dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-W-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 30, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an educator, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A). This first 
preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had shown that he only met one of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and contends that he meets three criteria. 
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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
Matter of L-W-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is a major, 
internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she must provide documentation that meets at 
least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such 
as awards, memberships, and published material in certain media). 
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); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both individually and 
within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is an educator. As he has not received a major, internationally recognized award, the 
record must demonstrate that he satisfies at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that the Petitioner met the criteria for published 
material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) but not for judging, scholarly articles, or leading or critical 
role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), (vi), and (viii), respectively. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains 
that he meets these criteria. Upon reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner 
has not established that he satisfies at least three criteria. 1 
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 classtfication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessmy translation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Director held that the Petitioner met this criterion. We disagree. In response to the Director's 
request for evidence, the Petitioner asserted that the published material about him in the New York 
Daily News, the New York Post,2 and the Sing Tao Daily newspapers established his eligibility under 
this criterion. 
1 Despite noting that the Petitioner intends to work as an educator, the Director held that he has not established in what 
profession he intends to work. We hereby withdraw that portion of the Director's decision. 
2 The record reflects that the material contained in the New York Post was published in Queens Weekly, a weekly regional 
insert. 
2 
Matter of L-W-
First, the material in the New York Daily News and the New York Post have the appearance of being 
newspaper articles, but they are actually advertisements promoting the Petitioner's 
services. 3 Marketing materials created for the purpose of promoting an individual's services are not 
generally considered to be pub I ished material about the Petitioner. 4 Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that the material published in the New York Daily News and the New York Post satisfy this 
criterion. 
Second, the record contains a partial translation of an article published in the Sing Tao Daily 
newspaper inl 12016, but this does not meet the regulatory requirements for translations. Any 
document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation in which 
the translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the 
translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) 
(emphasis added). A comparison of this translation to the original newspaper article reflects that it is 
an incomplete translation as shown by the fact that the terms SAT and ACT, as stated in English in 
the original, appear more frequently than in the translation, and the length of the translation is much 
shorter than the original article. Accordingly, the record does not contain a full translation of this 
article from the Sing Tao Daily newspaper, and we cannot meaningfully consider it.5 
Finally, we note that the record contains an article published in the Flushing Times about the Petitioner 
and his work in~---------------~ While this article is about him and 
relates to his work in the field, he has not shown that this constitutes published material in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. For example, he has not established who the intended 
audience is or provided evidence indicating that the circulation of this newspaper is high in relation to 
other pub I ications. 6 Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown that this evidence, or the material 
discussed above, establishes that he meets this 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. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Director held that the Petitioner had not met this criterion, concluding that his role as a judge in 
2011 was an inherent duty of his occupation and that he had not established that his judging experience 
was consistent with sustained national or international acclaim. As an initial matter, we note that the 
Director erred by requiring the Petitioner to demonstrate that his judging was consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim. The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) contains no such 
requirement to establish eligibility; rather, the analysis of sustained national or international acclaim 
is more relevant in the final merits determination that occurs if the Petitioner establishes that he meets 
at least three of the evidentiary criteria. See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
3 The record reflects that the advertisement published in the I I, 2016, edition of the New York Daily News states 
that it is a work by , a self-described media solutions studio that provides digital marketing and 
branding. See https://www~~--~··com/about-us (accessed May 30, 2019). 
4 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/sites/defau lt/fi I es/USC I S/Laws/Memoranda/i-140-evidence-pm-6002-005-1. pdf. 
5 The record contains other articles in Chinese, but these do not contain translations and cannot be considered. 
6 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 7. 
3 
Matter of L-W-
Here, we find that the Petitioner has established that he meets the requirements of this criterion. The 
Petitioner submitted evidence regarding his work as a judge for the 
I l including a letter froml I the director._o_f_p_r_o_fe_s_s-io_n_a_l_q_u_al_i_fi-ca-t-io_n_s_1__.·n 
the authentication deQartment of th I I discusses the Petitioner's service as a judge of 
the applicants for the~-----------=------.,.----;:::::===~--- and the record 
contains a copy of this license issued to successful applicants. I I states that the Petitioner 
judged the I I applicants on their fluency in speaking English, their ability to teach 
communication skills to children, their understanding of the Cambridge English for Children teaching 
material, and their ability to motivate children. This sufficiently demonstrates that the Petitioner has 
judged the work of others in his field. Therefore, the Petitioner has established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Director held that the Petitioner had not established that he met this criterion, noting that he had 
not provided English translation certificates of the books he submitted that are written in Chinese. The 
Petitioner has submitted a translation of the cover of these books and the copyright page for several of 
them, but these do not constitute proper certifications to meet the regulatory requirements. Any 
document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a foll English language translation in which 
the translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the 
translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The Petitioner states that half of these books are in Chinese, which is the author's interpretation of the 
English test questions, and he claims that this should be sufficient. However, without a properly 
certified English language translation of this documentation we cannot meaningfully determine 
whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports his claims. The Petitioner states that he 
did attach English translations of the chapters, but we cannot determine which chapters he references. 
The Petitioner states that he meets this requirement based on one of his articles published in the New 
York Daily News and another article published in the World Journal. We note that the New York Daily 
News article, datedl ,12017, is contained within one of the advertisements for the Petitioner's 
test re aration materials, as discussed above;..:. __ T.:..::h.:.e..:h:.:e:..:a:..:d=in~g~st::a=te:.:s:2..,-================. 
";=,====--=--..lcli..L.LJ..L.a.....:u.u..!..1..1.1..aul..U.l.:..,Stating, '.__ ____________________ __. 
In the introduction to the Petitioner's discussion about his "view 
on distinctions between Chinese and American means of education," he states that this article is from 
his thesis entitled, ' 
~-------~It is unclear whether this represents his entire thesis. The Petitioner has not 
submitted a copy of his thesis, nor has he claimed it appeared elsewhere in a qualifying publication. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) requires evidence of a petitioner's authorship of scholarly 
articles that are published in professional or major trade publications or other major media, and we 
interpret this to mean that the entire article must be published in such publications. Thus, the Petitioner 
has not established that the excerpt of his thesis meets the requirements of this criterion. Furthermore, 
he has not shown that the material contained within the advertisement is sufficient to meet the 
requirements of this criterion. We note that in the academic arena, scholarly articles report on original 
4 
Matter of L-W-
research, experimentation, or philosophical discourse, and generally have footnotes, endnotes, or a 
bibliography, aspects which are lacking in the New York Daily News material.7 The Petitioner has not 
established how this material meets these characteristics to constitute scholarly articles. Therefore, he 
has not established that this material in the New York Daily News meets the requirements of this 
criterion. 
The Petitioner has not submitted a complete translation of the article published in the World Journal, 
as required by the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) (stating that any document in a foreign 
language must be accompanied by a full English language translation). However, even if this 
translation issue were resolved, we note that this article lacks the indicia of a scholarly article, as it 
appears to provide guidance to students preparing for the SAT examination. 8 Here, the Petitioner has 
not established that the World Journal article can be categorized as scholarly in keeping with the 
regulation. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, he has not established that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
For a leading role, the evidence must establish that the petitioner is or was a leader. 9 If a critical role, 
the evidence must establish that the petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance 
to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. A supporting role may be considered 
"critical" if the petitioner's performance in the role is or was important in that way. It is not the title 
of the petitioner's role, but rather his or her performance in the role that determines whether the role 
is or was critical. 10 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that he meets this criterion due to his role as principal of the D 
::=============: which the record refle;....:c..:..:ts:........:..=is--=w:........:..=ith..:..:i.;..:.n--=t.;_:_he.:.....~---------~ 
I and as founder of the I I The record contains a letter 
.... fr_o_m_,,1 ________ 1,.........the founder and president of thel I attesting to the Petitioner's 
tenure with this organization from 1998 to 2007. Specifically.I lstates that the Petitioner served 
as a key note instructor giving lectures in school auditoriums at "the I t from 1998 
to 2002. I I adds that the Petitioner was later promoted to the position of principal for the D 
I I where he served from 2005 to 2007. 
While the Petitioner has established that his roles as principal of the 
and as the founder of thel I constitute leading roles .... ,~th_e_r_e-co-r~d-d~o-es-no_t_d~e_m_o_n-st-ra_t_.e 
that these schools have a distinguished rel)utation, which is "marked by eminence, distinction, or 
excellence."11 While I I states that thel I was "the first Chinese educational institution to 
enter thcl lin the United States," he has not explained how the listing of the 
parent company relates to the reputation of the school at which the Petitioner worked. Furthermore, 
7 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
8 Id. 
9 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
io Id. 
11 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10-11. 
5 
Matter of L-W-
the Petitioner has not submitted other evidence demonstrating that the .... I _______ ___,lhas a 
distinguished reputation. 
Regarding the reputation ofthel I the Petitioner states that its achievements have been 
"frequently featured in media," but he has not identified what coverage he is referring to. The record 
contains a copy of an article displaying a photograph of school children at www.kaobitong.com, but 
this is in a foreign language and not accompanied by a certified translation, as required. 12 We note 
that the record contains the results of a 2012 I I Math Competition I I 
indicating that a team from the I I competed in this event, but the record does not reflect 
that this is indicative of the school's eminence, distinction, or excellence. 13 Thel I website 
provides the results from the competition and lists a team from the I I as ranked sixth 
in the Division B results, but the Petitioner has not shown how this team's performances are an 
indication of the school's distinguished reputation. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, the 
Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner is not eligible because he has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a 
qualifying one-time achievement, or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Thus, we do not need to folly address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. 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 finding that the Petitioner 
has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. 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 
Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-W-, ID# 2688833 (AAO May 30, 2019) 
12 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation in which the translator 
must ce1tify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
13 USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10-11. 
6