dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 8, 2023 In Re: 29048144 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business executive, seeks classification under the employment-based, first-preference 
(EB-1) immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with "extraordinary ability." See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 201(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(l)(A). Noncitizens may obtain U.S. 
permanent residence in this category if they demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" 
and provide "extensive documentation" of recognition they received for achievements in their fields . 
Id. 
The Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met only one of 10 initial evidentiary criteria, two less than required before U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) would conduct a final merits determination for classification under 
the requested immigrant visa category. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred in 
finding insufficient evidence of: published material about the Petitioner; his original contributions to 
his field; and his receipt of a high salary for his services. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Exercising de novo appellate review, see Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015), we conclude that, while the Petitioner has submitted qualifying published materials about 
himself, he has not demonstrated that he meets a third evidentiary requirement. We will therefore 
dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability, a petitioner must demonstrate that: 
• They have "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics;" 
• They seek to continue work in their field of expertise in the United States; and 
• Their work would substantially benefit the country. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i)-(iii) of the Act. 
The term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise commensurate with "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). Evidence 
of extraordinary ability must demonstrate a noncitizen's receipt of either "a major, international 
recognized award" or satisfaction of at least three of 10 lesser evidentiary standards. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(1-x). 1 
If a petitioner meets either of the initial evidentiary requirements discussed above, users then 
determines whether the record, as a whole, establishes sustained national or international acclaim and 
recognized achievements placing a noncitizen among the small percentage at the very top of their 
field. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2010) (requiring a two-part analysis 
of extraordinary ability). 
II. ANAL YSrS 
The record shows that the Petitioner, a Chinese national and citizen, earned two master's degrees in 
management and a doctorate in engineering in his home country. He has more than 20 years of 
business management experience and currently serves as the chief executive officer (CEO) of an 
outdoor sporting goods company in China. He seeks to continue working as a business manager in 
the United States. 
The record does not indicate - nor does the Petitioner claim - his receipt of a major international award. 
He must therefore meet at least three of the 10 evidentiary requirements listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i-x). 
The record supports the Director's finding that the Petitioner submitted evidence that he "performed 
in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation." 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he also provided evidence of: 
published materials about himself; his original contributions to his field; and his receipt of a high 
salary for his services. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v), and (ix). 
A. Published Material About the Petitioner 
This evidentiary standard requires "[p ]ublished 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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The evidence must include the title, date, and author of the 
material, and any necessary translations. Id. 
users first considers whether published material relates to a petitioner and their specific work in their 
field. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(8)(1), www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. If so, the 
Agency then determines whether the material's source qualifies as a professional or major trade 
publication, or other major medium. Id. 
1 Tfthe ten standards do not readily apply to a petitioner's occupation, the noncitizen may submit comparable evidence to 
establish their eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
2 
In evaluating whether a submitted publication is a professional publication, major trade 
publication, or major medi[um], relevant factors include the intended audience (for 
professional and major trade publications) and the relative circulation, readership, or 
viewership (for major trade publications and other major media). 
Id. 
The Petitioner submitted copies of articles about himself published in four Chinese magazines from 
2020 to 2022. The articles relate to him and his work as a business manager. But the Director found 
that the materials do not establish the magazines as "professional or major trade publications, or other 
major media." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The Director also questioned the authenticity of two 
of the magazine articles, finding that the Petitioner printed them "from websites that allow for anyone 
to create an account and publish articles." 
In response to the Director's request for additional evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted original 
issues of the magazines in which the articles about him appear. These original issues establish the 
articles' authenticity. The Petitioner also demonstrated that the magazines constitute professional 
publications. He submitted copies of online information from the publications describing the 
magazines' intended audience as entrepreneurs and business managers. 
Consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the Petitioner has submitted evidence of published 
materials in professional publications about him and his business management work. We will 
therefore withdraw the Director's contrary finding. 
B. Evidence of the Petitioner's Original Contributions 
This criterion requires "[ e ]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions of major significance in the field." 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). USCIS 
first considers whether a petitioner made original contributions in their field. 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.(2)(B)(l). If so, the Agency then determines whether the contributions have major significance in 
the field. Id. Relevant evidence may include: published materials about the significance of a 
petitioner's original work; letters and affidavits about their work; documentation citing their work at 
a significant level in the field; and patents and licenses stemming from the work or evidence of the 
work's commercial use. Id. 
The Petitioner submitted letters and copies of news articles regarding acquisitions and financial results 
that companies achieved under his management. The Director, however, found that he did not 
demonstrate "how his contributions amounted to original work and how his work impacted the field 
as a whole in a major and significant way." 
Assuming arguendo that the Petitioner's management activities constitute original business-related 
contributions in his stated field of business management, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner 
has not sufficiently established the significance of his work in the field. The record shows that his 
companies' acquisitions and financial results affected the businesses and their individual industries. 
But the Petitioner does not explain how his achievements impacted the business management field as 
a whole. 
3 
Under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), we reasonably interpret the phrase "major significance in the field" 
to require impact "on the field as a whole." Krasniqi v. Dibbins, 558 F. Supp. 3d 168, 187 (D.N.J. 
2021) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). In Krasniqi, a federal court agreed with us that a 
petitioner who founded a film festival did not sufficiently demonstrate the event's significance in her 
designated field of cinematography. Id. The court found that the petitioner did not show that others 
in the field widely viewed or regarded the festival or that it introduced new cinematographic methods 
or ideas. Id. at 188. 
The Petitioner contends that his managerial decisions leading to successful acquisitions and profitable 
financial results constitute original contributions in the business management field. But, like the 
petitioner in Krasniqi , he has not sufficiently demonstrated the significance of his contributions in the 
field as a whole. Like the petitioner in Krasniqi, he has not shown that his achievements generated 
widespread interest in the field or introduced new business management methods, strategies, or ideas. 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of a 2022 award for .__________ __, from the Chinese 
edition of the Harvard Business Review , a respected business management magazine. But the award 
bears the name of the Petitioner 's company, not his, and the record does not explain why the company 
received the award. Thus, the award does not sufficiently reflect widespread regard in the business 
management field for the Petitioner's contributions. 
The Petitioner also submitted recommendation letters from former supervisors of his and other 
business leaders. The letters recount his achievements. But they do not sufficiently explain the 
achievements' significance in the business management field. Thus, contrary to 8 C .F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner bas not submitted evidence of original business-related contributions 
of major significance in his field. 
C. Evidence of the Petitioner's High Salary 
This standard requires "[ e ]vidence 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). Relevant 
evidence may include: tax returns, pay statements, or other evidence of past salary or remuneration 
for services; contracts, job offer letters, or other evidence of prospective salary or remuneration for 
services; and comparative wage or remuneration data for a petitioner 's field, such as geographical or 
position-appropriate compensation surveys. 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.(2)(B)(l). 
The Petitioner initially stated that he received annual incomes of: 2,687,000 RMB 2 in 2019; 2,873,000 
RMB in 2020; and 3,128,000 RMB in 2021. But, in response to the Director's RFE, he changed those 
amounts to: 2,498,314.57 RMB in 2019; 2,925,122.58 RMB in 2020; 3,893,894.83 RMB in 2021; 
and $3,137,609.46 RMB in 2022. 3 
The Petitioner also provided copies of compensation surveys and income tax records. The initial 
compensation surveys show that, as of 2021, 90% of CEOs of outdoor sporting goods companies 
received total annual cash benefits of less than 1,943,455 RMB. The Petitioner's RFE response 
2 RMB stands for Chinese yuan renrninbi. 
3 Based on current exchange rates, the Petitioner's 2022 annual income equates to about $440,729. XE Currency 
Converter, www.xe.com/currencyconverter. 
4 
included a 2022 compensation report listing the top salaries of a chief officer in the sales industry as 
2,400,000 RMB and of a general manager of a daily consumer goods company in the retail industry 
as 3,500,000 RMB. 
The Petitioner's initial filing included a first set of tax records, "Payment Records oflndividual Income 
Tax." These records show income tax amounts he paid from January 2019 through April 2022. The 
Petitioner's RFE response included a second set of tax records, "Beijing Tax Characteristic 
Applications." These records show both income tax amounts he paid and income amounts he received 
in 2019 through 2022. 
The second tax record set supports the Petitioner's claimed annual income amounts of 2,498,314.57 
RMB in 2019 and 2,925,122.58 RMB in 2020. But the 2021 annual income amount listed in the 
second set totals 2,223,061.50 RMB, not 3,893,894.83 RMB as the Petitioner most recently claims. 
Also, as the Director found, the Petitioner's tax record sets do not list the same tax amounts paid over 
the same periods, thus casting farther doubt on his claimed annual income amounts. Specifically, the 
first tax record set lists a June 6, 2021 tax payment of 730,715 RMB for income from wages and 
salaries that the second set omits. 
In his RFE response, the Petitioner stated that his 2021 annual income increased from the initial 
amount he provided because he received a delayed bonus payment from his prior employer. But that 
statement does not explain why the first tax record set indicates that he paid more taxes that year while 
earning less income. 
Although the Director's decision mentions discrepancies in the amounts of taxes paid, the Petitioner 
has not explained them. Rather, he urges us to use the second tax record set. But, because the paid 
2021 tax amounts in the second set differ from those in the first, he has not established the second set's 
accuracy, including the income amounts listed in it. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 
1988 (requiring a petitioner to resolve inconsistencies of record with independent, objective evidence 
pointing to where the truth lies). Thus, not only is the Petitioner's claimed income amount for 2021 -
which the second set does not support - unreliable, but his claimed annual income amounts for 2019 
and 2020 - which the second set supports - also lack credibility. Because the Petitioner has not reliably 
established his annual income amounts, he has not demonstrated that he has commanded a high salary 
in relation to others in the business management field. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets at least three of 10 initial evidentiary requirements 
for the requested immigrant visa category. Thus, we need not make a final merits determination as to 
whether he qualifies as a noncitizen with extraordinary ability in his field. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues 
unnecessary to their ultimate decisions); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant does not otherwise qualify for 
relief). 
5 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner met a second initial evidentiary requirement by submitting copies of articles in 
professional publications about his work in the business management field. But he did not establish 
his satisfaction of a third evidentiary criterion as required for the requested immigrant visa category. 
We will therefore affirm the petition's denial. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6