dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-C-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision· of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 12, 2017 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an 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)(1)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas availabl~ 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. He determined that the Petitioner had 
satisfied the initial requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) by providing evidence that meets 
at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. However, the Director conducted a final merits analysis 
and found that the Petitioner had not established that he has sustained national or international acclaim 
such that he is one of the. small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director did not sufficiently analyze the evidence, instead 
providing "conclusion without persuasive reasoning." 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may demonstrate extraordinary ability through sustained national or international 
acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. 
Specifically, section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act states: 
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, 
.
Matter of J-C-
(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 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 achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a 
major, internationally recognized award). If he does not submit this documentation, then he must 
provide sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of.the ten criteria 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 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); Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the dtruth is to be determined not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context ofthe totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be 
proven is probably true"). Accordingly, where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at 
least three criteria, we will determine whether the totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the president and co-founder of two Chinese agricultural products companies, 
and He filed Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, along with supporting documentation, seeking to classify himself as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the field of business. The Petitioner stated in his initial filing that he founded 
in 201 0, and that the company "manages companies in the areas of modem 
agriculture, biomedicine, cultural communication and environmental protection technology." He 
also explained that he established which produces products made 
with punica fruit and markets them under the brand of 
In this case, the Petitioner has not shown that he has a one-time achievement as defined at 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). As such, he must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation listed under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
2 
.
Matter of J-C-
The Director found that the Petitioner met the published material criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) through submission of articles about the Beneficiary published in 
and In 
addition, the Director determined that the Petitioner met the judge of the work of others criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), based on his participation as an evaluation committee member at an 
' and his membership on the board of directors at the 
The Director also agreed that the Petitioner demonstrated that 
he has performed in a leading or critical role for both and the 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Finally, the decision stated that the 
Petitioner had authored scholarly articles, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), based upon his work published 
m and his authorship of two books published by and 
and 
We have reviewed the entire record of proceedings, and agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
meets the plain language requirements of the published material criterion under 8 C ~ F.R . 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). For the reasons discussed below, however, we find that he did not satisfy the 
remaining criteria he has discussed. Nevertheless, as the Director's decision was based upon a final 
merits analysis, we will analyze the Petitioner's eligibility under each of the criteria he has addressed 
and conduct a final merits analysis pursuant to our de novo review. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
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 submitted an article published in titled, 
along with a letter from the editor-in-charge of the publication showing that 
has a daily circulation of 400,000 copies and has been "designated by 
the Chinese government as the official news outlet for trade regulation." The article discusses the 
Petitioner's contributions to the punica industry in Province. 
The Petitioner also offered an article from and his 
' highlighting the Petitioner's restaurant, and describing the Chinese traditions 
associated with growing and harvesting punica, a fruit similar to the pomegranate. The record also 
includes a letter from the editor-in-charge of stating that the newspaper was 
established "in 1987 by [the] and 
' Additionally, the Petitioner offered an article, 
published in along with a statement from the publication's 
founder stating that it has a monthly circulation of 30,000 to 60,000, and that it is sold at airports, 
bookstores, and business training companies. The article describes the Petitioner's personal story and 
3 
.
Matter of J-C-
his development of novel uses of punica, and it portrays the Petitioner's success marketing products 
throughout China and the world. Based upon these submissions, we agree with the Director that the 
Petitioner has established that he meets the plain language of this regulatory criterion. 1 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field , in pro fissional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner stated in his initial filing that he has "authored a number of professional articles 
including two books, which have been very well received." He submitted a copy of each book with 
his initial filing. The first, titled published by 
in 201 0 in Hong Kong, is accompanied by a statement from the editor in 
charge of stating that it published 10,000 copies of the book. The 
second book is titled and 
published by in 2012. Even assuming that the books 
constitute major media, the Petitioner offers a partial translation of each that includes only the title 
page and index. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The minimal translation does not contain sufficient 
information to demonstrate that they are scholarly.2 
The record also contains a magazine article written by the Petitioner titled, ' 
· published in along with a partial 
translation. While the Petitioner identifies the translation as an abstract, it appears to contain only a 
brief summary of some of the articles' content, and we cannot discern from the brief text whether the 
article is scholarly. Furthermore, any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full 
English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).3 Because the Petitioner did not submit a 
properly certified English language translation of the article, and the brief summary does not 
sufficiently describe the article' s content, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the material 
supports his claims. In an accompanying statement, the editor-in-chief of the publication maintains 
that the periodical is "a nationally renown[ ed] magazine on economics and management" and that "it 
is selected among the top 100 periodicals by ' The record, however, 
1 
In his supporting statements, the Petitioner also maintained that his "legendary achievements have been widely featured 
by major media throughout China including and a "prestigious trade 
publications/magazines including He has not, however, provided evidence corroborating these statements 
such as transcripts of interviews or articles. He also referred to an article purportedly published in 
titled" however , this item is not in the record . 
2 A scholarly article reports on original resears:h, experimentation , or philosophical discourse . It is written by a 
researcher or expert in the field who is often affiliated with a college, university , or research institution. In general, it 
should have footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography, and may include graphs, charts , videos, or pictures as illustrations of 
the concepts expressed in the article . USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitt4ed. 
with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Atljudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update 
ADII-14 9 (Dec. 22, 2010). -\ 
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. While the translated abstract includes a separate 
cover page purportedly certifying that the "attached transla,tion is accurate," it does not identify the document being 
translated. 
4 
.
Matter of J-C-
does not include objective evidence verifying the editor's account showing that 
is a professional or major trade publication or other form of major media. USCIS need not 
rely on general, self-promotional assertions of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 
SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009). 
Finally, the record includes a statement from the editor-in-charge of and 
attesting that, in 2013, it published 5,000 copies of a book authored by the Petitioner entitled, 
This book was not submitted and therefore, is not 
before us. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient translations demonstrating that the authored 
materials are scholarly or corroboration that the article has been published in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. Accordingly, he has not established that he meets this 
regulatory criterion and the Director's finding will be withdrawn. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation , either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner asserts eligibility as a judge of the work of others through his participation as an 
evaluation committee member at the in 2013, which was 
sponsored by the Master of Business Administration (MBA) 
Program. However, he has not provided sufficient evidence confirming that he judged the competition. 
The record contains two letters from deputy chancellor, 
In first letter, he comments that the Petitioner was a mentor with the university's 
MBA program, however, he does not mention his role as a committee member at the competition. In 
his second letter, notes that the Petitioner was "one of seven evaluation committee members." 
statements do not elaborate on the duties of committee members or report that the Petitioner 
in fact judged the competition. Rather he states that the Petitioner "served on the committee." 
also described how the Petitioner was invited to give four lectures in the spring semester of 
· 2014, and four lectures in the fall semester of2014, at the university's MBA program. The writer noted 
that the Petitioner served as a mentor for two MBA students and also as a member of the board of 
directors of the university, but he did not indicate that the Petitioner's mentorship or board activities 
included judging the work of others. also does not state when the Petitioner assumed this role 
to demonstrate that it occurred prior to the filing of the petition. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )( 1 ). 
The Petitioner further maintains that he meets this criterion because he served as a "mentor/instructor" 
for the MBA program at however, he did not provide confirmation from that 
university supporting his assertion or explaining how his service as a. mentor or instructor constituted 
participating as a judge of the work of others. Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's finding that 
the Beneficiary meets this regulatory criterion. 
5 
') 
.
Matter of J-C-
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's documentation reflected that he performed in a leading 
or critical role for the and . and that these 
organizations have distinguished reputations. A review of the record does not support this finding. 
In general, a leading role is evident from the role, its duties, and how it fits within the overall 
hierarchy of the organization. A critical role is apparent from a petitioner's impact on the entity. 
First, while the Petitioner maintains that he has performed a leading or critical role for his company, 
he has not submitted documentation about the company's operations, such as 
internal reports, or corporate literature that would demonstrate its accomplishments. We note that while 
the articles published in and mention the Petitioner's 
company, they do not include information about the company itself, rather, they focus on the punica 
industry generally. And neither article addresses the company's reputation or standing. As such, the 
record does not include sufficient evidence that the company enjoys distinguished reputation. 
Next, the Petitioner did not provide an organizational chart or other similar proof to affirm his role 
within the overall hierarchy of the The Petitioner maintains 
that his leading or critical role is confirmed by a letter from dean of economics and 
management, writes that the Petitioner "served as a 
mentor and teacher" but he does not make clear how this role was a leading or critical role for the 
university, or how the Petitioner's work contributed to the university's operational viability, 
direction, or policy. 
Furthermore, while the Petitioner states that he is a member of the board of directors of the 
university; he has not provided sufficient evidence confirming this assertion. second 
letter states that the Petitioner serves as a "member of the board of directors" of the school and that 
he has "been playing a leading I critical role within our school in terms of strategic development, 
policy making and fund-raising," however, the letter is dated October 1, 2015, and it is not clear 
whether the Petitioner held this role at the time of filing. 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)(l). Even if his role commenced prior to 
filing, affirms in general and conclusory terms that the Petitioner has mentored and taught 
students at the university, but he does not detail any specifics as to how the Petitioner had an impact 
on the university consistent with a critical or leading role. Merely repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General ofthe United States, 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). Also, the record does not include additional evidence corroborating 
the statements regarding the Petitioner's board position, such as annual reports, promotional 
materials, organizational charts, fundraising literature, or official correspondence. 
6 
.
Matter of J-C-
Finally, the ·Petitioner has not submitted documentation corroborating the reputation of the 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he has "submitted 
evidence" to prove that "the is 'internationally renowned,' and 
China's leading institute in the realms of media and communication," however, he refers only to a 
web address without offering properly translated information from the website. 
As the Petitioner has not presented evidence that he has performed in a leading or critical role for 
organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation, we withdraw the Director's 
finding that the Petitioner meets this regulatory criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory 
requirement of presenting initial evidence set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, since the Director's decision was based on the final merits analysis, 
we will also conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the submissions in the context 
of whether the Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he has sustained 
national or international acclaim, that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the Petitioner has not shown his eligibihty. 
With respect to the published material, 
article published in 
is a form of major media and the 
describes the Petitioner's personal story and his leadership at 
Nevertheless, while this evidence does speak to the Petitioner's experience 
growing and marketing punica, two brief articles written about the Petitioner and his company in trade 
publications do not indicate the Petitioner has achieved national or international acclaim or reveal a high 
level of recognition for his work in the field of business. . 
We note that in his letter accompanying the initial filing, the Petitioner affirmed that he has been "the 
hot target of many int~met reports." He offered the titles, dates, and web addresses of the reports; 
however, he did not render transcripts or translations supporting his statements. As stated above, any 
document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 
8 C.F .R. § 1 03.2(b )(3 ). The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete 
and accurate, and that the translator js competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
Id Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language translation of the 
document, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus 
supports his claims. As the Petitioner has not demonstrated the content of these materials, he has not 
met his burden to show that they are indicative of his acclaim. 
Regarding the Petitioner's participation as judge of the work of others, even if were to find that his 
work at the university met the relevant criterion, at issue in the final merits determination is whether his 
.
Matter of J-C-
services were indicative of national or international acclaim. states that "we only invited the 
most highly accomplished scholars for these positions. And [the Petitioner] is the first and so far the 
only mentor who is qualified for the prestigious position," USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General ofthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 
15 D.C. Dist. 1990). The Petitioner has not offered proof that the mentorship pro~gram at the 
enjoys an esteemed reputation or that his involvemenrwith the 
MBA program there otherwise demonstrates that the Petitioner has achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim. Also, as discussed above, the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence 
explaining his role with the such that we can determine that he in fact 
served as a judge of the work of others. Even if he had demonstrated that he was a judge for this event, 
the record does not support a finding that this role is commensurate with his position at the top of his 
field or his national or international acclaim. The Petitioner has not described the competition or the 
nature of the judging, nor does the evidence show who was invited to participate, or how he was 
selected as a judge. Without further information detailing this event or the Petitioner's responsibilities, 
he has not met his burden of showing how these exhibits are indicative of his standing in the field. 
Similarly, the Petitioner has not illuminated how his services for the 
and constitute leading or critical roles for distinguished entities. The 
record does not resolve how his positions with a university garnered him notoriety or are otherwise 
reflective of acclaim. Similarly, he has not shown that founding a company that is the subject of two 
brief articles is commensurate with status among the small percentage at the top of the field. 
Lastly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his authorship of books and an article in the field are 
indicative of, or resulted in, sustained national or international acclaim or recognition. The record 
\ 
contains no evidence that his article has garnered citations or any other notice in the field. While he 
offered publishing information for the two books contained in the record, the Petitioner did not explain 
how these publications earned national or international acclaim or 
how they show him to be at the top of 
his field. While the publisher may have printed 10,000 copies of the Petitioner's book, he has not 
documented how many of these copies sold or provided comparative publishing statistics for similar 
books that would reveal that his publications are dispositive of an individual who has risen to the top of 
the field. Nor has he submitted any critical reviews of these books indicating acclaim. Furthermore, 
while the Petitioner provided a statement from the editor-in-charge of stating that 
the newspaper is published four days per week and that "it is one ofthe most influential newspapers of 
its kind," he has not offered evidence of its circulation or readership such that we can determine that 
this publication suggests the Petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim. 
In the aggregate, the Petitioner has documented publication of two articles that discuss him and his 
company; his service on an evaluation committee and as a mentor, the significance of which are not 
corroborated in the record; authorship of an article and books with undocumented influence in the 
field; and his founding of a company that has generated minimal media coverage. While these 
exhibits demonstrate some success in his field, they do not place him in the small p,ercentage at the 
top of the field or show the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly 
restrictive classification. 1 
8 
Matter of J-C-
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he is an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
Accordingly, he has not established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of J-C-, ID# 251255 (AAO May 12, 2017) 
9