dismissed EB-1A Case: History

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Z-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 15,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a historian, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner had a one-time achievement or met at least three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i0-(x). 
On appeal, the Petitioner resubmits evidence previously submitted and asserts that he meets three of 
the evidentiary criteria, and that he has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of that 
very small percentage of individuals at the top of his field of endeavor. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
l. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 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 
Maller of Z-L-
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 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 categories 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 596 FJd 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. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. Wash. 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 U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Serv.ices (USCIS) 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 
The Petitioner is a historian, focusing on the field of Chinese history. Because he has not claimed to 
have received a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfY at least three of the ten 
evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found 
that the Petitioner did not meet any of the criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the plain language requirements of three criteria: 
published material about him in professional or major trade organizations or other major media, 
original scholarly contributions of major significance to the field of Chinese history, and authorship 
of scholarly articles in the field. We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record, and do not find 
that it establishes at least three of the criteria. 
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 classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material. and 
any necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
In his decision, the Director found several deficiencies in the evidence submitted under this criterion, 
including improperly certified translations, the lack of "attribution'-' for some of the evidence that 
was stated to" have come from websites, that some of the evidence was not about the Petitioner, and 
that the circulation figures provided were self-promotional. On appeal, the Petitioner has 
2 
.
Matter of Z-L-
resubmitted some of this evidence and challenged the Director's characterization of it. While he 
provides separate translation certifications for the foreign language documents, most of the evidence 
submitted on appeal manife sts the same problems noted by the Director regarding the unclear origin 
of the source material. 
However, on appeal, the Petitioner has provided two articles that satisfy the requirements of this · 
criterion: one from September 2015, which discusses the Petitioner 's career and background, and 
one from May 2017, describing a talk given by the Petitioner. Accompanying evidence establishes 
that they were published on the websites of major media. Based only on these materials, we reverse 
the Director :s decision and find that the Petitioner has established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly , artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions f~(major significance in the field 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)v) 
The Director found that the claims regarding the Petitioner's impact upon the field of Chinese 
history , made in several support letters submitted with the original submi ssion and in respon se to the 
request for evidence, were not supported by documentary evidence in the record. On appeal, the 
Petitioner focuses solely upon five letters written by his fellow Chinese history scholars which were 
previously submitted. 
of the writes that the Petitioner was 
recommended to him for participation in a research project, and that in his books, the Petitioner has 
"developed a unique method of comparative constitutionalism" that he has used to provide "fresh 
insight to China 's historical failure in constitutional transformation. " concludes 
that the Petitioner "is an original thinker" and that his writing "exhibits a level of freshness and 
accessibility which explains his popularity in the younger readers. " of the 
writes that "[A ]!though ideas (on 
have not yet been generally approved by the mainstream academic community in the 
; ofticial context , they have been widely spread, discussed and accepted among the intellec tual elites." 
In addition , he notes that the Petitioner 's "theory of nation building has far-reaching theoretical 
value." a Chinese writer living in the United States, states that the Petitioner's 
publications have challenged the common concept of China as a unified n ation, and that his "wo rks 
are popular among young Chinese readers and Internet citizens." Two additional letters also 
generally support the originality of the Petitioner's approach to Chinese history and the discussion it 
has initiated among younger academics in China . 
Although the letters describe an academic discourse around the Petitioner 's work, they do not 
identify specific ways in which the Petitioner ' s original contributions have been of major 
significance to the field. describes the Petitioner's work as "not generally accepted by 
the mainstr eam academic community ," and having "far-reaching theoretical value." The prospective 
value of the his work does not meet the plain language of the criterion , which requires the Petitioner 
to have already made a significant impact on the field. Similarly , and both 
3 
.
Maller ofZ-L-
describe the Petitioner's popularity amongst younger readers,_ but do not explain what effect this has 
had on the field of Chinese history. The Petitioner has not established that he has met 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) 
In his decision, the Director found that the submitted evidence lacked the proper translation 
certification, and that some of the documents submitted were i11egible or lacked attribution. On 
appeal, the Petitioner has corrected these deficiencies, and the evidence establishes that four of his 
books published by meet the requirements of this criterion. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The evidence does not establish that the Petitioner received a major, internationally recognized 
award or meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits analysis determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 11 I 9-20. Nevertheless , we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in its entirety , and conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the level of expertise required for the classification sought. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofZ-L-, ID# 1181832 (AAO May 15, 2018) 
4