dismissed EB-1A Case: Business Operations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 19497914 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 16, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a business operation s specialist , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act(the Act) section203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(IXA) . 
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 Texas Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria , of which he must meet at least three. 
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 )(1 )(A) 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 individu als 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 regu lation 
at 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(h)(3) sets forth arrm lti-partanalysis. First, a petitioner can demonstraterecognition 
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 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). 
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). 
( 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); RUal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011 ). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or demonstrated that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award at 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner fulfilled the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and the high 
salary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains eligibility for a third 
criterion relating to published material at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). After reviewing all of the 
presented evidence, the record does not establish that the Petitioner meets the requirements of at least 
three 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). 
At initial filing, the Petitioner claimed that his "name and achievements have been featured in eighteen 
(18) articles of various newspapers in Korea, including "Maeil Business Newspaper (MK News)", 
"The Bell", "Aju Economy", "Asia Today", and "Korea Economy Daily (Hankyung)." The 
Petitioner submitted articles and translations and a screenshot from I University 
highlighting that Maeil Business Newspaper is a "Korean -language newspaper on Korean business 
and economy." 
In the request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated: 
The petitioner submitted 18 articles which either mentions his name or is about him 
and his work in the field. However, none of the articles contain an author; and not all 
of the articles are specifically about the petitioner and his work in the field. As noted 
in the regulation, the plain language of this criterion requires published material to 
contain a title, date, and an author; to be about the petitioner and his work in the field; 
and to be printed in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
USCIS does not consider articles which mentions the petitioner's name in passing to 
2 
be about him and his work in the field. Furthermore, please note that for each foreign 
language article, the petitioner must submit an English language translation that is full 
and complete. Summary translations are not acceptable. Finally, with respect to 
whether a publication qualifies as a professional or major trade publication, or other 
major media, a petitioner should identify the [publication's] circulation ( online or in 
print) and intended audience of the publication.[] This information must come from a 
reliable source and must reflect circulation statistics during the time period in which 
the published material was published. 
In response, the Petitioner provided revised translations for nine previously submitted articles and 
offered translations for five new articles. In addition, the Petitioner presented translations for 
circulation statistics from the Korean Audit Bureau of Certification for various publications, such as 
MK Economy, MK News, Asia Today, Economic Review, Korea Economic Daily, and Hankyung 
Business. Further, the Petitioner claimed that certain exhibits indicated the title, date, and author and 
"many other pages of the attached newspaper articles stated the title, date and an author of each article 
in similar forms." Moreover, the Petitioner asse1ied information from the World Policy Conference 
and Bloomberg, L.P. regardingMaei/ Business Newspaper (MK News) and Korea Economic Daily. 1 
The Director repeated his statements in the RFE and determined that"neitherthe a1iiclesnorcounsel's 
list/RFE [] contains an author" and concluded thatthe Petitioner did not meet the criterion. On appeal, 
the Petitioner submits the same RFE documents and makes matching RFE arguments and asserts that 
he "provided the documentary evidence and information ... all of them with certified English language 
translations" showing the "[t]itle, date and name of the author of the newspaper a1iicles," "[ss ]entences 
in each article indicating that the article is specifically about [him]," and "[infonnation and documents 
regarding the prestige of the newspapers which featured [him] as major national media and their 
circulation numbers, from credible sources." 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate published material about him in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as well as the title, date, and author of 
the material, and any necessary translation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(iii). 2 Further, any document 
in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(3 ). The translator must ce1iify that the English language translation is complete and 
accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. 
The record reflects that at initial filing the Petitioner submitted "Certificate of Accuracy" translations 
for each of the foreign language articles claiming "that all following translations of the entire parts or 
marked parts of the following documents are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge." 
However, the translations only relate to "entire parts or marked parts" rather than "full English 
language translation[s]" as required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Moreover, the translations appear 
to have added information that are not in the original documents; and therefore, they are not accurate 
descriptions and diminish their probative value. For instance, the translations include the media type 
and circulation data that are not reflected in the actual articles. Inconsistencies in the record must be 
1 Although he provided footnotes of website addresses to support his claims, the Petitioner did not submit documentaty 
evidence. 
2 See also USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTMUPolicyManual.html. 
3 
resolved with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Because of these inconsistencies, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that the translated material is accurate and supports his claims of published material about him relating 
to his work in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not include the authors for four of the articles and did not include the 
authors and dates for two of the articles. 3 Further, while the translations claimed circulation numbers 
for the printed publications, the record reflects that all but three articles were posted on websites. Thus, 
the Petitioner must demonstrate that the websites represent major media rather than the printed 
publications. See, e.g., Victorov v. Barr, No. CV 19-6948-GW-JPRX, 2020 WL 3213788, at *8 
(C.D.C.A. Apr. 9, 2020). Moreover, although two of the articles were published in Asia Today, the 
Petitioner did not submit documentary evidence to support the circulation claims in the translations 
and show how such data establishes professional or major trade or major media status. 4 The other 
article published in FN Times did not have any circulation statistic assertions, nor did the Petitioner 
offer any evidence of the publication's standing. 
Relating to the evidence presented in the RFE response, as indicated above, the Petitioner provided 
revised translations for nine previously submitted articles, translations for five new articles, and 
translations for circulation data for various publications. 5 Despite being informed in the Director's 
RFE regarding the submission of certified translations attesting to their accuracy and the translator's 
competency, the Petitioner offered translations without any certifications. 6 Because the translations 
do not comply with 8 C.F.R. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(3), the Petitioner did not establish that the translated 
material is accurate and supports his claims of eligibility for this criterion. 7 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents the same documentation that he submitted in response to the 
Director's RFE, including uncertified translations for all of the documentation. Without properly 
certified and full English language translations, the Petitioner has not shown that the material is about 
3 Although the Director determined that the Petition er did not include authors for any of the articles, most of the translations 
list the reporter's name. The translations that did not include authors were posted on mk.co.krl l 20 1 7 J I 
2016, 12015, and 2015), and the articles that did not include the authors and dates were posted on 
a ward.koc.or.kr and sanghun.go.kr. 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professionalormajortradepublications orin othermajormedia publications should establish that thecirculation(on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
5 The Petitioner did not provide revised translations for the six articles that did not include authors and/or dates. 
6 The Director's RFE stated: 
If you submit a document in any language other than English, the documentmust be accompanied by a 
full and complete English translation. The translatormust certifythatthe translation is accurate and he 
or she is competent to translate from that language to English. If you submit a foreign language 
translation in response to this request for evidence, you must also include a copy of the foreign language 
document. 
7 We note that regarding the previously submitted translated documents, the Petitioner attached a piece of paper stating 
that "[e]ach set of English documents in this Exhibit is a translation of its immediately following documents in Korean." 
However, the document does not identify the translator, certify thatthe translations are complete and accurate, and indicate 
that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English consistent with 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(3). 
4 
him, occurred in professional or major trade publications or other major media, and includes the title, 
date, and author. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of fmal 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 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 those progressing toward the top. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (concluding that even major league level athletes do not 
automatically meet the statutory standards for classification as an individual of "extraordinary 
ability,"); Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (finding that the 
extraordinary ability designation is "extremely restrictive by design,"); Hamal v. Dep 't of Homeland 
Sec. (Hamalll), No. 19-cv-2534, 2021 WL 2338316, at *5 (D.D.C. June 8, 202 l)(determiningthat 
EB-1 visas are "reserved for a very small percentage of prospective immigrants"). See also Hamal v. 
Dep 't of Homeland Sec. (Hamal I), No. l 9-cv-2534, 2020 WL 2934954, at* 1 (D.D.C. June 3, 2020) 
(citing Kazarian, 596 at 1122 (upholding denial of petition of a published theoretical physicist 
specializing in non-Einsteinian theories of gravitation) (stating that "[c]ourts have found that even 
highly accomplished individuals fail to win this designation")); Lee v. Ziglar, 237 F. Supp. 2d 914, 
918 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (findingthat"arguably one ofthemostfamous baseball players inKoreanhist01y" 
did not qualify for visa as a baseball coach). 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);seealso section203(b)(l)(A)oftheAct. Moreover, the record does not 
otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, 
and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). Although the Director determined that the 
Petitioner has served in a leading or critical role and received a high salary, the record does not contain 
sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
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. 
5