dismissed EB-1A Case: Journalism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF X-H-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 30, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a journalist and author, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This tirst 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that although the Petitioner satisfied three of the regulatory criteria, as required, 
he did not show his sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he has sustained 
the required acclaim and has risen to the very top of his field. 
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 been 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. 
.
Matter of X-H-
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 enting regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this class ifica tion's initial evidence 
requirem ents. First, a petitioner can demon strate a one-time achievemen t (that is, a major , 
internation ally recognized award). If that petition er 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, publi shed material in certain media , and 
scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirement s, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merit s determinati on and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demon strates that the individu al is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the tield of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 11 15 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussin g 
a two-part review where the docum entation is first counted and then , if fulfilling the 
requir~d numb er of criteria , consi dered in the context qf a final me rits determin ation); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (O.D.C . 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011). Thi s two-step analysis is consistent with our holding tha t the "truth is to be 
determin ed not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its qualit y," as well as the principle that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance , probative value , and credib ility, both individually 
and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is 
probably true." Matter ofChawalhe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petiti oner is a journali st and author who is 
currentl y an exchange student at 
m New York. As the Petitioner has not established that he has recei ved a 
major, intern ationally recogni zed award, he must satisfy at least three o f the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i)-(x). 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
The Director indicated under the analysis section of the evidenti ary criteria that the Petitioner met 
published material under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) (iv).
1 
In additi on, although not specified in the decision, it appears the Director 
concluded that the Petitioner satisfie d scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) , thereby 
meeting three criteria. 2 
1 The Director also determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy original contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
and leading or critical role under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(viii). · 
2 
The Director previously issued a notice of intent to deny in which she indicated that the Petitioner met scholarly 
articles. In addition, in her final merits determination, the Director stated that the Petitioner satisfied three criteria. 
2 
.
.
Matter of X-H-
The record reflects that the Petitioner served as the deputy editor-in-chief for fulfilling 
the judging criterion. However , the record does not support the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner met the criteria for published material and scholarly articles. Specifically , the Petitioner 
did not establish that the submitted screenshots and articles about him were published in profe ssional 
or major trade publications or other major media. In addition, he did not demons trate that his written 
work qualifies as scholarly articles. Although we do not find that the Petitioner satisties at least 
three criteri a, we will evaluat e the totality of the evidence, including his claims of publi shed material 
and scholarly articles, in the context of the final merits determination below. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
As indicated above, while the Petitioner has not established the requisite initial evidence
, we will 
evaluate whether he has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, his sustained national or 
international acclaim and that he is one of the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor , and that his achievements have been recognized in the tield through extensive 
documentation. In a final merit s determination , we analyze a petitioner 's accomplishments and 
weigh the totality of the evidence to determine if his successe s are sufficient to demon strate that he 
has extraordinary ability in the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. In this matter, we determine that the 
Petitioner has not shown his eligibility. 
The record reflects that the Petitioner began working for as a writer around 2005 and 
then became the deputy editor-in-chief until around 2015. 3 Currently , the Petition er attends 
in New York, as an exchange student. As mentioned above , the 
Petitioner has served i~ an editorial position for a publication, has written books, articles , and essays , 
and has received some Internet media attention. The record, however, does not demons trate that his 
achievements are reflective of a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by 
Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 (Sept. 19, 1990). 
As it relates to his claim s of published materials about him in ·professional or major trade 
publications or other major media , the Petitioner provided nine screenshots from wcbsitcs. Three of 
the screenshots do not retlect published material 
about him . Instead, the screenshots reflect coverage about two books 
and a song Although the screenshots credit the 
Petitione r as authoring the books and song, they do not reflect published material about him relating 
to his work . See. e.g., (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 
2008) (upholding a finding that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not include the author, as required, for the screenshot posted on 
Moreover, although the Petitioner offered stock shares and econom ic data for 
3 The Petitioner provided several reference letters, as well as an accompan ying cove r leiter submitted with his petition, 
which contained conflicting years of employment with 
3 
.
; 
Maller of X-H-
and biographic information for 
did not demon strate that the websites are major media. 
, he 
In addition , although the Petitioner established that the remainin g 
six screenshots reflect published 
material about him, he did not demon strate that the screenshot s were posted on professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. Specifically, the Petitioner did not offer document ation 
showing that the website for the and are considered to be 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. The Petitioner also did not include 
the author of the screensho t posted on culture.ifeng.com. 
Further, while the Petition er provided document ation from regarding the 
company and its history and submitted document ation relating to the share price for Sohu.com, Inc., 
he did not establish that tencent.com and sohu.com qualify as professional or majo r trade 
publications or other major media. In addition , the Petitioner did not include the author of the 
screenshot for sohu.com. Moreover, the Petitioner presented documentation regardin g 
and however he did not demonstr ate that their websites , 
and are considered to be professi onal or major trade publications or other major media. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not demon strate evidence of published material about him 
regarding his work in profes sional or ~ajor trade publications or other major media under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3 )(iii). Regardl ess, the Petitioner did not establish that nine Internet articles from 2012 to 
2016 are consistent with the sustained national or internation al acclaim necessary for this highly 
restrictive classification. See section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act. Here, the Petitioner has not shown 
that his media coverage is indicative of a level of success consistent with being among "that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the f1eld of endeavor. " 8 C.F.R: § 204.5(h)(2). 
Regarding his judging service, an evaluation of the significance of his experience is appropriate to 
determine if such eviden ce is indicative of the extraordinary ability required for this highly 
restrictive classification. See Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1121 -22. As indicated above, the Petitioner 
served as deputy editor-in -chief for While the Petitioner provided four reference letters 
confirming his editor role at they do not indicate that he garnere d sustained national or 
international acclaim for his work or reflect a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. at 59. In addition , the Petitioner provided evidence 
showing that he was invited to judge the in 2011; "as one of the judging 
committee s of this national young directors' selection."
4 
The Petitioner, however, did not establish 
that he actually served on the committee and judged the young directors. Regardless, without 
evidence that sets him apart from others in his field, 
such as that he has served as a judge of 
acclaimed individuals or of prestigious national or international competitions rather than aspiring 
4 The Petitioner also claimed in his initial cover letter that he served as "Chief Adviso r" to the 
where he was "in charge of reviewin g and selecting many art and cultural exhibitions I festiva ls." 
Although he indicated 
that he attached a screensho t, as "Exhibit L," the record does 
not contain such a 
screenshot. 
, 4 
.
Malter of X-H-
students or amateurs or at local festivals, he did not demonstrate that he "is one of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top ofthe fi eld of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Regarding the authorship of scholarly articles , the Petitioner' s initial cover letter indicated his 
"[a]uthorship of articles in professional journals , trade publicat ions or major media. " However, in 
order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the Petitioner must demonstrate his 
authorship of "scholarly" articles. A scholarly article should be written for "learned " persons in the 
field. "Learned" is defined as having or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship. 5 Here, 
the record does not show that the Petitioner ' s written work is scholarly in nature. Specifically, he 
provided translations for the table of contents for the publications showing that he authored articles. 
However , without the translations of the actual articles , and information about the intended audience 
of the work , the Petitioner did not establish that he authored "scholarly" articles. Furthermore , the 
Petitioner provided screenshots reflecting the sale of his work on websites. The screenshots , 
however, do not reflect the scholarly nature of his work; instead , they describe his opinions, 
commentary , and essays, such as "[t]his book is the latest collected essays ... displaying his 
observation and thinking " and "[the Petitioner '] newest essays, with poems, sa[r]castic comments, 
and others." Accordingly , the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he authored scholarly articles in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Notwithstanding the above , the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his publica tion record is 
consistent with being among the small percentage at the top of the field or having a "career of 
acclaimed work." H.R. Rep. No. at 59. In addition, the commen tary for the proposed regulations 
implementing section 203(b )( 1 )(A)(i) of the Act provides that the "intent of Congress that a very 
high standard be set for aliens of extraordinary ability is reflected in,_ this regulation by requiring the 
petitioner to present more extensive documentation than that requi red" for lesser classifications. 56 
Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (July 5, 1991 ). Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his authorship of 
eight published articles and book s is reflective of placing him among the small percentage at the top 
ofhis field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
Moreover, the citation history or other evidence of the influence of the Petitioner's written work can 
be an indic ator to determine the impact and recognition that his work has had on the field and 
whether such influence has been sustained. For example, numerou s independ ent citations for an 
article authored by the Petitioner may provide solid evidence that his work has been recogni zed and 
that others have been influenced by his work. Such an analysis at the final merit s determination 
stage is appropriate pursuant to Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1122. Here, the Petitioner offered evidence 
from the Databas e reflecting that his written work has been cited 
approximately 159 times. The Petitioner, however , did not establish that such rate of citation 
demonstrates a level of interest in his field commensurate with sustained national or international 
acclaim. See section 203 (b)( 1 )(A) of the Act. In fact, the Petitioner provided a translated list for the 
5 
See USC IS 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 AD/1 -14 9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www .uscis.gov/sites/defaultlfil es/ocomm/ilink/0-0-0- 6423 .html. 
5 
.
Matter of X-H-
first 20 citations, which shows that 19 students cited to his written work for their higher education 
thesis. Although the evidence indicates that students reference his work, he has not estab lished that 
he is reco gnized in the field by other established journali sts and writers as one of that small 
percent age who has risen to the very top. See 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(2). 
While citat ions are not the only way to gauge the importance or recog nition of an individu al's work, 
the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner 's work has been considered significant 
and garner ed accla im in the greater field. Alth ough the Petition er presented evidence showing that 
he recei ved the award at the in 20 I 0 
for his proj ect, he did not show that hi s project demonstrates a contribut ion 
of major significance to the tield as a whole rath er than recognized b y the local fest ival. 
Furthermore , as discussed above, the record contains · four reco mmenda tion letters that praise the 
Petitioner for his work at but do not show that he performe d in a leadin g o r critical role 
or rise to a level among that small percentage at. the very top of the field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2 ). 
The record as a w hole , includin g the evidence discussed above, does not establi sh the Pet itioner' s 
eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner seeks a highly restricti ve visa classificat ion, 
intended for individuals already at the top of their ·respective fie lds. USC IS has long held that even 
athletes performing at the maj or league level do not automatically meet the statutory standards for 
classific ation as an individu al of "extraordin ary ability." Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). While the Petition er need not establish that there is no one more 
accomplished to qualify for the classification sought, we find the record insufficient to demonstrate 
that he has sustained nation al or international acclaim and is among the s mall percen tage at the top 
of his field . See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the reaso ns discussed abov e, the Petitioner has not established his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller of X-H-, ID# 1319527 (AAO May 30, 20 18) 
6