dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 8865930 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG . 25, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business executive specializing in education, seeks classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 
1153(b)(l)(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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized 
award) or satisfied at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to 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 in 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 his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying 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 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. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the founder and a of shareholder of I I and the president of~~~~--------------
1 I. He earned a Master of Business Administration degree from the~---~ International 
Business School in 2013. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets four of the evidentiary criteria, 
relating to material published about him and his work, his original business contributions of major 
significance, his leading role tori land its related companies, and his high salary in 
comparison to other education executives in China. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, 
we find that he does not meet the initial evidence requirement by meeting at least three of these 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) 
In his decision, the Director found that while several print and online articles about the Petitioner and 
his work in the field had been submitted, the evidence did not establish that any of them were published 
in one of the qualifying types of media specified under this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner refers 
to previously-submitted evidence about these periodicals, China Profiles, Beijing Morning Post and 
Beijing Evening News, noting that "not all the initially submitted articles are published on so-called 
web portals" as discussed in the Director's decision. Although he lists the articles posted on 
www.tencent.com and www.sina.com on appeal, he does not challenge the Director's finding 
regarding the credibility of these sources. 
The evidence of an article published in China Profiles on I I 2018 consists of an original 
of the entire issue of this magazine. After review, we agree that this article is about the Petitioner and 
his work as an business executive specializing in the field of education. As to whether China Profiles 
2 
qualifies as a major medium, the Petitioner refers to information about this magazine included in the 
magazine itself, as well as information from its own website. These materials indicate that the 
magazine is managed by the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League and published twice 
every month, and describe it as a "high-level, high-profile, high-standard, and high-quality journal." 
However, they do not include circulation figures for the magazine, or circulation figures for other 
publications in China by which it can be determined through comparison that China Profiles is a major 
medium.1 
The Petitioner also submitted information about China Profiles published on the website 
www.baidu.com. However, according to materials submitted by the Petitioner, this is a user-edited 
online encyclopedia, similar to Wikipedia. As there are no assurances about their reliability, the 
content from open, user-edited Internet sites will be accorded no evidentiary weight. See Badasa v. 
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008). 
Other articles submitted are also about the Petitioner, including two which the Petitioner asserts were 
published in Beijing Morning Post, and another in Beijing Evening News. However, upon review of 
one of the articles claimed to have been published in the Beijing Morning Post, there are discrepancies 
regarding its content. Specifically, several passages from the China Profiles article appear in the 
article asserted to have been published in thel I 2013 Beijing Morning Post article, despite 
the five-year difference in claimed publication dates between the two articles, as well as different 
authors and publishers. Notably, the following paragraph appears in both articles: 
In the impetuous teaching and auxiliary industry,! laged 40 is like an "olddity" -
1 
when peers indulge in venture capital investment and go all out for expansion, 
still remains a rare calm. However, as the bubble fades and the education industry 
begins to call for a return to "true nature," people suddenly look back and find that 
'exotic1 lis moving forward earnestly. 
Although the statement regarding thd I being "aged 40" would have been accurate as of 
the date when the China Profiles article was published in 2018, it was not accurate in 2013. In 
addition, both articles include the following sentence: "As of last year, the number of students 
stabilized between 1200 and 1300 every year, accounting for about 30%-40% of the repetition market 
in Beijing." As this statement refers to a stabilization in the number of students that happened in a 
specific year ("last year"), it could not have been accurate in both 2013 and 2018. These 
inconsistencies must be resolved with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Unresolved material inconsistencies may lead 
us to reevaluate the reliability and sufficiency of other evidence submitted in support of the requested 
immigration benefit. Id. 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14. (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html, noting that "Evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications about the alien should establish that the 
circulation (on-line or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics ... " 
3 
In addition, the plain language of this criterion requires that evidence of published material must 
include the title, date and author of the material. The article claimed to have been published in Beijing 
Evening News does not include the name of the author. Also, the evidence of this article does not 
consist of either an original or a photocopy of the article as published in print, nor does it include a 
website address indicating that it was published on the newspaper's website. This evidence therefore 
does not establish that this material was published in the Beijing Evening News as claimed. 
We further note that in addition to the discrepancies noted above regarding these articles, the Petitioner 
has not established that these publications qualify as major media. Although the Petitioner submitted 
webpages from www.baidu.com with information regarding both newspapers, including circulation 
figures, we again note that evidence from user-edited online encyclopedias such as this will not be 
given consideration, as there are no assurances regarding the reliability of the information posted. 
Additional evidence from the website of the publisher of both newspapers indicates that as of 2016, 
the combined circulation of all of its ten newspapers was more than two million, accounting for more 
than 60% of the Beijing newspaper market. However, this evidence does not include circulation data 
for the individual newspapers, and thus does not establish that either Beijing Morning Post or Beijing 
Evening News qualify as major media. 
For all of the reasons given above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from the executive vice president o~ !which verifies that the 
Petitioner is a founder and chairman of the company, and lists his annual salary from 2007 through 
2018. The letter indicates that his salary for the last two years was RMB 1,000,000. To show that this 
salary is high in comparison to others in his field, he also submitted an article posted to the website 
www.jiemodui.com onl 12017, which discusses "information from Mustard Pile" concerning 
a report titled I I which is also 
referred to in the article as I I" The article 
indicates that this report was released by an "education entrepreneurship talent recruitment service 
platform," cailu-edu.com, and a human resource consulting firm, I I However, the 
record does not include the report, or further information about jiemodui.com, "Mustard Pile," or the 
two entities said to have prepared and released the report. The third-hand nature of the information 
presented, in addition to the lack of information about the preparers of the report or the two entities 
through which this information has been forwarded, severely limits the reliability and probative value 
of the information presented. 
In addition, the figures presented do not establish that the Petitioner's salary is high in comparison to 
others in his field. We first note that the article indicates that they were compiled through information 
from "38 representative enterprises," many of which are in various stages of the start-up process, and 
that the data is not grouped by locality or region. This information indicates that the data may not be 
broad enough to provide relevant data for the entire education industry, does not provjdJ comparable 
information for salaries in established businesses such asl land the I and does not 
4 
reflect local or regional differences in salary within the industry. For these reasons, it has not been 
shown that this article provides relevant or sufficient data for comparison to the Petitioner's salary. 
Further, even if we were to consider this data both reliable and relevant, it does not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's salary is high, as opposed to merely above average, in relation to others in his field 
and position. A graph under the heading of "General Manager" indicates that the mean salary is nearly 
RMB 800,000, and that those in the 75th percentile earn slightly above RMB 1 million, while the 
average salary is above RMB $1.1 million. If accurate, these figures suggest that a number of similarly 
situated education executives earn far more than the Petitioner. 
The Petitioner also asserts on appeal that since he is a "45% shareholder of his school," we should 
consider "undistributed profits" of roughly RMB 3.6 million as part of his remuneration. We first note 
that whilel Is 2017 annual report shows that he contributed RMB 1 million of a total of RMB 
2.2 million in capital contributions towards the company, he has not submitted evidence that he owns 
a similar share of thel I which the evidence indicates is a separate legal entity. In 
addition, the Petitioner appears to base this figure onl l's balance sheet for 2017, which the record 
does not indicate has been audited. Further, the Petitioner has not established that he received RMB 
3.6 million in 2017, or that he is entitled to receive 45% of the company's undistributed profits for the 
year. 
For all of the reasons stated above, we find that the Petitioner does not meet this criterion. 
111. CONCLUSION 
As discussed above, we find that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner satisfies the criteria 
relating published material about him and a high salary compared to others in his field. While the 
Petitioner claims eligibility under two additional criteria on appeal, those relating to contributions of 
major significance in his field at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(v) and a leading or critical role at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we need not reach those additional grounds. Because the Petitioner 
cannot satisfy the initial evidentiary requirement by meeting at least three of the criteria under 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3), we reserve those issues. 2 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 acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b)(1)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
5 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that he is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6