dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Administration

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clcvly mixwranted 
invasion of pmmal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: NOV 2 9 2m&j 
EAC 06 009 5223 1 
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. 5 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 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
2 Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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. $ 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, counsel argues the petitioner has submitted extensive evidence demonstrating that he has fulfilled the 
requirements for classification as an alien with extraordinary ability in Business Administration. 
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. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have 
consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals seeking immigrant 
visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-9 (November 29, 1991). 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 endeavar. 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(2). The 
specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an ?lien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set farth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the 
petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition, filed on September 30, 2005, seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability in "Business Administration." In a February 22, 2006 letter responding to the director's notice of 
intent to deny, counsel states that the petitioner has been the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Vice 
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Guangming Paper Product Corporation in China from May 1995 to 
present. The record, however, reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since July 14, 
2000.' The record fails to explain how the petitioner is able to spe as-CEO far this corporation in China 
(which counsel asserts "has the market value of 13,121,740.02 R~B") while residing in the United States 
without legal status since August 2000. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in 
the record by independent objective evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will 
not suffice unless the petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter 
of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may, of 
course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of 
the visa petition. 
As required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and the regulationcat 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner 
must demonstrate that his national or international acclaim has been sustained. Given the length of time 
between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petitioq's filing date (more than five years), it is 
reasonable to expect him to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. The petitioner 
has had ample time to establish a reputation as a business executive in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(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 dutlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim nec&ary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the$eld of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted the following: 
1. Certificate issued by the "Liaoning Provincial Authority for Building Materials" stating that the 
petitioner's paper entitled "The ~nowied~e and Practice in Management" won the "First Prize for 
Distinguished Paper" (March 1 Q, 1993) 
2. Certificate issued by the "Liaoning Provincial Authority for Building Materials" stating that the 
petitioner's paper entitled ''strate& in the Story of Long Zhong Countermeasure" won the "First 
Prize for Distinguished Paper" (~edtember 3, 1994) 
3. Certificate issued by the ''~ovemhent of Tieling City" stating that the petitioner received a "1993 
Citywide Distinguished Personnel in Business Administration" award (February 20, 1994) 
4. Certificate issued by the "~overnment of Tieling City" stating that the petitioner received a 
"Citywide Award of 'Distinguished Entrepreneur' in 1993" (June 9, 1994) 
5. Certificate issued by the Tieling City Labor Union stating that the petitioner received a "Labor 
Union's Distinguished Youth" award (June 1994) 
6. Certificate issued by the "Government of Tieling City" stating that the petitioner received a 
"Citywide Award of 'Distinguished Personnel in Business Administration' in 1993" (February 1994) 
According to Part 3 of the Form 1-140 petition, the petitioner lists his'"Date of Arrival" in the United States as July 14, 
2000 and his "Current Nonimmigrant Status" as "None." The petitioner's Form G-325A, Biographic Information, 
reflects that he has been residing at his present address in Flushing, New York since August 2000. 
Page 4 
7. Certificate issued by the "Government of Tieling City" stating that the petitioner received a 
"Citywide Award of 'Distinguished Personnel in Business Administration' in 1991" (February 1992) 
8. Certificate issued by the "Government of Tieling City" stating that the petitioner received a 
"Citywide Award of 'Distinguished Entrepreneur' in 1993" (January 1994) 
9. Certificate issued by the "Government of Tieling City" stating that the petitioner received a 
"Citywide Award of 'Model Worker' of year 199 1 " (May 1992) 
10. Certificate issued by the "Government of Tieling City" stating that the petitioner received a 
"Citywide Award of 'Model Worker' of year 1990" (May 199 1) 
11. Certificate issued by the "Government of Tieling City" stating that the petitioner received a 
"Citywide Award of 'Model Worker' of year 1992" (May 1993) 
12. Certificate issued by the "Government of Tieling City" stating that the petitioner received a "1989 
Citywide Distinguished Personnel in Business Administration" award (February 1990) 
13. Certificate issued by the "Tieling City Labor Union" stating that the petitioner received a 
"Distinguished Personnel in Business Administration" award (June 1994) 
14. Certificate issued by the "Liaoning Construction Department" stating that the petitioner received a 
"'1993 Distinguished Worker' of the Construction System of Liaoning Province" award (April 5, 
1994) 
15. Certificate issued by the Tieling Cement Product Plant stating that the petitioner received a "1993 
Distinguished Personnel" award (March 1994) 
16. Certificate issued by the "Tieling Labor Union" stating that the petitioner received a "1993 
Distinguished Worker" award (January 10, 1994) 
17. Certificate issued by the "Tieling Labor Union" stating that the petitioner received a "1993 Youth 
Model" award (January 10, 1994) 
18. Certificate issued by the "Liaoning Construction Department" stating that the petitioner received a 
"'1992 Distinguished Worker' of the Construction System of Liaoning Province" award (April 8, 
1993) 
19. Certificate issued by the "Liaoning Construction Department" stating that the petitioner received a 
"'1992 Distinguished Personnel' of the Construction System of Liaoning Province" award (March 
21, 1993) 
20. Certificate issued by the Tieling Cement Product Plant stating that the petitioner received a "1992 
Distinguished Personnel" award (February 1993) 
21. Certificate issued by the "Tieling Labor Union" stating that the petitioner received a "1991 Youth 
Model" award (March 1 5, 1992) 
22. Certificate issued by the Tieling Cement Product Plant stating that the petitioner received a "1991 
Distinguished Worker" award (March 1992) 
23. Certificate issued by the "Government of Tieling City" stating that the petitioner received a "1989 
Citywide Model of Business Administration" award (February 16, 1992) 
24. Certificate issued by the Tieling Cement Product Plant stating that the petitioner received a "1990 
Distinguished Worker" award (February 199 1) 
The preceding award certificates reflect local or provincial recognition rather than national or international 
recognition. There is no evidence of contemporaneous publicity surrounding these awards or evidence 
showing that they command a substantial level of recognition. Further, the record includes no evidence that 
would demonstrate the number of recipients, the criteria for granting the awards, the level of expertise of 
those considered, and the number of individuals eligible to coppete. 
 We note here that section 
203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive documentation of sustained national or international acclaim. 
Pursuant to the statute, the petitioner must provide adequate evidence showing that the awards presented 
under this criterion enjoy significant national or international stature. In this case, there is no supporting 
documentation from the awarding entities or print media to establish - that the preceding awards are nationally 
or internationally recognized. 
The petitioner also submitted a newspaper article appearing in Northern Liaoying Economy Daily naming the 
petitioner a "Top Ten Entrepreneur of Liaoning Province." The plain language of this criterion, however, 
requires the petitioner's receipt of "nationally or internationally recognized prizes or. awards for excellence in 
the field of endeavor." While the petitioner may have been featured in this regional publication, there is no 
evidence of his receipt of a prize or award. The petitioner's inclusion in this publication is far more relevant 
to the published materials criterion at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and will be further addressed below. Here it 
should be emphasized that the regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate 
criteria exist for awards and published materials about the alien, CIS clearly does not view the two as being 
interchangeable. If evidence sufficient to meet one criterion mandated a finding that an alien met another 
criterion, the requirement that an alien meet at least three criteria would be meaningless. 
In addition to the preceding deficiencies, the record includas no evidence showing that the petitioner has won 
any significant awards in China or the United States 'subsequent to 1995. The absence of such awards 
indicates that the petitioner has not sustained whatever acclaim he may have earned in China during the early 
1990's. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in theJield for which classiJication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines orJields. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an .association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employment or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues, do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter level would not qualify. Finally, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall repytation. 
The petitioner submitted what is alleged to be his membership card for Entrepreneurs Association of Tieling 
(EAT). This is a local entrepreneurial association rather than a pational or international association. Further, 
the record does not include the membership bylaws or the official admission requirements for the EAT. 
There is no evidence showing that admission to membership in this organization required outstanding 
achievement or that the petitioner was evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of his 
admission to membership. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in theJield for which classiJication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. To qualifL 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or from a publication in a language that 
most of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local 
community papers.2 
As stated previously, the petitioner submitted an article appearing in Northern Liaoning Economy Daily naming 
him a "Top Ten Entrepreneur of Liaoning Province." The author of this material, however, was not identified 
as required by this criterion. Nor has the petitioner submitted evidence showing that this publication qualifies 
as major media. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
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 alliedJield of specfication for which classi~ication is sought. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate allegedly issued by the Chinese Import and Export Product Quality 
Certification Center stating that he "finished his study in the courses of IS09000 Quality Management 
System Auditor and passed the exam." This document includes, no address, phone number, or any other 
information through which an official at this organization may be contacted. The plain wording of this 
criterion requires "[elvidence of the alien's participation . . . as a judge of the work of others." The record, 
however, includes no evidence of the petitioner's activities as a Quality Management System Auditor. For 
example, the record lacks information regarding the nature of his duties in this capacity, the projects he 
audited, the names of individuals whose work he reviewed, and their level of expertise. We do not find that 
serving as a Quality Management System Auditor constitutes judging the work of others for purposes of this 
criterion. Without evidence showing that the petitioner participated in evaluating established business 
professionals at the national or international level, we cannot conclude he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted photocopies of what are alleged to be papers he authored entitled "The Knowledge 
and Practice in Management" and "Strategy in the Story of Long Zhong Countermeasure." Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot 
serve to spread an individual's reputation outside of that county. 
Page 7 
5 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to CIS shall be accompanied by a full 
English language translation that 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. The preceding 
papers were not accompanied by certified English language translations as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. $ 103,2(b)(3). Further, there is no evidence identifying the name of the publication in which these 
papers appeared or evidence showing that the papers had substantial national or international readership. The 
petitioner also submitted two certificates allegedly issued by the "Liaoning Provincial Authority for Building 
Materials" reflecting that each paper was awarded a "First Prize for Distinguished Paper," but, as stated 
previously, such awards reflect provincial recognition rather than national or international recognition. There is 
no evidence of the greater field's reaction to these papers at the national or international level. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed .in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
In order to establish that he performed a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, the petitioner must establish the nature of his role within the entire organization or 
establishment and the reputation of the organization or establishment. 
The petitioner submitted a document entitled "Certification of Incorporation and Ownership of Shares" 
stating: 
This is to certify that: 
1. [The petitioner] incorporated Guangming Paper Product Corp., Ltd. in May 1995 
2. [The petitioner] has been the CEO and Vice Chairman of the Board of Director of 
Guangming Paper Product Corp., Ltd. 
3. The company's total market value is 13,12 1,740.02 RMB. And [the petitioner] owns 49% of 
the shares 
4. The company's after-tax profit in 2005 was 154,269.90 RMB. [The petitioner] was 
distributed 75,592.25 RMB 
(Attached is a certified copy of the company's financial statement in 2005) 
The preceding document includes, no address, phone number, or any other information through which an 
official at this corporation may be contacted. Although this document states"'~ttached is a certified copy of 
the company's financial statement in 2005," the record includes no such evidence. The "Certification of 
Incorporation and Ownership of Shares" document further states that the petitioner "has been the CEO and 
Vice Chairman of the Board of Director of Guangming Paper Product Corp.," but there is no supporting 
evidence showing that this company has earned a distinguished national or international reputation. 
As stated previously, the petitioner submitted an article appearing in Northern Liaoning Economy Daily naming 
him a "Top Ten Entrepreneur of Liaoning Province." 
 This article states: 
 "During [the petitioner's] 
employment as CEO of the Tieling Cement Products Plant in 1994, this plant had the highest income of 
900,000,000.00 RMB." On appeal, counsel asserts that the Tieling Cement Products Plant is "the largest 
state-owned cement plant in China and one of the largest construction material companies in Asia." The 
record, however, includes no evidence to support these assertions. The unsupported assertions of counsel do 
not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 
I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act requires "extensive documentatiqn" of sustained national or international 
acclaim. Neither the article appearing in Northern Liaoning Economy Daily or the "Certification of 
Incorporation and Ownership of Shares" document is adequate to demonstrate that the petitioner has 
performed in a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization, or that his involvement has earned him 
sustained national or international acclaim. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signijcantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The aforementioned "Certification of Incorporation and Ownership of Shares" document states that the 
petitioner "was distributed 75,592.25 RMB" of the company's "after-tax profit in 2005." The record, 
however, includes no supporting financial documentation (such as payroll records or income tax forms) to 
support this claim. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting 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. 19Q (Reg. Comm. 1972)). Further, the plain 
wording of this criterion requires the petitioner to submit evidense of high remuneration "in relation to others 
in the field." The petitioner offers no basis for comparison showing that his compensation was significantly high 
in relation to others in his field. There is no indication that the.petitioner earns a level of compensation that places 
him among the highest paid business executives in the United States or China. Thus, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this criterion. 
In conclusion, we find that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate his receipt of a major internationally 
recognized award, or that he meets at least three of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained 
acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Further, the record does not establish that 
whatever acclaim the petitioner had in China in the early 1990's has been sustained since his entry into the 
United States in 2000. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself 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 is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or intemational level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Beyond the decision of the director, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the 
alien is coming to the United States to continuebork in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include 
letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
statement from the beneficiary detailing plans Qn how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the 
United States." The record includes no such evidence. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied by 
the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), affd. 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989)(noting that the AAO reviews 
appeals on a de novo basis). 
The petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.