dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

MATTER OF Y-1-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 11,2017 
\ 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a banking executive, 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 )(1 )(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that she meets at least three criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(1)(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 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 m 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 
.
Matter of Y-J-
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). Alternately, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence 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. 201 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 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. 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 quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." .Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a banking executive with the 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C .F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met the leading or 
critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and the high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends she also meets the original contributions criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and it does not support a 
finding that the Petitioner satisfies at least three criteria. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign!ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner indicates that she created two marketing efforts at the that were later 
implemented to all of One such effort, the ' provides one-
stop financial solutions, such as currency exchange, international money transfer, and credit card 
services. In addition, ' which was later registered as a trademark, 
combined retail products with upgraded financial services. The record contains internal 
memoranda reflecting instruction to implement these promotional campaigns to its offices 
and sub-branches. Further, the Petitioner presented a letter from former governor of 
who discussed the Petitioner's work history and accomplishments at the bank. Specifically, 
2 
; 
.
Matter of Y-J-
in addition to the two marketing programs mentioned above, 
organization of ' 
mentioned the Petitioner's 
and 
Although stated that the Petitioner's "retail promotion activities greatly enhanced the image 
of private banking" and "her contribution to is invdluable," he did not establish how 
the Petitioner 's promotional efforts have been of major significance to the field. Here, the Petitioner 
did not show that her work impacted the banking industry beyond See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 
3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did 
not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Similarly, the record contains reference letters from president of 
and member of the board of directors for 
who praised the Petitioner for her professional skills. While the letters attest to banking 
collaborations with the Petitioner, such as her proposal to issue credits cards to the shopping plaza's 
customers and insurance policies for minors, they do not explain how her contributions are "of major 
significance in the field." Specifically, the letters describe the Petitioner 's contributions to their own 
businesses without showing how her work has significantly influenced the banking field, so as to 
establish that she has made original contributions of major significance. 
Ultimately, letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how a petitioner's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian , 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part , 596 F.3d at 1115. In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' conclusion that the 
"letters from physics professors attesting to [the petitioner's] contributions in the field" were 
insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. The letters 
considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field without 
providing specific examples of how those contributions rise to a: level consistent with major 
significance in the field. USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The 
US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). While the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
her work for such as her campaign projects, meet this criterion, this work will be considered 
under the leading or critical role criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) . In the case here, the 
Petitioner has not met her burden of showing that she has made original contributions of m<:Uor 
significance in the field. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role .for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met this criterion. As discussed above, in the 
Petitioner's capacity of vice president and vice governor of the she created several 
promotional campaigns that were later implemented to other branches of including the 
registered trademark, Thus, the Petitioner established that she 
performed in a critical role for which has a distinguished reputation, and we agree with the 
Director's decision for this criterion. 
3 
.
Matter of Y-J-
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign(ficantly high remuneration 
for services, in relation to others in the .field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner provided evidence of her annual income from 2011-2015 at of 
In addition, the Petitioner presented a 2013 salary guide for China reflecting that she earned a high 
salary compared to other professionals in her field. Accordingly , the Director found that the 
Petitioner satisfied this criterion, and we concur with the Director 's 
findings for 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. 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 level of expertise required for the classification sought. For the 
foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an individual 
of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of Y-J-, ID# 416927 (AAO July 11 , 20 17) 
4