new channel or promoting a free channel weekend. Further. 
claimed that the Petitioner increased subscriber base and revenue sales in Hungary. 
The evidence, however. does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's work in 1-Iungary was of 
significant importance to For example, the letter does not provide specific data or compare 
the revenues or sales in Hungary to that of other countries otTering The Petitioner did not 
establish that his work for in Hungary significantly impacted the company's subscriber base 
and revenue sales. For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other siKn(ficantly hixh remuneration 
for services. in relation to others in the field 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner contends that "his salary was high in relation to others [ andl specifically provided 
data for chief executive otlicers. which was [his] position.'' In addition. the Petitioner indicates that 
'Se e USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra. at I 0. 
4 
.
Maller ofZ-C-P-
he submitted his 2015 Spanish "Personal Income Tax'' and screcnshots hom the • 
regarding salaries for chief executive officers (CEOs) in Spain. 
website 
Although the Petitioner offered his Spanish personal income tax form, he did not present 
documentation from his claimed employer in 2015, to support his contentions regarding 
his earnings from the company. Moreover. he did not offer evidence explaining his income tax 
return. Accordingly, the record is not sufticient to demonstrate how much of the income the 
Petitioner reported in 2015 represented his salary or other remuneration from 
In addition, while the Petitioner provided information regarding the salaries of CEOs in Spain. the 
record does 
not reflect he has ever held the position of a CEO. In fact, the certified translation of his 
most recent media article from 2014 indicates that he held a vice president position within 
as discussed in the previous criterion. Moreover, the Petitioner offers Wikipcdia 
screenshots regarding showing that ' has been CEO since 1989.'' The 
Petitioner must resolve inconsistencies in the record with independent. objective evidence pointing 
to where the truth lies. Matter of'Ho. 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92 (BIA 1988). Here, the Petitioner has 
not explained or resolved this inconsistency. 
ror the reasons discussed above. the Petitioner did not adequately document his earnings in his 
position at and did not demonstrate that such compensation was high when compared to 
others in his field. See Malfer of Price. 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1994) (considering a 
professional golfer ' s earnings versus other PGA Tour golfer s); see also Crimson v. INS. 934 F. 
Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers) : 
Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary ofNHL defensive player 
to salary of other NHL defensemen). Accordingly. the Petitioner did not establish that he meets this 
criterion. 
III. 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. Neve11heless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not supp011 a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required tor the classification sought. For the 
foregoing reasons. the Petitioner has not shown that he qualities for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability . 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed . 
Cite as Matter l?/Z-C-P-, ID# 980234 (AAO Feb. 27, 2017)