dismissed EB-1A Case: E-Commerce

(b)(6)
Date: NOV 2 5 2013 
INRE : 
APPLICATION: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u:s. Dep~artment of HoJilelalld Security 
U$. Citizenship and Immigra tion Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Mas5achU:Setts Ave., N.W ., MS 2090 
WaShington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S~ Citizenshlp 
and IlllDligration . 
Services 
FILE: 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Wor~er 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 
lNSTRUCfiONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of tbe Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new con.stru.ctiorts 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 (Fon;il 1-4901~) 
Within 33 days of the date of this decision. P•el(se review the Form 1-2908 instructions at 
http:ljwww.uscis.gov/forms for the la,test information oil fee, filing lo.cation, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Th(!.nk you, 
~~ 
Ron Rosenberg . 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. .The appeal will be 
dismissed. ' · 
The petitiop.er .seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability'' in business as an e-commerce 
entrepreneur, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration a.nd Nation.a.lity Act (the A~t), 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained 
national or imerni:i,tional acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary 
i:ibility. 
Congress set a very lligh 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)(l)(A)(i) of the A.~t and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regtilation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(hX3) states that an alien can 
estabJi.sb. susti:i,ined national or international acclaim through evidence Of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of ~ucll. .an i:i,Wi:lfd; the regulation. Otttlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qui:llifying evidence under at leaSt three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, tb.e petitioner ass.erts that he submitted sufficient qualifying evidence to meet multiple 
regulatory criteria and iS eligible as an alien of extraordinary ability. Specifically, the petitioner ~sertl; 
that the director erred in denying the criteri& for lesser national and international awards, for 
contributions of m.ajor significance in the field, and for performing a leading or critical role for 
org&nizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
I. lAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. --Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified irtunigtatits who are 
aliens described in any of the folloWing subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability.-- An alien is des~ribed in this subparagraph if'"-
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustai11ed ni:i,tional 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 
extr&ordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantiaily benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
U.S. Citizenship a.nd lntmigrl;ltion Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS) have consist~ntly recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for lm:lividuals 
seeking inimigtant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R,7Z3 10151 Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The tetm "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.F.R § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulatioo a~ S C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requites that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
·acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the fjeld. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a on~-:time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through tbe ·submission of qualifying evidenCe under at least three of the ·ten categones of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.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. V.SCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir, 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deo.y the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the oourt concluded that while USCIS may have @sed legi(iroate COI!cefl_l_S 
about the significance of the 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 the AAO's evaluatio11 rested on ~ 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 the AAQ did)," and ifth¢ petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded).'' fd. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3j). . 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two.:p·art approach where the evidence is first counted aild theri considered 
in the context of ·"- final merits detetmiiJ.atioil. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain l~guage requirementS of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at .least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. /d. · 
II. ANALYSIS . 
A. Translation 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 103.2(b)(3) states: "Any document containing foreign language 
submitted to USClS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which t_b(! tr~n._sll;ltor 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally iinposed novel stlbstantive or evidentiary 
reqt~irements beyond those set forth in the·· regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iv) and ·8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
--, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
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." 
Virtua1ly all of the documents .that the petitioner sublllitted as evidence into the record required a 
translation and needed to comply with the requirements at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3). While iiot 
~ddressed by the director iii his decision, the petitioner submitted translations that do not comport 
with the regulation. Instead, translations ~re accompanied by a single bl.an.ket certifi~tion tb~t do~s 
not identify the tr~n.sl~Hons it purports to certify. Because these translations do not comply with 8 
C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3); they have no probative value and 
the petitioner cannot establish the evidentiary 
requirements as required by the criteria outlined in 8 C.P.R. § 404._S(h)(3)(i)-(x) based on th~ 
submitted documeri.ts. Even if the transl~tions satisfied the regulation, however, the director 
correctly determined that the petitioner .in this instance cannot establish his eligibility pursuant to 
203(b)(l )(A) of the Act. 
B. Evidentiary Criteri~
2 
Documentgtion of the alien's receipt of less~r nationally ot internationally recognized ptites ot 
awardsfot excellence .in the field of eiuleavor. 8 C.P.R. § 2045(h)(3)(i). 
The director deterroi,ned that none of the awards that the petitioner submitted met .the requirements of 
th_is criterion. In the denial decision, the director concluded that the petitioner did not submit evidente 
of national recognition for each of the submitted awards. On appeal, the petitioner merely observes th~t 
he previously submitted det~led evidence in response to the director's Request for Evidence (RFE) and 
provided information about previous WiliilefS. hi the deiiial, the director fully considered the evidence 
of record, iildudiiig the information on previous winners. A passing reference without substantive 
arguments is insufficient to raise that ground o.n appe~l. Desravirtes v. U.S, Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. 
433, 435 (llth Cir. 2009). Furthermore, while the petitioner submitted evidence that various national 
trade groups and industry groups conferred certificates and honors upon him, the issue is whether the 
awards or prizes themselves ~:re nationally or imemationally recognized as awards or prizes for 
excellence in tbe field. The submitted information does not establish that the petitioner received lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized priies of awards as contemplated by the regulations at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). See Rijal v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service._ , 772 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1345 
(W.D.Wash. Feb. 22, 2011) (finding th!lt Congress entrusted the administrative process to determi~e 
what is an award), ajf'c/, 683 E3d 1030 (9th Cit. 2012). 
Accordjngly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
2 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON~PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
so4ght, whiCh requite outstanding achievements of their member$, as judged by recognized national 
ot international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The petitioner previously submitted evidence under this criterion. The director's decision COilcJuded 
that the petitioner did not meet this criterion apd the petitioner does not. identify any factual or legal 
error relating to tb.is criterion. on appeal. Consequently, the petitioner abandoned this claim. See 
Sepl!lveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005), citing United Sta.tes v. 
Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); .flristov v. Roark, No. 09~V~27312011, 2011 
WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.P.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs claims were abandoned as he failed to 
ra,ise them on appeal to the AAO). 
Published material about the alien in professional ot majot ttade publications or other major media, 
relqting to the alien's work i'fl the field Jot which classification is sought. Such evidence shall 
include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 8 C.ER. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iH). 
The director concluded that the petitioner established this criterio11. As an injtialm~tter, as noted above, 
the evidence submitted u.tuler this regulatory criterion does not · comport with the certification 
requirements for translated documents and cannot satisfy the regulatory requirements for the translation 
problems. Moreover, even if the submitted documents met tbe trcms.lation requirements, tbe submitted 
documentation on states that it is an online media company. A large, oilliile media company 
or conglomerate often is comprised of multiple publications and · not every individual publication 
backed by the media company would qualify as a major trade publi~tion or other major medi.a. In tbis 
instance, the petitioner has not· identified the specific publication with which the article on is 
assocj:ated cmd therefore cannot establish that the article meets the regulatory requirements of 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Similarly, while the petitioner submits background information on circulatio11. and 
readership for the s11bwitted documentation provides limited information and is 
insufficient to e~t.~blish that is either a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media. The petitioner submitted information from the webshe · which 
indicated that _ has a circulation figure of 100,000 and a11 audience of policy makers 
and senior managers in government departments, and experts and scholar~ in edu.cation and research 
institutions. The petitioner, however, submitted no information about this website such that the 
information about on this Website is probative evidence. Moreover, the tnmslator 
who translated this website did not individually certify this trM$la.ti<m or identify it on tbe blaQket 
certification. . 
Accordi,ngly, the petitioner has not satisfied the regulatory requiremen.ts and the AAO withdraws the 
director's finding with regard to this criterion. 
Evkjencf . of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, qrfis(ie, athletic, or business ... related 
contributions of major significance in th~ field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The director determined that the evidence of record is illsufficient to meet this criterion. On appeal, the 
petitioner asserts that Chinese media credit him with an active and leading role in the revolution of the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page6 
business model in China and that reflects he established the country's first and largest e-commerce 
portal for small and medium enterprises for domestic trading purposes. As stated above, however, the 
petitioner did not submit individually 
certified translation of the published material and did not establish 
the significance of the media outlets that reported on his company's websites. 
The record cdso includes letters of support from the following individuals attesting to the petitioner'~ 
contributions in the field: Chief Chinese Represent~tive of the 
the Secretary-General of the 
and the Director of the Office of 
and Vice President of 
All of the submitted letters reflect the same translation deficiencies as the other documents of rec6rd. 
Rega,rding the content of the letters, they generally attest that the petitioner's company, 
was the first e-con.:u:nerce portal to serve small and medium 
enterprises and bas been a successful endeavor. 
The director, however, concluded that because the teclu~ology and the business model for creating e.,. 
commerce already existed prior to the development of the petitioner's company, the 
is hot an original contribution. the director further concluded that 
the petitioner had not demonstrated the impact of his business modeL On appeal; the petitioner asserts 
that while the concept of e-commerce is not original, the application varies from country to country. 
Goi.l!g on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter ofTreaswe Craft of California, 14 I&NDec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). The petitioner did not 
submit any documentation demonstrating how his e-commerce business in China was original. 
Furthermore, even assuming that the is an 
original contribution that Satisfies the plain language requirements 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(hX3)(v), the 
petitioner still cannot satisfy all the requirements of this criterion because 
is a single contribution. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R.. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence of"contributions'' in the plural, which is consistent with the statutory 
tequitemeiit for extensive evidence. SeCtion 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. Signjfic~tly, not a11 of the 
criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204 . .5(h)(3) use the pluraL Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.P.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When 
a regulatory criterion wishes to include the Singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it 
states at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." 
Thus, the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In ~ different context, federal courts 
have upheld USC IS' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a 
regtJ.lation. 3 
Thus, the petitioner h~s not established eligibility under 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
3 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnqmes.com 
,~ Inc.. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a;' foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(1)(2) 
requ~r~s a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page7 
£vidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional at major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Th~ di_rector determined in his decision that the petitioner I11et this regulatory criterion. Had the 
petitioner Submitted translations that complied with 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3), the record would support 
the director's determination. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical tole Jot organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vili). 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to s_atisfy the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. Specifically, the director determined that the petitioner had not established that his role as the 
founder and CEO of the is a leading or 
critical role, and that evidence of record does not indicate the company haS a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the petition~r reasserts that h~ founded (1) the number one e-commerce portal for China's 
SIIlall 3Jld mediurh companies to do domestic trade, (2) China's trrst organic products sales platform 
named the and (3) the largest rural social networking website in China. 
At the outset, there is only a single article in the record that mentions the other companies that utiliZe 
the petitioner's portal. Due to the blanket certification that does not identify the translations it is 
certifying, tbe tr1llJ.slation of the article lacks probative value. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 
The role of a founding CEO i_s a leading or critical one within the organiZational structure of a 
corporation ~d the AAO withdraws the dire.ctor's conclusions in this regard. Nonetheless, in light 
of the translation . deficiency, and the fact that there is no probative evidence in the record attesting to 
the distinguished reputation of the the 
record does sup ort the finding that the petitioner met this criterion. Finally, 
is a single organization or establishment The plain 
,language of the regulation requires evidence that the petitioner perfortned in a qualifying role for 
organizations or establishments in the plural, consistent with the Statutory requirement for extenSive 
documentation. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 
Therefore, the petitioner does not meet the plain hmguage requirements of8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). · 
Evidence that the alien haS comnti.utded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration fot 
services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The petitioner initially submitted a salary certification and articles along with his petition in su,pport of 
this criterion. The director denied the petitioner's claim regarding this criterion and the petitioner does 
n.ot raise this issue on appeal. Thus, tbe petitioner abandoned this claim. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3q 
1226 at 1228; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENt DECISION 
Page 8 
C. Summary 
The petitioner has not submitted sufficient relevant, probative evidence to satisfy the regUlatory 
requirement of ~wee types of evidence. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability 111ust clearly demoostrate 
that the alien· has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who ]Jas risen to the very top of the field ofendeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least thtee evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a fmal merits determination that 
eonsidets all of the evidence in the context ofwh~ther or not tb.e petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating thi:l.t the indiyidlla.l is one of that small percentage Who have risen to the 
very top of the[it] field of endeavor" and (2) ''that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim arid that his or her achievements have been recogni~d in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see czls.o KaZilrian, 596 F3d at 1119 .. 20. While the AAO concludes that the 
· evideoce is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, tbe AAO need 110t e~plai.p, thi:l.t concl\lsion in a 
final merits determin~tion.
4 
Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
reg\l}atory requirement of thte.e types of evidenee. /d. at 1122. The petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and (he petition may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the deGision. . .lp, visa. ~titi_on 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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden bas not been met. 
ORDER: The <!.ppeal is dismissed. 
4 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, vis 
(3d Cir. 2004), I.n . any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits 
detetrtrination as the office that made the last decision in this ~tter. 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(1)(ii). See als.o section 
103(a)(1) of the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 
8 
C.F.R. § 2.1 .(2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aure_lio, 19 1:--&~N-: Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 
1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jufi:sdiction to decide visa 
petitions).