dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

MATTER OF L-W-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non~Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 17, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a journalist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)( I )(A), 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(I )(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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal; the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief arguing that she meets at 
least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. 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 beei1 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 implem~nting 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 
rec1uirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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. USC!S, 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); R(ial v. USC!S, 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 ;;~ach 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." Maller o.fChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANAL YSJS 
The Petitioner indicates that she is currently employed as a senior correspondent for 
Because she has not indicated or established that she 
has received a major, internationally recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate 
regulatory cri_teria at 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director found that 
the Petitioner only fulfilled one of the initial evidentiary criteria, original contributions of major 
significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she meets four 
additional criteria, discussed . below. We have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
conclude that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements of at least 
three criteria. · 
Documentation of the alien ·s receipt of lesser nationally or inlernationally recognized prizes or 
awards.for excellence in the.field of endeavor . 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(J)(i). 
I 
The Petitioner contends that she meets this criterion based on her receiving a "1996 
A ward" from the and an 
2 
.
Maller <?[ L-W- . 
A ward" from the .1 In regards to 
the "1996 Award," the Petitioner submitted a letter from protessor at 
, who claimed that the award "is [a] national l~vel award and 
the most significant award in news field." also asserted that the 
Award in Chin.a is the same level award as Pulitzer Prize in the U.S." In addition, the 
Petitioner provided a certificate from proclaiming that its award "is the highest-ranked 
award for national television broadcasting stations." However, · and did not 
provide detailed or corroborating information to support their opinions. For example, 
did not explain why he believed it to be "the most significant award" or why he compared it 
to a Pulitzer Prize. · 
On appeal, the Petitioner offers screenshots from 945theanswer.com and seattletimes.com 
highlighting that is "government-backed" and a "state-sanctioned umbrella group of official 
industry organizations." These ·documents do not relate the Petitioner's award, nor do they 
demonstrate the nature of the award or the national or international recognition it receives-2 
Moreover, she contends that a television show, . also won a Award" in 
1996, which was aired on the widely watched Central Committee Television (CCTV). Thus,. she 
posits that "it stands to reason that if a program of such caliber as had garnered the 
1996 · Award, then it must speak volume about the prestige of the Award and the 
merits of [her] TV program." The Petitioner did not show how another television program that 
received a Award" demonstrates that the award is nationally or internationally 
recognized for excellence in the field. The issue here is not the reputation or popularity of another 
television program or station, but rather the national or international recognition of the prize or 
award by the field. Therefore, the fact that bes.towed a Award" 
does not establish that the award is nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the 
field. 
Regarding the Award," the Petitioner makes the same arguments 
relating to "back[ing] by the Chinese government." In addition, she refers to previously 
submitted screenshots that indicate "is a top-grade national news association which is 
compose[d] of the production and industry report of the heads of various departments of the central 
government," "set up in late December to keep an _eye on and reduce the huge issue of media 
plagiarism within China," and "organize[s] training courses for reporters and editors of industry 
media." Again, she did not demonstrate that these governmenf-authorized awards are nationally·or 
internationally recognized for excellence in the field consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
1 Although the Petitioner previously claimed to meet this criterion based on receiving the "1996 
Award,'" she does not continue to do so on appeal. nor does the reflect that this award qualit'ics her eligibility for 
this criterion. 
1 See 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 ADI 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 
.
Maller of L-W-
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
Published material abolll the alien in professional or mc{jor trade publications or other major 
media . .relating to the alien ·s work in the field.for which classUication is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the Ii/le. date. and author (~lthe material. and any'necessc11y 1ransla1ion. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
The Petitioner maintains that she meets this criterion based on three articles: 
(book.sina.com), 
(ifeng.com), and 
(nytimes.com). The record, howeyer, does not reflect 
published material about the Petitioner. 3 Instead. the first two articles are identical reviews and 
summaries for the book, · .4 Although the articles mention the Petitioner 
and describe her occupation and education credentials, they are not about her, but about her novel. 
Similarly, the nytimes.com article is about a surge in China's maternal mortality rate. While the 
article references the Petitioner's book and provides quotations, it is not about the Petitioner. 
Articles tlJat are not about a petitioner do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See. e.g .. Negro­
Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-R.J.J at * 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that 
articles regarding a show are not about the actor). For these reasons, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that she satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scientffic. scholarly, artislic. athletic. or business-related 
contributions of majc~r signfficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(J)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has she made original contributions but that they have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have b~en widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance in the field. Although the Director concluded that the Petitioner fulfilled this criterion, 
the record does not reflect that she has made original contributions of major significance in the 
journalism field. 
In making his determination, the Director cited to portions of recommendation letters from 
and a researcher at the 
Specifically, commented on the Petitioner's 
professional traits, such as· "she does not constrict to the traditional confines of her beat," and she 
"possesses a clear sense of purpose, a breath of knowledge on her beat, and a wide range of 
resources." Moreover, claimed that the Petitioner's "journalistic accomplishments 
are especially outstanding given the sensitive nature of China's birth policies" and "is truly an 
exemplary figure to other journalists and news reporters." Having a diverse skill set, however, is not 
~ See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1. supra, at 7. 
~ Both articles appear to be the same but with similar English language translations. 
4 
. .
Matter of L-W-
a contribution of major significance in-and-of itself. Herc, did not show how the 
Petitioner's personal traits and work ethics have greatly influenced or impacted the journalism field. 
In addition , did not identify the Petitioner's "journalistic accomplishments" and 
why the field considers them to be "outstanding." 
The letter from has similar issues. He indicated that when China Business Weekly 
published the Petitioner's article on future birth rates , "the stock prices of companies that provide 
baby-related goods and services have almost doubled on [the Petitioner's] predictions.". 
however, did not explain how the journalism field views the article as being majorly significant or 
how the increase of stock prices on baby-related products is evidence of influence on the journalism 
field. Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to 
the field and its impact on subsequent work add value .5 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics 
and use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that 
may form the basis for meeting this criterion .6 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory statements . 1756. Inc. v. The U.S. All 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp . 9; 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
In addition, the Director noted that the Petitioner's work was cited by the 
. The record also contains excerpts of "Annual 
Report" for 2016 and 2017 reflecting citations to the Petitioner's articles . While the Petitioner ' s 
articles were referenced in two government reports, she did not establish how any of her articles are 
considered of major significance to the overall journalism field. Nor has she shown that the citation 
of her article in a government report demonstrates an original contribution of major significance, as 
she did not establish the impact or importance of annual reports on her field. · 
The Petitioner also maintained that her book, , meets this criterion and 
asserted that "[t]he novel received extensive .media coverage from major Chinese online news 
outlets" and "incited widespread positive commentaries and reviews from experts." In addition to 
the two book reviews discussed under the published material criterion, the Petitioner submitted a 
third review, posted on cnpop .org. Here, the Petitioner has not. shown that three book reviews 
demonstrate her claim of ';extensive media coverage" and "widespread positive commentaries." 
Moreover, while the websites summarized and reviewed the book, they do not show that the field 
views her book as having been highly influential, greatly impactful, or otherwise risen to a level of 
major significance. Although the review from ifen.g.com indicated that her book is "the first non­
fiction novel that reflects Chinese fertility concept" reflecting its originality, it did not show its 
significance in the field. 
Moreover, the Petitioner indicated that her article, 
was included in the book, 
~ See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005. 1, supra , at 8-9. 
a publ~cation 
6 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian . 580 F.3d at I 036, aff d in part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the 
regulatory language but do not explain how an individuars contributions have alreadv influenced the field are 
insufficient to establish original contributions of major significance in the field). • 
5 
.
'Ma(fer <?f L-W-
of China Democracy and Legal System Publishing (CDLSP) . Although the Petitioner stressed the 
reputation of CDLSP as "repeatedly selected as the ' Best Publication Houses ' by the General 
Administration of Press and Publication," she did not establish that her article is an original 
contribution of major significance. The issue here is not the reputation of the publishing company 
but the impact or influence of the article in the field . She did not, for example, show that her article 
garnered widespread attention from the field or that the book received high sales as a result of the 
inclusion of her article . In addition, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that her field considers the 
article to be m~jorly significant. 
Further, the Petitioner maintained that she attended national and international conferences , including 
appearing as a guest speaker and hostess . While the Petitioner offered evidence of her participation, · 
such as hostess for the · she did not establish, for instance, 
the significance of her conferences, if the field views them as authoritative, or whether they have 
been extensively referenced or cited by others . 7 Publications and presentations are not sufficient 
under 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major significance ." See 
Kazarian v. USCIS. 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), af{'d injJart, 596 F.Jd 1115. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met her burden of showing that she has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field . Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's finding for 
this criterion . 
Evidence <?l the alien ·s authorship of scholarly arlicles in !he field. in pr<fessional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
Previously, the Petitioner claimed that her articles qualified as comparable evidence under the 
regulation at the regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(4) .8 On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she 
"submit[s] direct evidence to satisfy this criterion without relying on the a~gument of comparative 
evidence." Specifically, the Petitioner provides the translations of abstracts for 42 articles reflecting 
the majority published in China Business News Daily, as well as other publications such as 
Journalism Lover, Modem Communication, and China Radio and TV Academic .Journal. In 
addition , the Petitioner argues that her article included in the book , 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005: I, supra, at 8-9 (providing an example that peer-reviewed articles in 
scholarly journals that have provoked widespread commentary or received notice from others working' in the field, or 
entries (particularly a goodly number) in a citation index which cite the individual's work as authoritative in the field, 
may be probative of the significance of person·s contributions to the field of endeavor): see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 
3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her 
impact in the field as a whole). · 
8 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows for comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily apply to her 
occupation. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. A petitioner should explain why she has not 
submitted evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the 
evidence she has included is "comparable" to that required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(J). Id. Here, the Petitioner did not 
show whi she cannot offer evidence that meets at least three of the criteria. General assertions· that any of the ten 
objective criteria do not readily apply to an occupation are not probative and should be discounted. Id. 
6 
.
Matter of L-W-
and presentations at academic conferences , discussed above , also meets this 
criterion . 
A scholarly arti~le should be written for "learned " persons in the field. "Learned " is defined as 
having or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship. Learned persons include all persons 
having profound knowledge of a field.9 Because the Petitioner has only submitted abstracts of her 
articles, which include one or two-sentence summary paragraphs, she has not established that her 
articles qualify as "scholarly articles ." Likewise, while the Petitioner provided evidence of the 
publication and sale of the book , she did not present the actual article. Further, the Petitioner did not 
offer evidence showing that her presentations were scholarly in nature and appeared in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media . Without such evidence , the Petitioner has not 
shown that she has authored scholarly articles consistent with this regulatory criterion . 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she fulfills this criterion . 
Evidence that the alien · has performed in a leading or critical role for organizalions or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner contends that she qualifies for this criterion based on her critical roles with and 
10 Regarding a critical role, the evidence must 
demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the 
outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not the title of a petitioner's role, but 
rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role is or was critical. 11 · 
Regarding the record contains a letter from CEO, who in~icated that the 
Petitioner "has been promoted to Senior Correspondent for the entire since 2010 ," she was 
named an "Excellent Employee in 2005 for her professional contributions ," and received a 
"Contribution Award in 2015 for her significant contribution." She also submitted h~nor certificates 
supporting letter reflecting her "outstanding work performance in 2005" and an honorary 
contribution award in 2015 . On appeal, the Petitioner presents an ;'Employment Verification" letter 
stating that "[h]er employment performance has been excellent , and she has no criminal record ." As . I 
it pertains to . the record includes a le(ter from former deputy director, who claimed 
that the Petitioner "has been one of the critical coptributors," she received two awards for her stories, 
and the "TV station [has] received large volumes of inquiries from reporters of other TV stations to 
collaborate on follow-up stories about [the Petitioner's] original news discoveries ." · 
9 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9. 
10 The Petitioner does not claim, nor does the record reflect, that she performed in a leadine. role for either organization. 
II Id. ~ . 
7 
.
Maller of L-W-
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, probative. information to establish that she 
performed in a critical role for organizations or establishments that have a.distinguished reputation . 12 
For instance, did not identify what contributions the Petitioner made and ho\\; they 
contributed to the success or standing of Moreover, employment longevity and employer 
satisfaction are not evidence demonstrating that an employee's role is critical to the operations of the 
organization. Further, the Petitioner did not establish how her news stories contributed to the overall 
television station . 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she meets this criterion . 
111. 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 criteria . As a result, we need not provide the type of 
final merits detennination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.Jd at I 119-20. 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. For 
the foregoing 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 <~fL-W-, ID# 1901372 (AAO Jan. 17, 2019) 
12 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1. supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be panicularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the let~ers contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
8