dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

MATTER OF X-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 16, 2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a professor, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § I 153(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 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 presents an additional document, as well as previously submitted evidence 
and a brief~ contending that she meets at least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova 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 s·tates 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 implementing regulation 
.
Maller of X-l-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification ' s initial evidence 
requirements . 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. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfi II ing 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. USCIS, 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 "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 ." Matter <~{Chawalhe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a professor of law at the of Political Science and Law and 
has been a visiting scholar at School of Law. 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 criteria at_ 8 C.f.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . In denying the petition , the 
Director found that the Petitioner met only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, judging under 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) . 
On appeal , the Petitioner maintains that she fulfills four additional criteria. 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 ,~f endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(i) . 
The Petitioner contends that her receipt of a "Chinese Government Scholarship" by the China 
Scholarship Council (CSC) meets this criterion . At the outset , although the Petitioner submitted 
certified English language translations for her foreign language documents at the initial filing of her 
petition , she did not provide certified English translations in response to the Director's request for 
evidence (RFE). Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English 
2 
.
Maller of X-l-
language translation . 8 C .F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) . The translator must certify that the English language 
translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English . Id. Because the Petitioner did not offer properly certified English language 
translations in response to the RFE, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated 
material is accurate and thus supports her claims . 
Initially, the Petitioner submitted a certificate reflecting that CSC awarded her a government 
scholarship "to sponsor her up-coming study abroad ·." In addition, she provided a letter from CSC 
explaining that an "awardee was selected through a rigid academia evaluation process," "covers the 
returning international airfare and living stipend," and CSC "sponsors Chinese citizens to pursue 
study abroad and international students to study in China." On appeal , she offers a screenshot from 
csc.edu.cn stating that "[t]he objective of the CSC is to provide ... financial assistance to- the 
Chinese citizens wishing to study abroad and to the foreign citizens wishing to study in China." 1 
In order to satisfy this criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that her prizes or awards are 
nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 2 Although the Petitioner 
demonstrated her receipt of the scholarship, she did not establish that the field recognizes it as a 
national or international award for excellence . Furthermore , the Petitioner did not establish that 
government financial aid scholarships are tantamount to nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field consistent with this regulatory criterion. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that she fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participalion , eilher individually or on a panel. as a judge oft he work(~( 
others in the same or an allied.field ofspec(fication.for which class(/icalion is sought. 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204 .5(h)(3)(iv) . 
The Director determined that the Petitioner satisfied this criterion . The Petitioner must show that she 
has not only been invited to judge the work of others, but also that she actually participated in the. 
judging of the work of others in the same or allied field of specialization. 3 The record reflects that 
the Petitioner initially provided a letter from the 
in China stating that "[y]ou have been appointed the expert reviewer for this Sampling 
PhD Review program." However, the letter is addressed to "Expert" with no mention of the 
Petitioner . The Petitioner also submitted a document entitled, "Sampled Post Graduate Degree 
Dissertation will be Reviewed," along with an unidentified screenshot reflecting the responsibilities 
1 We note that in response to the RFE, the Petitioner presented an uncertified translation of a letter from 
who claimed that "[s]cholars in China take it as a lifetime honor to get this award" and "[t]he evaluation and judge 
process of this awa~d is known for its strictness." . • 
See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submined with Certain Form /-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI /-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 8. 
3 
.
Maller of X-L-
of the in China . This documentation does not reflect evidence of the 
Petitioner's participation in the review of post graduate degree dissertations. 
Moreover, the Petitioner provided a "Letter of Appointment" from the Law School 
stating that she has "been appointed as the academic dissertation reviewer for the PhD of Civil and 
Commercial Law major. " The letter indicated that the dissertation review form will be mailed to her 
and requested any comments be returned to the university. The Petitioner also presented a letter 
from the inviting her to review an article . The letters, however, do 
not demonstrate that she actually reviewed dissertations or journal articles. 
In response to the RFE, she submitted an uncertified translation of a letter from who 
claimed that he "invited her to take up the role as a[n] anonymous PhD dissertation expert reviewer 
for Law School." See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b)(3) .. Notwithstanding the uncertified 
translation, did not provide specific , detailed information establishing that the Petitioner 
actually reviewed dissertations. Similarly, she also provided two uncertified translations from 
unidentified authors asserting that "[t]he is very honored to have 
appointed her as an anonymous expert reviewer" and "she has been appointed as the reviewer for the 
Id. Again, while the uncertified translations averred that the 
Petitioner was appointed to review, they do not contain probative information demonstrating that she 
truly reviewed journal articles. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that she meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, we withdraw the Director's finding for this issue. 
Evidence of the alien ·s original scient[fic, scholarly. artistic, athletic. or business­
related contributions o_lmajor sign(ficance in !he.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204 .S(h)(3)(v). 
In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204 .S(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 in the field. ' 
The Petitioner argues that she participated in the drafting of the 
and her research was further adopted by legislative members into a provision of 
The record contains an excerpt of the civil 
code where the Petitioner is listed among over two dozen researchers comprising the 
Moreover, she references a recommendation letter from 
who indicated that he adopted the Petitioner's 
stated that the 
Petitioner was an invited expert for the drafting of the 
While the documentation reflects her involvement, the Petitioner did not explain or establish what, if 
any, original content or concepts derived from her in drafting the code. Further , the Petitioner did 
4 
.
Matter of X-l-
not demonstrate the extent of her role in drafting the code, and she did not specifically identify what 
contributions she made and whether they are considered of major significance in the field. In 
addition, did not elaborate how the Petitioner's research has significantly impacted or 
influenced the overall field in a major way.4 Letters that lack specifics and simply use hyperbolic 
language do not add value and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis 
for meeting this criterion. 5 · 
Further, the letter considered above primarily contains attestations of the Petitioner's status in the 
field without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field . Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, qff"d in part 596 F.3d at 1115. 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The U.S. Att 'y 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
The record also contains an invitation from the Office of the 
to participate in a symposium. Participation in a conference in-and-of-itself does not show 
original contributions of major significance. 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. 
USCJS, 580 F.3d 1030, I 036 (9th Cir. 2009), ttf'd in part, 596 F.3~ 1115. Herc, the Petitioner did 
not demonstrate that she actually participated in the symposium, and she did not establish that it 
significantly impacted her field. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met her burden of showing that she has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
Evidence qf the alien ·s authorship of scholarly arlicles in the field, in pr<fessional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) . 
The record contains sufficient evidence showing that the Petitioner authored scholarly ai1icles in 
professional journals. Accordingly, the Petitioner demonstrated that she fulfills this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner argues that her role with the 
satisfies this criterion . As it relates to a leading role, then evidence must establish that a 
petitioner is or was a leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties , can help to establish if a role 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra. at 8-9; see alsc; 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). 
5 Id. / 
5 
.
Malter of X-L-
is or was, in fact, leading. 6 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. 7 
At initial filing, the Petitioner provided an "Honorary Credential" indicating that she had been 
appointed to the standing committee of In addition, she offered a letter from an 
unidentified author of reflecting that the Petitioner had been chosen to lead the marriage 
and family chapter. Further, she presented a screenshot from cwu .edu.cn showing the background 
.and purpose of However, the Petitioner did not show how her role on the standing 
committee or marriage and family chapter reflects her leading or critical role to overall. 
She did not, for example, provide evidence establishing how her role was more prominent to the 
other roles in Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her roles contributed in a 
way that is of significant importance to the outcome of activities .8 Further, the 
letter did not contain detailed and probative information that specifically addressed how her roles 
were leading or critical. 9 
(n response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted uncertified English language translations for a letter 
from · and three press releases for the Elderly Law journal. See 8 C.F.R. § l 03.2(b)(3). 
Furthermore, the letter and press releases described a conference hosted by where it was 
announced that a new journal will be published; however, these events occurred after the filing of 
the petition. The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration 
benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03 .2(b )(I) . Regardless, the evidence does not show that the Petitioner performed in a leading or 
critical role for Moreover, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. The relative size or longevity of an organization or establishment is not in 
and of itself a determining factor. 10 
Accordingly, the Petitioner did not show that she 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 . Neverth~less, we advise 
6 . 
See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at I 0. 
7 Id. 
8 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra. at I 0. 
9 Id. 
10 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra. at IO (defining Merrion-Webster ·s Dictiona1y definition of 
"distinguished" as marked by eminence, distinction, or excellence). 
6 
Malter of X-L-
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 perfon11ing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Mauer <f Price, 20 l&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r. 1994). 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown that the significance of her scholarly accomplishments 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. 1-1.R. Rep. No. IO 1-723, 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 she is 
one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that she qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of X-L-, ID# 1726454 (AAO Nov. 16, 2018) 
7