dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
identifvieg cram cieileka 20 Mass Ave . N.W., Rm A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
prevent clearly unw- 
invasion of w~onal prfwcy U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 2 0 2005 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ecided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
1 
xv-- 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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 (AAO) 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. 3 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
business. The director determined that the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim requisite to classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The applicable regulation defines the statutory term "extraordinary ability" as "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. 3 204.5(h)(2). Specific supporting evidence must accompany the petition to document the "sustained 
national or international acclaim" that the statute requires. 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3). An alien can establish 
sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a "one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
international recognized award)." Id. Absent such an award, an alien can establish the necessary sustained 
acclaim by meeting at least three of ten other regulatory criteria. Id. 
In this case, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien with extraordinary abili in business as a "business 
professional." The record indicates that the etitioner is the President of the 
I) 
lectric Appliance 
Company, Limited in China (hereinafter h. The petitioner originally su ml e su orting documents 
including her resume, a brochure, a balance sheet and profit and loss statement forb certification of 
her junior college degree in electrical engineering, evidence of munici a1 and provincial prizes awarded to the 
petitioner and her present and former company, a patent granted to hnd naming the petitioner jointly with 
two other individuals, copies of two lectures co-authored by the petitioner, four media articles purportedly about 
the petitioner and her company, and documents relating to the petitioner's salary. The director found that the 
record showed regional recognition for the petitioner's business endeavors, but did not establish that she had 
earned the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. 
Page 3 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief, co ies of documents previously included with the petition and the following 
new evidence: documents relating to alleged business with foreign companies a copy of business 
license, one additional balance sheet and one additional profit and loss statement for Counsel's claims and 
the additional evidence submitted on appeal do not overcome the substantive reasons for denial and we affirm 
the director's decision. 
We first discuss counsel's reference to an unpublished AAO decision. In both his initial and appellate briefs, 
counsel cites an unpublished AAO decision on a petition for a nonimmigrant worker under section 
10 1 (a)(l5)(0)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 101(a)(15)(0)(i), for the proposition that mere submission of "three of 
the types of evidence prescribed in INA $ 203(b)(l)(A) and Title 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h) ix evidence that merits an 
individual's classification as an alien of extraordinary ability" (emphasis in original). Counsel's reliance on this 
case is misguided for two reasons. First, designated and published decisions of the AAO are binding precedent 
on all Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) employees in the administration of the Act pursuant to 8 
C.F.R. $ 103.4(c), yet unpublished decisions have no such precedential value. 
Second, the decision counsel cites is inapplicable to the petitioner's case because it concerns a petition for a 
nonimmigrant 0-1 visa and because it allegedly provides an evidentiary standard inapplicable to the 
classification sought here. Although similar, the statutory provisions and the regulations for the 0-1 
nonimmigrant and the extraordinary ability immigrant classifications are not identical. Moreover, counsel 
conflates mere submission of evidence relevant to the regulatory criteria with the actual satisfaction of the 
criteria. However, the weight given to evidence submitted to fulfill the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h) must 
depend on the extent to which such evidence demonstrates, reflects, or is consistent with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A lower evidentiary standard would not be 
consistent with the regulatory definition of "extraordinary ability" as "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. 
204.5(h)(2). For example, mere submission of newspaper articles about the alien may relate to the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii), but will not satisfy that criterion if the articles were published several years ago in 
local newspapers and hence do not reflect the requisite sustained national or international acclaim. 
Counsel's remaining contentions, the evidence submitted, and the director's decision are addressed in the 
following discussion of the regulatory criteria relevant to the petitioner's case. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in theJield of endeavor. 
The director correctly found that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The record contains copies of various 
scientific and technical prizes awarded tmnd the petitioner's prior company by provincial and municipal 
authorities. The petitioner is named on the award certificates along with four other individuals or is recognized 
for her contribution to group projects. The record contains a Certificate of Honor awarded to the petitioner as 
"one of Top-10 Scientific and Technical Stars of Shaoxing City" in 1995 by three Shaoxing municipal 
organizations. The petitioner also received the "2nd Prize of Advanced Scientific and Technical Individual of 
Shaoxing" in 1996 by the Shaoxing municipal government and the Shaoxing municipal committee of the 
Chinese Community Party. The record thus establishes the regional recognition of the petitioner's scientific and 
technical accomplishments, but does not demonstrate that she has won national or international prizes or awards 
for her business endeavors. Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Page 4 
(iii) 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 classiJication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, and author of the material, and any necessaty translation. 
The petitioner submitted four articles from Chinese publications as evidence of her eligibility under this 
category. The director briefly discussed the articles and found them insufficient to satisfy this criterion. We do 
not address the substance of the articles because the documents are accompanied by uncertified translations. 
Any document submitted to CIS that contains a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English 
translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that 
he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(3). Because the 
petitioner failed to submit certified translations of the articles, we cannot determine whether they support her 
claimed eligibility under this criterion. Id. The record is also devoid of any evidence that the articles were 
published in professional, major trade publications or other major media in China. Accordingly, the petitioner 
does not meet this criterion. 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientrfic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of 
major signzjicance in the field. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. The record contains evidence 
as awarded a patent for a Single-Phase Torque Wiring Motor in 1994 by the Patent Office of 
Main an China. The petitioner is named as one of five designers of the motor. When an alien claims eligibility that w 
under this criterion by virtue of a patent, he or she must still show that the patented invention constitutes a 
contribution of major significance to his or her field. As our office has repeatedly stated, the significance of a 
patented invention must be determined on a case-by-case basis. See Matter of New York State Dep 't. of Transp., 
22 I&N Dec. 21 5, 221 n.7 (Comm. 1998). In both of his briefs, counsel claims that theatent is the purest 
form of evidence that the Petitioner has made a unique and tangible business-related contribution of significance 
to her field." Counsel's claim is unsupported by the record. The patent evidences a scientific and technical 
innovation in China, but does not sufficiently demonstrate that the petitioner has made an original business- 
related contribution of major significance to her field. The record does not contain evidence, for example, that 
the Single-Phase Torque Wiring Motor set a new business standard for other electric appliance companies in 
China or abroad. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The director correctly determined that the submitted evidence did not satisfy this criterion. The petitioner 
submitted copies of two "lectures" entitled "Application of Motor on Household Electric Appliances (1) [and] 
(2)" on which the petitioner is listed as one of three co-authors. The lectures are accompanied by uncertified 
translations. Again, without certified translations of these documents, we cannot determine whether the 
evidence supports the petitioner's claimed eligibility under this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The 
record is also devoid of any evidence that these lectures were published in professional, major trade publications 
or other major media, or that other electric appliance business professionals have recognized the lectures as 
particularly significant or influential. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
Page 5 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments 
that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director correctly determined that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. Counsel claims that the 
petitioner meets this criterion as president of On appeal, counsel cites the media articles previously 
acknowledged under the third criterion as evidence under this category. Again, we cannot determine whether 
those articles support the petitioner's claimed eligibility under this criterion because the record does not contain 
certified translations of the documents. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(3). Other evidence in the record indicates that 
the petitioner is the president of .oint-venture corporation between China and Germany. The submitted 
profit and loss statements show that &had a net profit of 628,343.33 renminhi (RMB) yuan in 2001 and 
1,103,3 19.41 RMB yuan in 2002. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits evidence of international dealings including an unsigned and undated 
letter purportedly written by the petitioner that lists business with com anies in the United States, 
Canada, and the Middle East. The record also contains a copy of a letter from 
n 
Managing Director 
of Soleus International Incorporated in California (Soleus), addressed to the U. onsu ate in Shanghai, dated 
November 28, 2003, and stating that Soleus invited the petitioner and three otherfficers to the United 
States to discuss future business between the two companies and to attend the International Air-Conditioning, 
Heating, Refrigerating Exposition (The AHR Expo) in January, 2004. The petitioner also submitted a copy of a 
letter fro-f the AHR Expo addressed to the U.S. Consulate in Shanghai, dated November 4, 2003 
and stating that the AHR Expo had invited the petitioner and five otherfficers to exhibit at the AHR Expo 
in January, 2004. Although the unsigned letter purportedly written by the petitioner states that she has traveled 
on business to Canada, Dubai and several European countries and that she "went to U.S.A. to attend exhibition 
and to develop the market at [sic] Jan. 28,2004," the record contains no corroborative evidence that she actually 
attended the AHR Expo or any other international exhibitions. Simply going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. 
Comm. 1972)). Even if the record contained evidence of the petitioner's participation in the AHR Expo, we 
would not consider it because the Expo was held after the petition was filed. The petitioner must establish 
eligibility at the time of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible 
under a new set of facts. See 8 C.F.R. 3 103.2(b)(12), Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
On appeal, the petitioner also submitted copies of purchase orders from MJC America Limited (MJC) to 
and computer printouts concerning transactions between the two companies. The printouts are nearly illegible 
and the petitioner has not identified them or explained their significance. The petitioner also submitted copies 
of the business cards of two officers of Orphalese Global Strategies (Orphalese), Incorporated and three officers 
of Soleus as well as printouts from the websites of MJC, Soleus, Orphalese, Uawithya Machinery Company 
Limited of Thailand, Allcam Mobile Products Limited, and Turkhot Tech Incorporated (a Canadian company). 
The last printout is in French and is not accompanied by a certified English translation. Consequently, we 
cannot determine whether the printout supports the petitioner's claimed eligibility under this criterion. See 8 
C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3). The other printouts do not identify any of the companies' products as manufactured by 
Aoli or in any other way demonstrate thaas done business with these foreign companies. In sum, the 
evidence demonstrates only that the petitioner is the President of which was profitable in 2001 and 2002 
and has done business with one U.S. company, MJC. Although and the petitioner have won regional 
no independent evidence that 
'L awards for scientific and tech (as discussed under the first criterion), the record contains 
as a distinguished business reputation throughout China or internationally. 
Page 6 
Consequently, the petitioner does not meet this criterion through her role at = 
Counsel also claims that the petitioner satisfies this criterion because she is the half-time Chairwoman of the 
Shengzhou Women Entrepreneurs Association, Director of the Shengzhou Entrepreneurs Association, and 
Permanent Director of the Shengzhou Commercial Chamber. The petitioner's resume states that she holds these 
titles, but the record contains no evidence of her positions or that these three organizations have distinguished 
reputations. Again, simply going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient to meet 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soflci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Accordingly, the petitioner does not 
meet this criterion. 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
Counsel claims that the petitioner meets this criterion because her purported annual salary of 96,000 RMB yuan 
is higher than the leading occupation in a list of "China's 10 Top-Earning Professions" contained in a printout 
from the website of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, which was submitted with the petition. The 
petitioner also submitted a letter from purportedly attesting to the petitioner's salary. This letter is 
accompanied by an uncertified English translation and the attached certificate only affirms the veracity of the 
company's seal and the signature of eneral ~ana~er, (who is not identified in the uncertified 
English translation of the letter). Because the petitioner failed to submit a certified translation of this letter, we 
cannot determine whether it supports her claimed eligibility under this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. fj 103.2(b)(3). 
Even if we accepted the letter as currently translated, it would not support the petitioner's claim. The 
uncertified translation states that the petitioner "has a monthly salary of RMB Yuan eight thousand, and her 
annual income amounts to RMB Yuan eighteen thousand," not the annual sum of 96,000 RMB yuan alleged by 
counsel. The record does not explain this discrepancy or document that this figure is an erroneous statement of 
the petitioner's salary is due to a mistake of typography or translation. 
Counsel's reliance on the list of "China's 10 Top-Earning Professions" is also misplaced. Counsel claims that 
the petitioner's salary is nearly double that of Chinese computer software developers, which he alleges are the 
highest earning professionals in China according to the Top Ten list. Although computer software developers 
are the first professionals on the list, they are not the highest earners in China. According to the list, "[olver 
90% of the lawyers in Beijing's 200-plus law firms have an annual income of over Rmb 100,000." Counsel also 
claims that the petitioner's salary is comparable to top Chinese athletes, yet the list only speculates that leading 
Chinese soccer players "may have a monthly income of up to Rmb 10,000." Although the petitioner is not a 
lawyer or an athlete, counsel has himself invoked this unsupportive comparison by claiming that "the 
Petitioner's salary of RMB Yuan 8,000 per month is on par with the highest salaries in the country in any 
profession." This statement is made on page seven of counsel's original brief and is repeated verbatim on page 
six of his appellate brief. However, the record contains no adequate evidence of the petitioner's salary, let alone 
evidence that her salary is significantly higher than other company presidents in China or comparable to 
business professionals at the very top of their fields in China. Accordingly, the petitioner does not meet this 
criterion. 
An immigrant visa will be granted to an alien under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(l)(A), 
only if the alien can establish extraordinary ability through extensive documentation of sustained national or 
international acclaim demonstrating that the alien has risen to the very top of his or her field. The evidence in