dismissed EB-1A Case: Geology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-J-
) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 31,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a geologist and petroleum researcher, whose particular area of expertise is hydrocarbon 
accumulating modeling, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences. 
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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director determined that the 
Petitioner had not satisfied the initial documentary requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
which consist of either 1) evidence of a one-time major achievement, or 2) satisfaction of at least 
three often regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In the appeal, the Petitioner submits no new evidence but 
argues that the Director erred in concluding that he did not meet the lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards criterion, judge of the work of others criterion, original. 
contributions criterion, or leading or critical role criterion. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
The Petitioner may establish his eligibility by demonstrating extraordinary ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and achievements that have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. Specifically, section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
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, 
Matter of L-J-
(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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained acclaim and 
the recognition of a beneficiary's achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that is a 
major, internationally recognized award). If a petitioner does not submit this documentation, then it 
must provide sufficient qualifying evidence indicating that a beneficiary meets at least three of the ten 
criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) (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); 2011), aff'd, 
683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding 
that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that 
users examines "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"). Accordingly, where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at 
least three criteria, we will determine whether the totality of 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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Continue to Work in the Area Expertise 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) does not require that the Petitioner supply either an offer of 
employment in the United States or a labor certification. However, the Petitioner must supply clear 
evidence that he is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such 
evidence may include: 1) letter(s) from prospective employer(s), 2) evidence of prearranged 
commitments such as contracts, or 3) a statement from the Petitioner detailing plans on how he 
intends to continue his work in the United States. 
Finding no evidence of the Petitioner's plan in the initial petition submission, the Director requested, 
among other things, the Petitioner supply one of the three forms of documentation enumerated 
above. In response, the Petitioner submitted a personal statement, detailing his education, 
background, and the condition of oil exploration in the United States. The Petitioner also stated that 
he wanted "to apply for a position in academia or industry to research unconventional oil and gas, 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-J-
and focus on enrichment area formation mechanism and evaluation of tight oil and gas in 10 years." 
The Petitioner also identified four areas in which he would conduct his research. The Director found 
the evidence insufficient and stated that the Petitioner had not shown that he has "prearranged 
commitments for working in [his] field." 
On appeal, the Petitioner neither addressed this issue in the Director's denial nor provided evidence 
showing that he has applied for positions or contacted prospective employers. The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5) states that evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner is coming to the United 
States to continue working in his field of expertise may include "a statement from the Petitioner 
detailing plans on how he intends to continue his work in the United States." However, the 
regulation also requires "clear ,evidence" of this intent. Mere intent "to apply for ~ position" does 
not constitute a detailed plan and does not satisfy the requirement of"clear evidence." 
B. Evidentiary Criteria1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner, as initial evidence, may present a one­
time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, the Petitioner has 
not claimed or shown that he is the recipient of a qualifying award at a level similar to that of the 
Nobel Prize. As such, the Petitioner must provide at least three of the ten types of documentation 
listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets this criterion based upon having received "Second 
Prize" from the The plain 
regulatory language requires that the Petitioner show not only that he has won prizes or awards, but 
that these accolades are nationally or internationally recognized, and are awarded for excellence in 
the field of endeavor. 
As evidence of his award, the Petitioner provided the award certificate, an 
and a 
screen print from the web site. 
Additionally, the initial petition submission contained a single translation certificate from 
in which this individual attested to competence in both Chinese and English but only indicated that 
the translation "is accurate to the best of my knowledge." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) requires that "any 
document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English 
language translation which 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." In this 
case the translator did not certify that the translation(s) is/are "full" and "complete." Further, the 
1 We have reviewed all of the Petitioner's evidence and will address those criteria that he indicates he meets or for which 
he has submitted relevant and probative documentation. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-J-
translator did not indicate to which document or documents in the record the certificate applies. 
Because the Petitioner did not submit properly certified translations of the documents, we cannot 
determine whether the evidence supports the Petitioner's claims. In responding to the Director's request 
for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner also submitted numerous foreign language documents but only three 
translation certificates, each of these bearing the name of with the same statement that 
appeared on the initial translation certificate. For the same reason, we cannot determine to which 
documents the three translation certificates apply and whether the various documents have been 
translated fully and completely. 
Based upon the evidence, it is not clear which entity granted the award. The certificate, 
which was issued on October ·18, 2013, identifies the awarding entity as the 
The "Announcement of 2013 Awardee of 
identifies the awarding 
entity as ' but includes what appears to be a 
translator's note, stating "also translated as 
As this appears to be a translator's note, it is not clear that this statement is part of the 
original document or even reflects the contents of the original document. The screen print from the 
indicates that the entity changed its name from 
on May 10, 2010. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that this is the1same entity that granted the award. Further, if it is the same entity and the 
organization changed its name in 2010, it is not clear why it would issue an award certificate three years 
later, bearing the original name. The Petitioner has not clarified this matter and has, therefore, not 
demonstrated that the award was issued by the The Petitioner must resolve any material 
inconsistencies in the record by competent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-592 (BIA 1988). 
Nevertheless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the award constitutes either a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize. The certificate bears an institutional name for the awarding body. The 
announcement of 2013 award· recipients indicates that that determinations were made based upon the 
organization's "award-issuing regulations and after the scrutiny of Award Evaluation Committee." 
However, this document 
does not identify the "award-issuing regulations" or the criteria upon which the 
award were based. The announcement indicates that the committee granted 238 awards in 2013 but 
does not identify any of the other award recipients for that year or for prior years. The announcement 
identifies the as the "nationally highest honor in the 
realms of petroleum and chemistry." However, the Petitioner provided no other documentation to 
corroborate this statement. The announcement also states that the 
is authorized by However, although the awards 
program is authorized by a government agency, the awarding entity in this case is not a governmental 
agency. The screen print from the provides a brief statement about the background of the entity, 
indicating that it is a "non-government, not-for-profit organization consisting of companies, institutes, 
sectional associations and local associations in the petroleum and chemical industry on a voluntary 
basis." The screen print does not offer any specific information about the entity or its recognition 
throughout the industry and provides no information about awards it grants. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-J-
Although the Petitioner did not address this award on appeal, the record contains evidence 
demonstrating that the Petitioner initially claimed to have received a from the 
The Petitioner 
submitted a certificate from the awarding entity which states it was "issued to honor the outstanding 
contributions in technology innovation and application in petroleum and natural gas." However, the 
Petitioner submitted no information about the the awards it issues, the criteria for the award, the 
population from which candidates are drawn, past award recipients, or the national or international 
recognition of the awards. 
I 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied 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. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims to meet this criterion by virtue of having functioned as a mentor-for 
graduate students who were in the process of completing graduate degrees, a responsibility which 
falls outside of the bounds of his ordinary duties as an engineer. The phrase "a judge" implies a 
formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties must have been directly judging the work of others in 
the same or an allied field in which the Petitioper seeks an immigrant classification within the 
-present petition. 
As evidence of the Petitioner's mentorship, he submitted three certificates which identify him as an 
"outside advisor" or "outside mentor" for three master's level students at three universities. 
Additionally, the record included an invitation for the Petitioner to serve as a mentor/advisor for a 
student at the Each of the graduate students had an "Official 
supervisor/mentor" from within the university while the Petitioner functioned as an external advisor. 
None of the institutions that generated certificates attesting to the Petitioner's work as an "outside 
advisor" or "outside mentor," provided a description of the duties associated with such positions. 
The Petitioner's attribution of the word "judge" to his role, without a description of his activities, is 
not sufficient to establish that he performed a function that would satisfy this criterion's 
requirements. The act of being an "outside mentor" or advisor and assisting graduate students in the 
completion of their degree programs does not constitute judging the work of others in the field. The 
regulatory criterion contemplates functioning in an official and formal capacity as a judge. The 
regulation cannot be read to include every instance of assisting or evaluating students as their 
advisor or mentor. There is no evidence on record demonstrating that the Petitioner served "as a 
judge of the work of others." 
2 
The acronym for this entity appears in only a few instances as and more frequently in the record of proceeding 
as For this reason, we will use as the standard throughout this decision. 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-J-
The Petitioner also initially claimed to have served as a judge of the work of others by virtue of 
having served as a member of the 
"which was set to study and standardize the national procedures and 
guidelines for petroleum exploration." However, the Petitioner provided no documentary evidence 
from the committee to substantiate this claim. The record contains a document entitled 
"Certification of research projects undertaken," which includes some of the Petitioner's academic 
and experiential qualifications and states "he was appointed as the member of the 
However, the author does not identify any of the 
duties associated with the position or specify how the Petitioner functioned as a judge of the work of 
others in the field. 
The Petitioner also states that he "served as the Deputy Director and Academic Secretary of 
who 
directly supervises and evaluates the work of some 20 researchers." As evidence of this role, the 
Petitioner submitted a brochure that describes the laboratory, the staffing configuration, and the 
types of research in which the laboratory engages. The document identifies the Petitioner as one of 
four deputy directors, as well as the academic secretary. According to the staffing overview, the 
laboratory employs 24 research staff, including technicians and supervisors. The Petitioner is one of 
the 24. The documentation does not describe the Petitioner's department, those researchers with 
whom he works, any individuals he might supervise, or any of the duties he performs. 
Consequently, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner served as a judge of the work of 
others with respect to his role at 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met the plain language of this criterion. 
· Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims to meet this criterion because he served as 1) a chief 
researcher/p~oject leader for five major projects funded by the 2) 
a supervisor of 24 laboratory researchers, and 3) a leader of cooperative research ,efforts with 
international teams. To satisfy this criterion, a petitioner's contributions must be both original and 
of major significance in the field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase 
"major significance" are not superfluous and, thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich 
!vfultiple 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). Regardless of the field, the. phrase "contributions of major 
significance in the fietd" requires substantiated impacts beyond one's employer, clients or 
customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (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). 
'· 
As evidence of having served as a chief researcher/project leader, the Petitioner submitted a 
"Certification of research project undertaken." The document bears the heading of the 
and identifies two projects that were funded by the 
6 
(b)(6)
) 
Matter of L-J-
two by and one by In 
each case, there appears an "undertaking party" which is the and a "project leader" or "vice 
project leader" which is the Petitioner. Each of the projects c~ntains a "research task" and the 
"research achievements." 
Although the certification identified five research projects the Petitioner either led or co-led, and 
' described the teams' findings, it provides no indication of whether such findings are original or of 
how the petroleum and geology fields received these findings. For example, in the first project, the 
Petitioner and his team "investigated the mechanism and model of coal-bed methane in high 
enrichment." According to the certification, they "revealed the mechanism of the relationship 
between the gas content and the permeability developed a 
productive mode of buried area and high 
yield of coal-bed methane enrichment, [and] provided the theory for coal-bed methane exploration." 
However, the certifying authorities do not indicate whether these findings have been adopted by any 
\ 
entities engaged in coal-bed methane exploration or, if so, how these findings have impacted the 
field on a broad scale. 
The Petitioner submitted a letter from a deputy director of In his letter, 
attested to the Petitioner's involvement in two of the projects identified on the certification 
referenced above. According to the_ two projects are of "great impact to the field," because 
they "developed the most advanced technologies I techniques which are applicable worldwide in 
relevant, natural gas and petroleum studies I explorations" and "advanced the understanding of 
mechanism of hydrocarbon accumulation which underlines formation and distribution of 
conventional and unconventional oil/gas." Although maintains that the Petitioner's findings 
are significant and the team's technologies are applicable worldwide in natural gas and petroleum 
studies, he does not claim that any corporations involved in 
oil and gas exploration have adopted the 
team's findings or that these findings have made a broad impact upon the field of oil and gas 
exploration. 
The Petitioner also supplied three other letters from researchers who provide statements about the 
Petitioner's recognition in his field. For example, 
states that the Petitioner's "impact in the field" can be appreciated by the fact that he has 
won awards, by his position as a deputy director of at 
by his completion of "quite a few national projects that have great impacts in the field," and 
by his invention of nine Chinese patents, "which have been well received in the industry." 
does not explain how awards, a position in a research laboratory, completion of national projects, or 
the invention of Chinese patents constitute original contributions of major significance within the 
field of oil and gas exploration. Additionally, the record contains no evidence of the nine patents or 
their use by any entities in the industry. Further, we have already discussed the Petitioner's projects 
and the fact that the Petitioner has offered no evidence demonstrating their impact upon his field of 
endeavor. The other two letters contain the same statements, with one, the letter from 
3 In one case, the "undertaking party" was the 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-J-
additionally noting that the Petitioner was asked to serve as a mentor for graduate students. 
However, the author did not explain how such a request constitutes an original contribution of major 
significance to the Petitioner's field. 
Solicited letters that do not specifically identify contributions or include specific examples of how 
those contributions influenced the field as a whole are insufficient to meet this criterion.4 Kazarian, 
580 F.3d at 1036. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been 
considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements offered as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
US CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a foreign national's 
eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition 
is not presumptive proof of eligibility; USCIS may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the foreign national's eligibility. See id. at 795; 
see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does 
not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). USCIS rriay even give less weight to an opinion that is not 
corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Caron Int '1, 19 I&N 
Dec. at 795; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding our decision to give minimal 
weight to solicited letters from colleagues or associates that do not provide details on contributions 
of major significance in the field). 
The Petitioner points to the level of funding for each research project as of some importance. 
However, the record only reflects that the 
granted between one million RMB and 58 million RMB' to for purposes of 
undertaking. research into various aspects of oil and gas exploration. The evidence does not show 
the basis for the awarding of the funds and does not reflect that the sum granted corresponds with an 
original contribution of major significance to the field. 
The Petitioner claims to have supervised 24 researchers in the laboratory and that this is indicative of 
his impact upon the field. However, the Petitioner provided no documentary evidence from his 
employer substantiating this claim. The brochure for the identifies the staffing for its 
laboratory consists of 24 ind~viduals, including researchers and technicians. The 24 researchers are 
divided among four teams and the Petitioner is only associated with one of these. The evidence in 
the record does not demonstrate that the Petitioner supervised 24 researchers. Further, the criterion 
requires evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner is responsible for a contribution that is both 
"original" and of "major significance" to his field of endeavor. The Petitioner has not demonstrated 
4 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters rrom physics professors attesting to [the self­
petitioner's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
5 The ' lists the 1following sums associated with the five research projects: 
1) 11.94 million RMB, 2) 58.1489 million RMB, 3) 11.36 million RMB, 4) 8 million RMB, and 5) I million RMB. On 
August 24, 2016, I RMB equaled $.15 USD. 
8 
.. 
(b)(6)
L__ 
Matter of L-J-
how the supervision of 24 researchers would represent an original contribution of major significance 
to the field of oil and gas exploration. · 
The Petitioner states he was in charge of cooperative research projects with "international teams" 
that yielded "substantial contributions to the field." However, the only evidence in the record 
addressing this issue is the brochure for the Under a section bearing the heading 
"Academic Exchanges," the brochure includes three exchange projects: 1) 
m with the 
2) Research on m 
with and 3) 
with the 
The document did not identify the Petitioner as a leader for these "Academic 
Exchanges," describe the activities of these exchanges, provide any of the findings of these efforts, 
or otherwise explain the projects. 
The Petitioner also initially claimed to have been an inventor with nine patents "which are highly 
appraised in the industry." The record contains no evidence of such patents. In his RFE, the 
Director specifically requested copies of the patents and evidence showing that the "innovations are 
being widely utilized by many scientists." The Petitioner provided no evidence in response to this 
request and has offered no documentation showing that his claimed patented technologies are being 
implemented by anyone in his industry. ' 
In addition, the Petitioner maintained that the citation of his written works showed influence 
throughout his field. On appeal, however, the Petitioner does not address this issue. Nevertheless, 
the Petitioner's claim is based upon a partially translated document from the 
entitled This certificate states that the Petitioner's articles "were 
cited 37 times at The record also contains a five-page, partially-translated 
document from which appears to identify those articles citing to the Petitioner's 
written works. Because the material is partially translated, we cannot determine the titles of the 
articles, the titles of the Petitioner's articles cited, the number of times specific articles are cited, or 
the names of the authors. Consequently, the Petitioner has not identified a specific article which is 
supposed to have documented an original finding or shown particularly wide reception of the 
Petitioner's research. Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 37 total citations IS 
representative of a significant impact upon the field of oil and gas exploration as a whole. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not meet the plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media. 
The Director found that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion. Upon review of the record, we agree 
that the Petitioner has provided evidence of his authorship of scholarly articles in the field in 
professional publications. Specifically, the Petitioner identified at least three scholarly articles that 
9 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-J-
he published: 1) 
2) 
and 3) 
These articles were published in 
journals such as _ 
As a result, the Petitioner has satisfied the plain language of this criterion. -
Evidence that the alien has perform ed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
. . 
On appeal, the Petitioner claims to satisfy this criterion because he has been a deputy-director and 
the academic secretary of the A leading role should be apparent by its position in the 
overall hierarchy of an organization and the role1s corresponding duties. Similarly, a critical role is 
evidenced by its overall impact on the organization or establishment. Additionally, the organizations 
or establishments claimed under this criterion must be marked by eminence, distinction, excellence, 
or a similar reputation. 
To demonstrate his leading role with the the Petitioner referenced the brochure discussed 
ab,ove. In its identification of the organization and staff, the document includes the Petitioner as one 
of four deputy directors of the laboratory as well as its academic secretary. Based solely upon the 
title ascribed to him, the Petitioner would appear to function in a lead role for the 
However, the document referenced does not'identif y any duties associated with the position which 
the Petitioner holds. The Petitioner discusses his achievements and awards in conjunction with his 
leading role, and the brochure biographical sketch identifies the Petitioner 's field of 
research (e.g. hydrocarbon accumulating modeling, both conventional and unconventional oil and 
gas enrichment mechanisms), awards that he won, and his number of publications. However, none 
of these items is evidence of the leading role he claims to fulfill for the 
Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the has a distinguished reputation. The 
record contains the Key Laboratory 
brochure . which, in its Introduction Section, states that the 
laboratory "was established in 2006 by and is 
managed by the The 
document identifies organizational structure of the laboratory, the number of researchers it employs 
(24 in total), areas of research, facts about its facilities, a summary of awards received, and academic 
exchanges in which it has engaged. However, the size ofthe entity, the corporation that established 
it, and its research projects and awards do not, alone, establish that it has a distinguished reputation. 
The brochure is only partially translated. Though the document identifies awards it 
attributes to the the copies of the award certificates are not translated. Further, the 
captions identify the nature of the awards, all but two of which are labelled and 
The identifies projects over which 
the Petitioner functioned as the lead or vice lead. In each case, the party that undertook the project is 
identified as and not The record includes no external documentation or 
10 
( 
(b)(6)
Matter of L-J-
recognition which would attest to the reputation of the within the oil and gas industry, 
apart from its association with The letter from refers to as "arguably the 
most important institute of its kind in China" but makes no reference to the For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the Petitioner's employer, has a 
distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner also claimed to be a member of the Committee for 
functioning for this entity in a critical role. However, the Petitioner neither 
identified his role with any degree of specificity nor described the committee. Further, the Petitioner 
provided no other documentation which describes the committee, its efforts, or its recognition within 
the industry. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met the plain language of this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign~ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 
The Petitioner initially claimed to meet" this criterion because his annual salary of 242,000 Chinese 
Yuan6 is 10 times the salary of the ordinary Chinese worker. The Petitioner must submit 
documentary evidence of the earnings of those in his occupation performing similar work at the top 
level of the field. 7 The Petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that he 
has earned a "high salary:' or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing 
similar work during the same time period. See }vfatter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1994) (considering 
professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also 
Crimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus 
other NHL enforcers); 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). 
The Director requested evidence of the Petitioner's high salary relative to others working in similar 
positions in the Petitioner's field of endeavor. The Petitioner provided no evidence in response to 
the Director's request. Further, the Petitioner did not address this issue in his appeal. The only 
evidence of the Petitioner's salary is an income statement from the 
which indicates that the Petitioner receives a monthly salary of 
22,000.00 Chinese Yuan. As comparative data, the Petitioner submitted a screen print of a 
6 On July 19, 2016, 242,000 Chinese Yuan was equivalent to $36,132.83 USD. http://www.xe.com/ 
currencyconverter/convert/? Amount=242%2COOO&From=CNY & To=USD. 
7 While the AAO acknowledges that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Racine v. INS, 
1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated, "[T]he plain reading of the statute suggests that the 
appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the hockey players at all levels of 
play; but rather, Racine's'.ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This interpretation is consistent with 
... the definition of the term [extraordinary ability at] 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth in the 
preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99." 
11 
(b)(6)
· Matter of L-J-
search in which the Petitioner searched for the term "average Chinese income." One result, from 
states, "accorping to online · global wage calculator, which uses data from the 
the average annual salary of a worker in China's private sector 
was 28,752. yuan (about $4,755) in 2012 .... " The Petitioner provided no other documentary 
evidence and no comparative data for individuals working in the same capacity in similar industries. 
For this reason, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documents submitted in support of extraordinary ability must show 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 his or her field of endeavor. Had the Petitioner provided evidence satisfying at least 
three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits determination that considers all of 
the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise 
indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who [has] risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained national or international acclaim and 
that his or her achievements have been recogniz~d in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20 (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is 
first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a 
final merits determination). Although we n,eed not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, a review of the record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner 
has not established the level of expertise 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. 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, the Petitioner has not met that burden! 
_) 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of L-J-, ID# 17865 (AAO Aug. 31, 20 16) 
12