dismissed EB-1A Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-C-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 25, 2019 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a financier, 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 Texas Service Center approved the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. However, 
the Director of the Texas Service Center subsequently issued two notices of intent to revoke and 
ultimately revoked the approval of the immigrant petition, finding that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) had approved the petition in error. Specifically, the Director 
determined that the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which require documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least 
three of the 10 regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner filed a joint motion 
to reopen and reconsider, and the Director upheld his prior decision revoking the approval of the 
petition. 
The matter is now before us 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, 
Matter of W-C-
(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 
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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
With respect to revocations, the Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems 
to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition .... " Section 205 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1155. By regulation, this revocation authority is delegated to any USCIS officer who is 
authorized to approve an immigrant visa petition. 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(a). USCIS must give the petitioner 
notice of its intent to revoke the prior approval of the petition and the opportunity to submit evidence 
in opposition thereto before proceeding with written notice of revocation. See 8 C.F .R. § 205 .2(b )-( c ). 
The Board of Immigration Appeals has discussed revocations on notice as follows: 
[A] notice of intention to revoke a visa petition is properly issued for "good and 
sufficient cause" where the evidence of record at the time the notice is issued, if 
unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial of the visa petition based upon the 
petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof The decision to revoke will be sustained 
where the evidence of record at the time the decision is rendered, including any 
evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention 
to revoke, would warrant such denial. 1 
1 Matter of Ho, 19 l&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter of Estime, 19 l&N Dec. 450 (BIA 1987). 
2 
Matter of W-C-
By itself: the Director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient cause 
for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa petition vests 
no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step in 
the visa application process. Id, at 589. A beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, entitled 
to an immigrant visa. Id, 
II. ANALYSIS 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Following receipt of the Petitioner's responses to two notices of intent to revoke 
(NOIR), the Director revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the Petitioner only met one 
of the initial evidentiary criteria for leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 2 On appeal, 
the Petitioner maintains that he meets the criteria for awards, membership, judging, original 
contributions of major significance, and scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iv), (v), 
and (vi), respectively. 3 Upon reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner 
has not established that he satisfies at least three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
In the notice of revocation, the Director held that the Petitioner had not established that his placement 
in the First National Firm Offerl I Contest met the requirements of this criterion. The 
Director also held that the Petitioner had not resolved the discrepancies in the record regarding the 
name of this competition, the dates it took place, and the nickname that he used in competing. The 
Director further noted that the record did not contain properly certified translations in the record under 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). On appeal, the Petitioner provides additional certified translations and asserts 
that the evidence in the record meets this criterion for his fifth place finish in this competition. 
Regarding the discrepancies noted above, we find that the Petitioner has resolved the issues regarding 
the name of the competition and the nickname he used while participating in it, but he has not resolved 
the discrepancies regarding the dates of this competition as contained in the supporting documentation 
of this event. Specifically, the record contains a "Certificate of Award" from the First National Firm 
Offer I I Organizing Committee and a letter froml I the president of this 
committee, indicating that this competition took place in 2011. Yet, the record contains additional 
supporting documentation stating that this competition took place in 2012. In a statement from the 
Petitioner, he contends that the competition took place in 2011 but that his assistant transcribed the 
2 The first NOTR referenced discrepancies in the record regarding the amount of income the Petitioner earned per year, his 
educational credentials, and whether the business that had petitioned for him to receive an 0-1 visa was actively conducting 
business. The second NOTR focused on whether the Petitioner met at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
3 On appeal, the Petitioner has not addressed the following criteria that he had previously claimed to meet: published 
material, display, high salary, and commercial successes in the performing arts at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (vii), (ix), 
and (x). 
3 
Matter of W-C-
documents for the translators and mistakenly transcribed "2012" when it should have been "2011." 
However, we note that several of the original documents in Chinese contained the number 2012 in the 
sections corresponding with the translations, demonstrating that this is not an error in transcription. 
For example, the record contains another letter from I O ldated February 2012, indicating 
that this competition occurred from April through July 2012, and those dates appear in the original 
document. The Director notified the Petitioner of the discrepancies regarding the dates of this 
competition in the second notice of intent to revoke and in the notice of revocation, but the Petitioner 
did not discuss these issues on appeal. The Petitioner must resolve these inconsistencies in the record 
with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 
591-92. 
In addition, evidence submitted on appeal introduces new inconsistencies regarding the award the 
Petitioner claims to have won. He originally submitted a "Certificate of Award" stating that he had 
"the honor to win the honorable mention of 'China Ten Outstanding! I Talent."' A subsequent 
translation of this same document submitted on appeal states, "[t]his is to certify that [the Petitioner 
has been] awarded as 'China's Top 10 Outstandin~ !Talent' Award." While the record contains 
a letter congratulating the Petitioner for having won fifth place in the competition, it lacks evidence 
demonstrating which translation is accurate and resolving the inconsistency of whether he won an 
award or was honorably mentioned. The Petitioner must resolve this inconsistency with independent, 
objective evidence to establish what award, if any, he received. Id. 
Even if the Petitioner had established that he received a fifth place award in this .... I _____ _. 
competition, he must establish that his ranking in this competition represents a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. The Petitioner states that the two 
screenshots of a CCTV-2 (China Central Television) video contain press coverage of this event, but 
the record does not contain a transcript of the video. The Director noted the lack of a transcript in his 
decision dismissing the joint motions, but the Petitioner did not resolve this on appeal. Therefore, 
without evidence showing the national or international recognition of the award, if any, the Petitioner 
received, he has not established that he meets this criterion. 4 
Documentation of the alien 's membership in associations in the field for which class[fication 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
In the notice of revocation, the Director held that the Petitioner had not met this criterion for his 
position as the deputy director for the I , I and as 
senior financial advisor for the I I noting that the Petitioner had not 
submitted the by-laws for either organization to demonstrate that membership in these organizations 
was based on outstanding achievements. In addition, the Director noted that employment for an 
4 The Petitioner argues that his placement in the First National I I Competition should be considered as 
comparable evidence of the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), which requires nationally or internationally 
recognized awards. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not 
readily apply to his occupation. As the Petitioner asserts in his brief that he meets this criterion, he has not shown how 
this criterion does not apply to his occupation. 
4 
Matter of W-C-
organization does not satisfy this criterion since one may be hired by an employer without necessarily 
having had outstanding achievements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner only raises the issue of his position with the I I He highlights a letter 
fro~ I, the President of the I I stating that the enrollment standard for individual 
members to join the organization includes that the applicant has made "great contribution" to the 
"health and sanitation domain in their host country," and by "being outstanding as talents" or having 
"special contributions on different fields." 
We note that the Petitioner has not addressed the concern noted by the Director regarding the 
difference between admission as a member of the organization and employment by it. The record 
does not demonstrate that he meets the admission requirements identified by I l as the 
Petitioner does not identify what great or special contributions he made or what outstanding talents he 
possesses that would form the basis for his admission. Nor has he demonstrated that the organization's 
admission criteria, as explained byl I amount to outstanding achievements as required by the 
regulation. Furthermore, he has not submitted evidence establishing that the individuals selecting him 
for this position are national or international experts in the field. 
Additionally, though not addressed by the Director, we find that the Petitioner has not established that 
thel !satisfies the regulation's requirement that the organization be in the field for which the 
classification is sought. The evidence in the record does not demonstrate tha~ I, a health and 
sanitation organization, is an association within the Petitioner's field. Therefore, he has not eligibility 
under 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 spec[fication for which class[fication is 
sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
The Petitioner claims to meet this criterion as a judge in the First National 
Competition, the same event discussed in the awards criterion above. The record contains a 
documentation about the Petitioner's role as a judge in this competition, stating that his responsibilities 
included "commenting [sic] players, analyzing their styles and giving them some professional advises 
[sic]." 
Due to the discrepancies in the record discussed above, the record does not establish when this event 
took place and what role the Petitioner filled. The record contains a Letter of Appointment inviting 
the Petitioner to judge the First National Firm Offerl I Contest from April through July 
2012. It also contains a letter dated February 2012 from the Petitioner accepting the offer to serve as 
a judge for this contest, stating that this is the first contest they will have after more than ten years of 
business. This conflicts with the other evidence submitted, such as the award certificate and one of 
the screenshots of the CCTV-2 documentation which indicate that the competition occurred in 2011, 
and the Petitioner's own statement indicating that this competition occurs every four years. The 
Petitioner has not submitted evidence to overcome the discrepancies in the record regarding this event, 
and thus has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he has actually participated in 
judging the works of others. Therefore, he has not established that he meets this criterion. 
5 
Matter of W-C-
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
This regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the Petitioner must satisfy. He 
must demonstrate that his contributions are original and scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related in nature. The contributions must have already been realized, rather than being 
prospective possibilities. He must also establish that the contributions rise to the level of major 
significance in the field as a whole, rather than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major 
significance" is not superfluous and thus has meaning. See Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor 
Fund, L.P., 51 F.3d 28, 31 (3d Cir. 1995), quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 
2003). 
The Director held that the Petitioner had not met this criterion, concluding that the evidence in the 
record did not establish that his contributions significantly impacted the field to establish that they are 
of major significance in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner states that his "contributions as a leading 
financier of the 0Project have had and will continue to have an incalculable impact on the people 
of China." He states that he has committed to raising 2 billion Chinese yuan (CNY) for this building 
project and "will be a key financier in the construction of al lin the southern region of 
China." 
We note that the Petitioner's claims represent a prospective endeavor, both regarding his actions and 
their impact, while this criterion requires original contributions of major significance that have already 
taken place. Furthermore, the record does not contain evidence demonstrating to what extent he has 
raised fonding for this project or how securing such fonding equates to original contributions of ma·or 
significance in the field. The Petitioner has submitted photographs of a si nin ceremon for the 
D Project, which his project financing model document states relates to the~---------~ 
project, but he has not explained the significance of this agreement in his field. He has also submitted 
three de ictions of buildin s under the title1 I Project Design Sketch," including the II 
......... -------..----------' Building, the C I University, and th~ 
~---~Park. However, the record does not demonstrate that these buildings have been built, 
identify the Petitioner's contribution, or explain how these structures represents original contribution 
that have significantly impacted the field. See Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036; aftd in part, 596 F.3d at 
1115 (holding that the petitioner had not established how his contributions had influenced the field to 
equate to contributions of major significance). 
The Petitioner also references his contributions as a financier of other infrastructure projects that he 
asserts are of major significance to Chinese people who will benefit from these developments. For 
example, he states on appeal that "[his] core group of pioneering infrastructure projects also includes 
affordable retirement living for tens of thousands of China's aging population in China's I I city 
and a truly amazing and expansive new public park dedicated to China's 5000 years of cultural 
history." The Petitioner asserts that he developed a project financing model that he utilized in 
financing certain of these infrastructure projects. While the record contains a statement from the 
Petitioner in which he describes his financing model, he has not submitted evidence demonstrating 
6 
Matter of W-C-
how this financing model has influenced others in the field to establish that it is a contribution of major 
significance. The term "contributions of major significance" connotes that the Petitioner's work has 
significantly impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134. 
The Petitioner also claims that he is "widely recognized by financial ex erts m China for 
revolutionizing the field of finance through his original pioneerin theor ." 
He cites his a er ublished in Futures Dail: entitled, ' 
The Petitioner has not 
presented evidence showing how influential this has been in the field through citations to this work or 
other similar evidence to establish that others in the field have utilized or recognized the importance 
of his.__ ________ __, theory. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not 
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). 
A scholarly article in the academic arena "reports on original research, experimentation, or 
philosophical discourse" and "should have footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography." 5 For other fields, 
a scholarly article should be written for learned persons in the field, which means individuals "having 
or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship." 6 The record contains three articles authored 
by the Petitioner that were published in Futures Daily. In the notice of revocation, the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner had not established that these articles were published in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
We find that the article entitled, '--------------------------~ constitutes an article that is written for learned persons in the field. On appeal, the Petitioner submits 
additional documentation about Futures Daily indicating that this is a professional publication. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has 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. 7 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. 8 
The Director held that the Petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. We disagree. With the 
initial filing, the Petitioner stated that he performed a leading role as the financier of certain 
5 USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
6 Id. 
7 Id. at 10. 
8 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
7 
Matter of W-C-
infrastructure projects, such as the I I Project, the I I Building, the 
I Project, and the I I Park of China projects. The record 
contains a letter froml la member of China's Standing Committee Sixth National Association 
for Minority and Technological Progress to Promote Special Committees, stating that Petitioner 
presided over theDProject and that thanks to his "excellent work and unique business intelligence, 
these projects ... were the most successful projects in the country." I I does not describe the 
Petitioner's responsibilities and accomplishments, or how they made his role leading or critical. For 
the other projects, the record contains letters attesting to his role as a financier, but these letters indicate 
that he is currently undertaking, or planning to undertake, the financing for these projects. They do 
not describe how he has performed a leading or critical role. Accordingly, he has not established that 
his role was leading or critical. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not established that these construction 
projects constitute organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The Petitioner 
has not provided evidence demonstrating that these infrastructure projects equate to organizations or 
establishments or that they have a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner also contends that he satisfies this eligibility requirement through his role with the._l _ ___. 
I !Foundation, which he established to facilitate investment transactions in China. However, he 
has not provided evidence to show that this organization has a distinguished reputation. Therefore, 
for the reasons 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 fully address the totality of the materials in a 
final merits determination. Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
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 W-C-, ID# 2899475 (AAO June 25, 2019) 
8