dismissed EB-1A Case: Fisheries

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20489784 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 29, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a general manager in the field of I seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for this classification through 
evidence of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation , 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a manager of a I I company in China who has over ten years of 
experience in the field. The Petitioner intends to continue working as a company manager in the field 
of in the United States. 
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). The Petitioner claimed to meet four of the ten criteria, namely: 
membership in associations in the field which require outstanding achievements of their members 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii); published material in major trade publications or other major media 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii); leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii); and high 
salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met the published material and leading or critical role 
criteria 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (viii), and we agree with that determination. On appeal, the 
Petitioner maintains that he meets three of the initial evidentiary criteria and is otherwise eligible for 
the classification sought. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erroneously found that 
he did not satisfy the membership criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The Petitioner has not 
pursued his initial claim that he meets the criterion related to high salary under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). Therefore, we deem this issue to be waived and will not address this criterion in 
our decision. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). 
After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner does not meet three of the 
criteria, and therefore does not satisfy the initial evidence requirement for the requested classification. 
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). 
2 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on 
being judged by recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in 
the field for which classification is sought. 1 The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion based 
on his memberships in the China Fisheries Association and the I IAquafarming 
Association. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the associations did not require outstanding 
achievements of their members, and therefore the Petitioner's memberships in these associations did 
not satisfy the plain language of this criterion. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the Director's 
determination was erroneous, noting that the Director ignored relevant evidence, such as a letter from 
the president of the IAquafarming Association, submitted in response to the request for 
evidence. 
Regarding his membership in the China Fisheries Association, the Petitioner submitted a Letter of 
Certification from the association' sl I las well as a list of the association's 
members for 2019. According tol I China Fisheries Association's members "are composed 
of Chinese fishery company leaders, influential and representative people, and persons who have made 
outstanding contributions to China's fishery." He further states that "members need to submit a 
membership application, and they can join the association after being reviewed by the directors or the 
executive directors' review." I further confirms that the Petitioner joined the China Fisheries 
Association in February 2019. 
The Petitioner, however, failed to submit evidence of the membership requirements for this association. 
As the record does not contain the bylaws or other official documentation of the association's membership 
criteria, we cannot evaluate whether the Petitioner's membership in this association is qualifying. 
Although I I described the personal accomplishments of the Petitioner, and provided profile 
summaries for several individuals he claims review membership applications for the association, he did 
not provide any evidence of the membership requirements of the China Fisheries Association, and 
whether membership is judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields 
pursuant to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner also claims that his membership in thel IAquafarming Association satisfies 
the requirements of this criterion. The Petitioner submitted a Letter of Certification from the association's 
president, along with the section of the association's bylaws that pertain to membership criteria and 
excerpts from the association's website. 
Article 8 of the Bylaws for the Aquafarming Association states as follows: 
Individuals who apply to join the Association must meet the following requirements: 
(1) Support the Association's constitution; 
(2) Have the willingness to join the Association; 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual. supra. at F.2(B)(2) (providing an example of admission to membership in the National 
Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy member. and 
membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in original 
research). 
3 
(3) Made outstanding influence or outstanding talents in _______ and 
trading industry; 
( 4) Be able to fulfill the association's membership! obligations; 
( 5) Willing to make greater contributions to the aquaculture industry with all 
members of this association. 
The bylaws reflect that outstanding influence or outstanding talents in the ~and 
trading industry are prerequisites for membership into the association. Influence and talent in the field, 
however, are not outstanding achievements, and we therefore agree with the Director's determination 
that the bylaws do not establish that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by ignoring the information provided in the letter 
from the association's 11 I. Upon review we note that in a Letter of Certification, □ 
provides an overview of the Petitioner's career in the field, noting that he "has been deeply 
involved in the I field for more than 10 years and is an authoritative expert in thel field in 
China." He further confirms that the Petitioner has been a member of thel IAquafarming 
Association since 2013. 
While we acknowledge! I statements regarding the Petitioner and his accomplishments, the 
personal achievements of the Petitioner are not relevant to this criterion. Instead, the Petitioner must show 
that he is a member of associations that require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by 
recognized national or international experts. In his letter, did not establish that the I 
Aquafarming Association requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
For the reasons outlined above, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten lesser criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. Here, the Petitioner 
has established that he is a skilled manager in the field of I and that he has 
gained recognition for his abilities in the field. But he has not shown that this recognition rises to the 
required level of sustained national or international acclaim, or that it is consistent with a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 
that the Petitioner is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
4 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5