dismissed EB-1A Case: Civil Engineering

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: NOV 0 6 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~~ lf"~~i~~A~:::!trative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We rejected the 
petitioner's appeal as untimely on July 9, 2014. On August 29, 2014, we reopened the matter on 
motion pursuantto 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5)(ii) for purposes of entering a new decision based on the 
assertions and evidence that accompanied the appeal. We will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a civil engineer and business owner, seeks classification as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not established the requisite extraordinary ability and failed to submit extensive 
documentation of her sustained national or international acclaim. In addition, the director 
determined that the petitioner had not established that she was among that small percentage at the 
very top of her field of endeavor. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. The director found that the petitioner had met the categories of 
evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (viii), and (ix), but that she had not sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement contesting the director's findings and a brief. The 
petitioner asserts that she meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (iv), (v), 
(vi), (viii), and (ix), that the director's final merits determination was in error, and that the director 
failed to properly consider the submitted evidence. 
For the reasons discussed below, we will uphold the director's determination that the petitioner has not 
established her eligibility for the classification sought. Although the petitioner's evidence is sufficient 
to meet the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), we withdraw the director's 
fmdings that the petitioner's evidence meets the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), 
(viii), and (ix). Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she satisfies the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo 
basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 2012); Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 
(3d Cir. 2004); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). Furthermore, as will be explained 
in the final merits determination, the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that the petitioner has 
sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
I. Law 
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 into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 H.R. 723 101
51 
Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. !d.; 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), 
the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the significance of the 
1 Specifically, the court stated that we had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond 
those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been raised in a subsequent 
"final merits determination." /d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. Instead of 
parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the proper 
procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which we did)," and if the petitioner failed to 
submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement o~ three types of evidence (as we concluded)." /d. at 1122 (citing to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)). The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of 
that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
/d. at 1119-20. 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a fmal merits determination. In this matter, we will apply the two-step analysis 
dictated by the Kazarian court. 
II. Analysis 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director 
disregarded and misinterpreted her awards. 
The petitioner 
submitted evidence that she received the following: 
2 
On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this 
decision. Therefore , no determination has been made regarding whether the petitioner meets the remaining categories of 
evidence. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
ll 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
With regard to item 1, the petitioner submitted information about the Ministry of Construction from 
the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, but there are no assurances about the reliability of the content 
from this open, user-edited internet site.3 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 
(81h Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we will not assign weight to information for which Wikipedia is the 
source. In addition, the petitioner submitted information about the 
printed from its website, but the submitted material does not mention the petitioner's 
third prize or demonstrate its national or international recognition. Furthermore, items 2 - 9 are 
reflective of provincial recognition and items 10 - 11 are indicative of local recognition rather than 
nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted twelve certificates in the Chinese language for "11 prizes and one award" 
that she asserts were presented to her by the ' 
Commission from March 16,2000 to September 19, 2010." The certificates were not submitted with 
a certified English language translation as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). Any 
document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 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. /d. 
Despite the director's request for evidence (RFE) stating that "[a]ll non-English language documents 
must have an English translation," the petitioner failed to submit proper translations for the preceding 
twelve certificates in the Chinese language. Because the petitioner failed to submit certified translations of 
the documents, the AAO cannot determine whether the evidence supports the petitioner's claims. 
Accordingly, the evidence is not probative and will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted evidence that her company received the following: 
1. A September 2006 certificate from the 
stating that 
~ 
project for "the 
won the 
- ~ 
2. An October 2012 Certificate of Honor from the 
3 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative 
encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource 
of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. 
Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required 
to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity 
of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized 
or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on October 3, 2014, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
With regard to items 1 - 6, the petitioner submitted information about the 
. _ from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, but 
again, there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet 
site. See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d at 909. Accordingly, we will not assign 
weight to information for which Wikipedia is the source. Regardless, not every prize issued by a 
national organization is a nationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. The petitioner submitted no documentation to establish that the awards and certificates 
outlined in items 1-6 are nationally recognized as awards of excellence in her field. In addition, the 
petitioner submitted information about the · printed from its 
website, but the submitted material does not mention the petitioner's company's awards or 
demonstrate their national or international recognition. Regarding item 7, there are no circulation 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
figures for showing that 
brief mention in the publication is indicative of national or international recognition. Additionally, 
items 8 - 9 are reflective of local recognition rather than nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Furthermore, the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) requires documentation of "the alien's receipt" of nationally 
or internationally prizes or awards. Items 1- 9 were presented to 
rather than to the petitioner. 
The petitioner also submitted various professional certifications for herself and her company: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
The preceding certifications, license, qualification certificates, and credit rating certificates do not 
constitute nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of 
endeavor. In addition, items 3 - 9 were issued to rather 
than the petitioner. 
Additionally, the petitioner submitted her academic qualifications: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
1. A diploma for graduating from a 4-year program in Biology from 
(July 1984); 
2. A Certificate of Graduate Study in Municipal Engineering from 
(December 1996); 
3. A Certificate of Course Completion for taking a _ _ 
' from December 10, 2005 to November 22, 2006; 
and 
4. A 
issued by the 
for completing studies at 
(March 2008). 
Regarding items 1 
- 4, these certificates and diplomas show that the petitioner met the educational 
course requirements, but they are not "prizes or awards for excellence" in civil engineering. 
Academic study and occupational training courses do not constitute nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards in the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted Go ogle search results listing her as 
"Candidate of the _ _ _ m 
2014. While the online search results identify the petitioner as a "Candidate" for the 2014 award, 
there is no evidence showing that she received the award. Being a candidate for an award does not 
constitute receipt of that award. The nonexistence or other unavailability of required evidence 
creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). In addition, the petitioner must 
establish her eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Without evidence showing that the petitioner had received 
the "Most Beautiful Female Institute Director of Survey and Design Industry " award as of the 
petition's January 21 , 2014 filing date, we cannot consider it as evidence to establish her eligibility 
at the time of filing. Regardless, the petitioner has not established that her " 
honor is an award for excellence in her field of endeavor, civil engineering. 
The petitioner's response to the RFE included seven additional award certificates in the Chinese 
language that were not submitted with a certified English language translation as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Despite the director's RFE stating that for "[a]ll non-English 
language documents must have an English translation," the petitioner failed to submit proper 
translations for the seven additional certificates in the Chinese language. Accordingly, the untranslated 
certificates will not be accorded any weight in this proceeding. 
With respect to the prizes and awards claimed by the petitioner for this regulatory criterion, the 
petitioner did not submit documentary evidence demonstrating the national or international recognition 
of her particular awards. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) specifically 
requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or internationally recognized in the field of endeavor 
and it is her burden to establish every element of this criterion. There is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the petitioner's specific awards were recognized beyond the presenting 
organizations at a level commensurate with nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
for excellence in the field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she meets this 
regulatory criterion. 
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. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director "misunderstood and misinterpreted" her evidence. 
The petitioner submitted what she identifies as two "Books" entitled 
~ 1st Edition (2012) and _ , 2nct Edition 
(2012). The "books" are comprised of company information and promotional material for 
• The author of the books was not identified as required by the 
plain language of this regulatory criterion. In addition, the books are about 
and not the petitioner. The plain language of the regulation requires 
"published material 
about the alien." Materials that are not about the petitioner do not meet this 
regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). Furthermore, the petitioner 
did not submit evidence such as objective circulation figures showing that the books are major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted pages 244-247 from 
The author of the material was not identified as required by the plain language of this 
regulatory criterion. In addition, the material is about 
and not the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted information about 
_ from its interior cover page and printed from its website. USCIS, 
however, need not rely on self-promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, aff'd 
317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on 
the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). There is no objective 
documentary evidence showing that is a major 
trade publication or form of major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory 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 allied field of specification for which classification 'is 
sought. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. A review of the 
record of proceeding, however, does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that she meets the plain language of this criterion and the director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. Again, the AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d at 741; Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145; Dar v. INS, 
891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from 
stating: 
L L 
To [the petitioner]: 
This is to certify that in accordance with regulations in the document 
J 
r20061 No. 73), and after the examination and confirmation of the 
you were found meeting the 
requirements for the bid appraisal expert and has been employed as a bid appraisal expert of 
The preceding certificate does not include an address, a telephone number, or any other information 
through which the _ 
can be contacted. The lack of proper contact information as a means for verifying the 
information in the certificate diminishes its reliability. Regardless, the petitioner did not submit 
documentary evidence showing her actual participation as a judge. Submitting documentary evidence 
reflecting that the petitioner met the requirements for working as a bid appraisal expert without 
evidence demonstrating whose work she judged is insufficient to establish eligibility for this 
criterion. Moreover, the petitioner failed to establish that she judged the work of others in the same 
or allied field of specialization. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a January 2014 "Certificate of Job Description" from 
stating: 
This is to certify that [the petitioner] has been the Chairman, Senior Engineer and Chief 
Engineer of Water Supply and Drainage of 
China since 2000, and Chairman of our U.S. subsidiary 
since March 2013. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] has also participated on a panel or acted individually as the judge of others' 
work in civil engineering. For instance, as the top administrative and technical leader of the 
company, she is the ultimate decision maker in human resources matters involving the 
professional staff as a whole. It is her that evaluates the qualifications of candidates for civil 
engineer positions; and it is her that regularly assesses the performance of civil engineers 
already hired for promotion and pay raise. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The company official who authored the preceding document is not identified. The certificate states 
that the petitioner has "participated on a 
panel or acted individually as the judge of others' work in 
civil engineering," but merely repeating the language of the regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 civ 10729, 1997 
WL 188942 at *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y.). The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires evidence 
that the petitioner has served as "a judge of the work of others." The petitioner has not established 
that performing routine managerial duties such as hiring and assessing subordinates' job 
performance equates to participation as a judge of the work of others in the field. The phrase "a 
judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as 
specified at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read to include every informal 
instance of staff supervision or human resources management. Moreover, the assertions in the 
preceding "Job Description" do not constitute evidence of the petitioner's participation as a judge. 
In this instance, there is no documentary evidence of the petitioner's participation in a formal 
judging capacity, either on a panel or individually, as specified at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
The director stated that the submitted evidence did not show that the petitioner's contributions are 
considered to be of major significance in the field of endeavor. The plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." Here, the evidence 
must rise to the level of original contributions "of major significance in the field." The phrase 
"major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich 
Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 
619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
On appeal, the petitioner points to the evidence submitted for the awards criterion as documentation 
that she also meets this regulatory criterion. The petitioner's awards were previously addressed under 
the category of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Evidence relating to or even meeting the prizes 
and awards criterion is not presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this criterion. The 
regulatory criteria are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for 
awards and original contributions of major significance, users clearly does not view the two as 
being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least three separate criteria. 
Regardless, there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's construction projects have 
affected the field in a major way, have influenced civil engineering practices throughout the industry, or 
have otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance in the field. The 
plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner 's 
contributions be "of major significance in the field" rather than limited to the local construction 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
projects performed by her company. See Visinscaia v. Beers,--- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6571822, 
at *6 (D.D.C. Dec. 2013) (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion 
because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
In addition, the petitioner mentions that she founded a company in New York named 
_ but there is no documentary evidence showing that her work for the 
company rises to the level of original contributions of major significance in civil engineering. The 
petitioner also points to her exploration of business opportunities in the United States through her 
meetings with • (Under Secretary for International Trade at the U.S. Department of 
Commerce), Alabama), a delegation of U.S. mayors at a seminar of 
the , and with representatives of 
Perkins Eastman, PEl Partnership Architects, and Nadel Architects. Although the petitioner submitted 
photographs, e-mails, and correspondence showing that she attended meetings with the preceding 
officials and company representatives to explore future business opportunities, there is no documentary 
evidence showing any specific construction projects resulting from those meetings and that the 
petitioner's original work was of major significance to the field of civil engineering. Speculation 
about possible future impact of the petitioner's work is not evidence, and cannot establish eligibility 
for the category of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Again, eligibility must be established at the 
time of filing. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
In addition, the petitioner points to journal articles that she authored in 
and 
The regulations contain a separate criterion regarding the authorship of published 
articles. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). In Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), the 
court held that publications are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent 
evidence that they were of "major significance" in the field. In 2010, the Kazarian court reaffirmed 
its holding that the AAO did not abuse its discretion in finding that the alien had not demonstrated 
contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 1122. There is no presumption that every published 
article is a contribution of major significance; rather, the petitioner must document the actual impact 
of her article. In this instance, there is no citation evidence or other documentation showing that the 
petitioner's published findings have affected the civil engineering field at a level indicative of 
original contributions of major significance in the field. 
The petitioner also points to pages 244-247 from 
that provide an overview of and illustrations of 
its projects. Although the publication includes images of the petitioner's construction designs, there 
is no evidence showing that her work was of major significance to the field of civil engineering. 
Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually 
influential, has substantially affected the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner, however, has documented her authorship of scholarly articles in the field of civil 
engineering in rofessional journals such as 
~ As the petitioner 
has submitted qualifying evidence pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the director 's determination 
is withdrawn . Accordingly, the petitioner has established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. A review of the 
record of proceeding, however, does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that she meets the plain language of this criterion and the director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. Again, the AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d at 741; Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145; Dar v. INS, 
891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9. 
The etitioner submitted documentation that she is a director and founder of 
Although the petitioner has erformed in leading role for the 
company, there is no documentary evidence showing that 
has a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that she is the founding chairperson and the senior engineer 
of As such, the petitioner has performed in a leading or 
critical role for the company. With regard to the company's reputation, the petitioner submitted a 
"List of the 2013 Outstanding Design Institutions in China" in the "Industry Style " section of 
that identifies _ among more than 
two hundred construction and design companies. In addition, petitioner submitted multiple awards 
and certifications earned by her company, but there is no evidence of their recognition beyond the 
presenting organizations. The preceding documentation shows that 
has been honored by the and 
various other organizations, and that the company has received some media attention, but it is not 
sufficient to show that the company has achieved eminence or distinction in the Chinese construction 
industry. According! y, the petitioner has not established that 
has earned a distinguished reputation. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a September 19, 2012 letter from the ' 
. ' stating that she and another individual were "elected as 
the Deputy Presidents" of the association. The preceding letter does not include an address, a 
tele hone number, or any other information through which the ' 
_ can be contacted. The lack of proper contact information as a means for 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
verifying the information in the letter diminishes its reliability. In addition, the letter does not specify 
the petitioner's duties and responsibilities as a Deputy President. In general, a leading role is 
demonstrated by evidence of where the petitioner fits within the hierarchy of an organization or 
establishment, while a critical role is demonstrated by evidence of the petitioner's contributions to the 
organization or establishment. The petitioner did not provide an organizational chart or other similar 
evidence to establish where her role as a Deputy President fit within the overall hierarchy of the 
association. The submitted evidence fails to demonstrate that the petitioner's specific duties and 
responsibilities as Deputy President were commensurate with performing in a leading role, and does 
not establish that she contributed to the association in a way that was significant to its success or 
standing. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence showing that the 
has a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner also submitted a certificate stating that she is a "Council Member" of the 
---- -~. ------- --- -- ----- ·o • In addition, the petitioner 
submitted a document listing their criteria for membership, but there is no evidence showing that her 
role as a Council Member was leading or critical. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the . -
have a distinguished reputation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. A review of the 
record of proceeding, however, does not reflect that the petitioner submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence establishing that she meets the plain language of this criterion and the director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. Again, the AAO conducts appellate review on a de 
novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d at 741; Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d at 145; Dor v. INS, 
891 F.2d at 1002 n. 9. 
The petitioner submitted a January 2014 "Certificate of Job Description" from 
stating that "she receives an annual income of 2,756,523.28 yuan 
(RMB), which is about twice the national average in China." In addition, the petitioner submitted 
what appears to a spreadsheet listing the year as 2012, the petitioner's name, specialty, position, and 
monthly salary and bonus amounts totaling 2,756,523.28 yuan for the year. The source of the 
preceding document, however, was not identified. The petitioner failed to submit reliable 
documentary evidence (such as income tax forms) of her earnings to demonstrate her 2012 or 2013 
salary in China. 
The petitioner also submitted wage information from stating that the average monthly 
salary for "China Architecture Design & Research" employees is "12,830 yuan" per month or 
153,960 yuan annually. The petitioner's reliance on average salary data for "Architecture Design & 
Research" employees is not a proper basis for comparison. First, the petitioner must submit 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
evidence showing that she has earned a high salary or other significantly high remuneration relative to 
others in the field, not just a salary that is above average in her field. Furthermore, as the "Certificate 
of Job Description" from _ states that the petitioner is the 
company's chairperson and senior engineer, the preceding salary information for "Architecture 
Design & Research" employees does not represent an appropriate basis for comparison in 
demonstrating that her salary was high in relation to others in the field. The petitioner did not submit 
any documentary evidence comparing her salary to that of other construction company owners or 
senior engineering professionals with similar job responsibilities. 
The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that she has earned a "high 
salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing similar work 
during the same time period. See Skokos v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 
(9th Cir. 2011) (finding average salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a 
comparison to others in the field); see also Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) 
(comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen); Crimson v. INS, 
934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional 
golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers). The petitioner, however, offers no reliable basis for 
comparison showing that she has received a high salary or significantly high remuneration relative to 
others in her field who perform similar work. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence, a final merits determination is unnecessary. However, because the director found that the 
petitioner had met at least three categories of evidence, we will conduct a final merits determination that 
considers whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that his 
or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Although the director determined that the petitioner had met the categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (viii), and (ix), he concluded that the submitted documentation failed to demonstrate 
the petitioner's sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
With regard to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(iv), the 
petitioner has not established that her employment "as a bid appraisal expert of Liaoning Province" 
involved her participation as a judge of the work of others in the same or allied field of 
specialization. Furthermore, there is no evidence demonstrating that conducting bid appraisals for 
the "Office for Comprehensive Management of Bid A praisal Experts of Liaoning Province" and 
performing human resources functions for _ were 
indicative of national acclaim in the civil engineering field. The submitted documentation does not 
establish that the petitioner's level of judging was commensurate with sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of the field. 
Regarding the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(vi), the petitioner has documented her 
authorship of various journal articles and, therefore, we determined that she has met the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. The petitioner, however, has not established that her 
publication record is indicative of sustained national or international acclaim at the very top of the 
civil engineering field. The petitioner's citation history is a relevant consideration as to whether the 
evidence is indicative of the petitioner's recognition beyond her own circle of collaborators. See 
Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Without documentation differentiating the petitioner's articles from those 
of other civil engineering researchers (such as citation evidence showing that her articles are widely 
cited by others in field), the petitioner has not demonstrated that her published work has attracted a 
level of interest in the field commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim at the 
very top of the field. 
In regard to the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(viii), as previously discussed, the 
petitioner has not established that she has performed in a leading or critical role for distinguished 
organizations or establishments. Moreover, although the petitioner incorporated 
in New York in March 2013, there is no documentary evidence 
showing that the petitioner has garnered any sustained national or international acclaim in the United 
States based on her leadership role and· the reputation of that company. The petitioner has not 
established that her company roles, association position, and council membership were indicative of 
or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level of expertise indicating that she is one of that 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of her field. 
With respect to the documentation submitted for the category of evidence at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the petitioner has not submitted reliable evidence of her earnings or established 
that she has earned a high salary in relation to others in the field performing similar work. The 
petitioner has not demonstrated that her salary places her among that small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See Skokos v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x at 
713-14; see also Muni v. INS , 891 F. Supp. at 444-45; Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. at 968; Matter 
of Price, 20 I&N Dec. at 954. The submitted salary evidence is not commensurate with sustained 
national or international acclaim. 
Regarding the remaining categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), and (v), the 
deficiencies in the documentation submitted for those categories have already been addressed. The 
petitioner has not established that she meets the plain language requirements of those categories, or 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
that the evidence she submitted is indicative of, or consistent with, sustained national acclaim or a 
level of expertise indicating that she is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of 
the field. Although the petitioner claims various prizes and awards, she has not submitted evidence 
showing that the honors she received are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field of civil engineering. Furthermore, the published material she submitted 
did not identify the author, was not about the petitioner, and was not shown to have been in major 
trade publications or other major media. Lastly, with respect to the petitioner's claimed 
contributions , there is no documentary evidence showing that they were of major significance in the 
field of civil engineering. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. The petitioner need not demonstrate 
that there is no one more accomplished than herself to qualify for the classification sought; however, the 
petitioner has not established that her achievements at the time of filing were commensurate with 
sustained national or international acclaim as a civil engineer and business owner, or being among that 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The submitted evidence is not indicative of 
a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 
(Sept. 19, 1990). 
III. Conclusion 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must demonstrate that the 
individual has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself to 
such an extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim and 
to be within the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in her field at a national or 
international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
In visa petition proceedings , it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.