dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 11972653 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : NOV . 27, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a professor and researcher in the field of law, 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 that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for this classification through either 
the receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria 
listed under 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 pet1t10ner 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 was employed as an Associate Professor of law at I I University 
at the time she filed the instant petition. She earned a Ph.D. in jurisprudence in 2009 from ___ ..........., 
Universit , and also serves as the Deputy Procurator General in the .__ ______ _. 
She states that she intends to continue working in the field oflaw in the United 
States by developing legal and academic exchanges and conduct legal research. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, she must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to her authorship of scholarly articles and participation as a 
judge of the work of others in her field. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she also meets the 
evidentiary criteria relating to published material about her and her work, and her contributions of 
major significance to the field of law. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that 
it does not establish that the initial evidence requirements have been met. 
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) 
To meet the requirements of this criterion, the published material must be about a petitioner and his 
or her work in the field, be published in one of the qualifying types of publications, and include 
sufficient identifying information (title, date and author) to establish its authenticity. In addition, all 
material written in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English translation in accordance 
with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), which also requires that the translation be accompanied by a translator's 
certification. 
2 
In his decision, the Director found that the submitted evidence was about the Petitioner and her work, 
but was not published in qualifying types of media. However, on review, we disagree with the Director 
that the published material is about the Petitioner. Specifically, the Petitioner initially submitted two 
articles, one of which appears to have been taken from a website but does not include the website 
address. This article, which the translation indicates was written by a correspondent for the Qian Jiang 
Evening News, is titled'.__ _____________ ~" and is about the age of consent in 
China. The Petitioner is interviewed as an expert on the subject, and she describes a recent case in 
.__ __ __.land explains the relevant law. Even though the Petitioner is named and interviewed in the 
article, this material is not about her, but about the laws concerning the age of consent. In addition, 
we note although the Petitioner provided evidence of the circulation of the Qian Jiang Evening News, 
this article appears to have been posted on a website which the evidence does not identify. We 
therefore agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established that this material was published 
in a professional or major trade publication, or other major media. 
The second article the Petitioner initially submitted was published in Zhejiang Legal News onl I 
02019, and includes three paragraphs about the Petitioner which have been translated into English. 
While the Petitioner describes this as an article "on 13 highly respected legal experts," the rest of the 
article is not translated, and thus the translation is not compliant with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). In 
addition, since only a small portion of this published material is about the Petitioner, it is not about 
her. This finding farther is supported by the title of the article, "This is a place worth goinf to 
exP,erience and do business," which appears to reference '1 ' of 
thel I which she speaks about. Although the evidence sufficiently 
demonstrates that Zhejiang Legal News is a professional publication, this evidence does not meet the 
requirements of this criterion. 
In responding to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner submitted a third article 
which she asserts supports her qualification under this criterion. That evidence consisted of two 
paragraphs, which are accompanied by her photograph, published in Zhejiang Legal Update as part of 
a page titled 1 I In those paragraphs, the Petitioner provides her opinion regarding the 
This material is not about her, but is either a direct 
quotation of her or written by her, and thus does not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we find that the Petitioner has not established that she meets 
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 specialization for which 
classffication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Director found that the Petitioner met this criterion, but did not provide an explanation for his 
finding. On review, we note that the evidence shows that she performed an evaluation of a master's 
degree thesis as part of her duties as an associate professor atl I and that she was listed as a 
member of the editorial committee of,__ _________ __., which appears to be a professional 
publication. In responding to the Director's RFE, she submitted additional evidence, including a text 
message thanking her for participating in a provincial legal essay competition, as well as website pages 
3 
showing her scoring and evaluation for the 2019 .__ ______ __.University Student Legal 
Profession Competition. We agree with the Director that this evidence is sufficient to show that the 
Petitioner meets the requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(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 been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. 
The Petitioner initiall focused on her roles as Deputy Procurator (Prosecutor) General of thel I 
-----,------~ and as the Director of the I I Law Research Association of the 
.__ __ __.Law Society, and referred to reference letters to support these claims. However, as noted by 
the Director in his RFE, the letters provided little detailed information about specific contributions she 
had made. 
In response, the Petitioner narrowed her claim under this criterion to the work she performed in 
drafting amendments to China's~ __________ despite not reviousl claimin to have 
expertise in this legal area. She submitted a copy of a document titled '-----~------' 
of 
which states that 
was the project leader for the project of ~--------------~~~ 
' with the Petitioner and four other members of the ---------------------' faculty assigned to specific topics. A le states that ~he Petitioner "i;, 
a nationally renowned expert in the realms of~------- and 1 Y 
again despite the ,revious claims to her expertise focusing in the legal areas of,.____, _____ __._, 
an~ J law. He indicates that the Petitioner served as chief drafter for the~-----~ 
I I' section, and that the drafts "are currently under review by the People's Congress of 
Legislature." However, this letter does not provide specifics on the amendments proposed in the 
Petitioner's draft, or how those amendments would impact the overall field oflaw. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director downplayed the importance of this aspect of the 
Petitioner's work, and that the new law will impact "not only entire China, but the international 
business community." She also submits additional evidence of the impact of her work, including a 
copy of the report she authored containing a research summary and proposed revisions to sections of 
the c=J, and a new letter from~ _____ ...., However, where, as here, a Petitioner has been put 
on notice of a deficiency in the evidence and has been given an opportunity to respond to that 
deficiency, the AAO will not accept evidence offered for the first time on appeal. Matter of Soriano, 
19 I&N Dec. 764 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). We further note 
that the evidence does not indicate that the Petitioner's proposed revisions had been accepted into the 
final version of the revisedc=] at the time of filing. Because the evidence does not demonstrate that 
the Petitioner's proposed revisions to the D have been implemented, we find that it does not 
establish that she has made a contribution to the field of law. 
4 
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) 
The Petitioner submitted several copies of articles which she authored which were published in 
journals, together with English translations. These include papers which appeared in People's 
Tribune, Political Science and Law, and Journal of Juvenile Crimes and Delinquency, which the 
evidence establishes are professional journals. We therefore agree with the Director and find that the 
Petitioner meets 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 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 finding 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. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of her work is indicative of the required 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 has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and that she is one of the small percentage who has risen 
to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5