dismissed EB-1A Case: Management Science

U.S. Dcpartmcnl of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave.. N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: . , 
81 d~ 2005 LIN 03 274 50477 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)( I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1 I 53(b)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
'This is the decision of the Administrative Appeal:; Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
, Administrative Appeals Office 
,J 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1 I53(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to 
qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are aliens 
described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary absil ity 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 to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability'' means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained 
national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that 
the petitioner must show that he has earned sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level, 
This petition, filed on September 18, 2003, seelks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary 
ability as a management scientist. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a Visiting Scholar at 
Ohio State University. The statute and regulations require the petitioner's acclaim to be sussuined. The record 
reflects that the petitioner has been residing in the United States since September 2000. Given the length of 
time between the petitioner's arrival in the United States and the petition's filing date, it is reasonable to 
expect the petitioner to have earned national acclaim in the United States during that time. The petitioner has 
had ample time to establish a reputation in this country. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
internationat acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized 
award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which 
must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence pertaining to the following criteria. 
Documentation of the ulien!~ receipl of lesser nulicmully or intemutionully recognizedprizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeuvor. 
We note here that the plain wording of this criterion requires "nationally or internationally recognized" prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field. The burden is on the petitioner to demonstrate the level of recognition 
and achievement associated with his awards. 
The petitioner submitted an award certificate indxcating that he received a "Voice of the New Century Award 
(Class 11), in recognition of his research paper entitled 'Collectively Running Companies as a Possible 
Livelihood for Laid-Off Workers."' In support of this award, the petitioner submitted partial translations of 
his "Notice of Selection" for the Voice of the New Century Award and of a listing of the "essay competition" 
award criteria. According to item 5 of the essay competition award criteria, "The 'Voice of the New Century 
Award' Competition Review Board will present winners with Special, First-Class, Second-Class, Third-Class, 
and Excellence awards." Aside from the multitulde of honors available, we note that the petitioner received a 
"Second-Class" award, indicating a lesser degree of recognition than those recognized at the "Special" or 
"First-Class" levels. Furthermore, we cannot ignore that the majority of the information pertaining to the 
award criteria was omitted from the English language translations. For example, items 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 
were omitted from the translation of the essay competition award criteria. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), 
any document containing foreign language submitted to Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) shall be 
accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator has certified as complete and accurate, 
and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English. The petitioner's incomplete translation of the information related to the Voice of the New Century 
Award essay competition does not meet the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Without a complete 
translation of this information, we cannot concl~rde that the petitioner's "Second Class" award represents a 
signiticant national honor. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act requires extensive documentation of sustained national or international 
acclaim. The record lacks crucial information regarding the total number of awards bestowed under each of 
the five categories cited above, the total number of entrants in the contest, the essay competition's complete 
entry requirements, the criteria used in determining recipients under each particular category, and the level of 
media coverage associated with "Second Class" award presentations. Large-scale competitions typically 
issue official results naming the winners from each competitive category. In this case, there is no evidence 
showing a complete listing of winners far each of the five award categories cited above. The evidence 
presented here is not adequate to establish that the petitioner's "Second-Class" award enjoys significant 
national stature. 
Documentation of the ulien's memhershil) in ussociution.~ in Ihefieldjbr which clu.sst$cution is 
sought, which reqlrirr outstuncling uchic~vemenls of [heir members, us judged by recognized 
national or internulioncrl experts in their ,disciplines orfirlu's. 
In order to demonstrate that membership in an association meets this criterion, the petitioner must show that 
the association requires outstanding achievement as an essential condition for admission to membership. 
Membership requirements based on employml:nt or activity in a given field, minimum education or 
experience, standardized test scores, grade point average, recommendations by colleagues or current 
members, or payment of dues. do not satisfy this criterion as such requirements do not constitute outstanding 
achievements. In addition, it is clear from the regulatory language that members must be selected at the 
national or international level, rather than the local or regional level. Therefore, membership in an association 
that evaluates its membership applications at the local or regional chapter levet would not qualify. Finatly, 
the overall prestige of a given association is not determinative; the issue here is membership requirements 
rather than the association's overall reputation. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the Chinese Society of Building Materials Industry 
and Economics, The Mid-West Chinese Science and Culture Association, and the US.-China Association of 
Business Cultural Exchanges Society of the Study of Human Nexus. There is no evidence showing that 
membership in these organizations required outstanding achievement in the petitioner's field or that he was 
evaluated by national or international experts in consideration of his membership. The record contains no 
evidence to establish that the preceding organiziitions require outstanding achievement of their members in 
the same manner as highly exclusive associations such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 
Published muterials ahout the alien in pn,fessional or major rrade publications or other mcrjor 
media, relating lo the  alien!^ work in the,firld.fir which c/u~.sificution is sought. Such evidence 
shull include {he Me, dote, unduuthor ofthe muleriu/, und uny necessary trun.slution. 
In general, in order for published material to meet this criterion, it must be primarily about the petitioner and, as 
stated in the regulations, be printed in professional or major trade publications or other mqor media. To qualify 
as major media, the publication should have significant national or international distribution. An alien would not 
earn acclaim at the national or international level from a local publication or from a publication in a language that 
most of the population cannot comprehend. Some newspapers, such as the New York Times, nominally serve a 
particular locality but would qualify as major media because of significant national distribution, unlike small local 
community papers.' 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the inclusion of a brief profile about himself appearing in voluminous 
biographical directories such as Who's Whu ill  he World: Cltrtstanding Professionuls, A Dictionury of 
Chinese und Foreign Celebrities, Whol.r Who in Contrmporury China, Encycloprdiu Sinicu of Clutstanding 
and Tulented Chinese, Chinu :F Reservoir r,f HI&-Cclliber Munpower, Who's Who in China: Contemporuy 
Talents, Who's Who: World Personages, Dictionary of C'hinese ProfL.ssionals, Scientijic Chinese - Talents' 
Bank of Chinese Experts, and Who's Who in the World - China. Publications of this size, with such a limited 
portion devoted to the petitioner, appear to be more of a comprehensive directory than a special form of 
recognition limited to an elite few. For example, we note that the petitioner's brief entry appears on page 1072 of 
Dictionury cf C'hinese Professionuls and page 686 of Who 's Who in the WorM - C'hrnu. Furthermore, the 
1 Even with nationally-circulated newspapers, consideration must be given to the placement of the article. For example, 
an article that appears in the Washington Post, but in a section that is distributed only in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot 
serve to spread an indiv~dual's reputation outside of that county. 
incomplete translations of the petitioner's specific entries are not in compliance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 
103.2(b)(3). We also note that the petitioner's brief entry in each of these directories appears to be identical 
(according to the partial translations). We cannot conclude that the petitioner's limited and repetitive entry into 
such sizable tomes would constitute qualifying published material about the petitioner and his work. Finally, the 
petitioner provides no quantitative evidence regarding the volume of distribution of the preceding publications to 
establish that they qualify as "major media." 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted two online commentaries about the 
petitioner's work appearing on the internet on the Chinu Enterprise News website and at www.chinapr.corn.cn. 
This is not qualifying "published" material in the major media. There is no quantitative evidence of substantial 
national readership. 
The petitioner submitted a captioned photograph of himself appearing in the March 20, 2004 issue of World 
Journd, a Chinese-language newspaper published in the United States. The petitioner also submitted an article 
from the China Press (published in New York) dated September 19, 2003 and an article from Chino Building 
Materials News dated November 22, 2003. Aside from not being accompanied by complete translations in 
compliance with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 4 103.2(b)(3), we note that these publications came into existence 
subsequent to the petition's filing date. A petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(I 2); see Matter of Kutigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm. 1971). 
The petitioner also submitted incomplete translations of additional articles appearing in Sino Times and the 
Ohio Chinese-American News. In regard to the articles appearing in Chinese-language newspapers published in 
the United States, there is no indication that these: publications have a substantial national readership beyond 
Chinese language readership in a few U.S. cities. There is no quantitative data regarding their volume of U.S. 
readership. Because the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population does not read or comprehend Chinese, 
it has nbt been shown that an article appearing, in such publications constitutes published material in the 
"major media." 
We find no evidence to support the conclusion that the petitioner has been the subject of sustained major media 
attention. 
Evidence of the alien's purticipulion, either in~lividuuZly or on u punel, a9 a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedjeld of ,sper$cutionj?w which cl~rssrf;cution is sought. 
As previously noted, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. S; 204.5(h)(3) provides that "a petition for an alien of 
extraordinary ability must be accompanied by evidence that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Evidence of the 
petitioner's participation as a judge must be (evaluated in terms of these requirements. For example, 
evaluating the work of accomplished professors ;is a member on a national panel of experts is of far greater 
probative value than evaluating students at one's university. 
The petitioner submitted a partially translated letter from the China International Interchange Press, publisher of 
Who's Who in the World - China, inviting the petitioner to "serve as Special Advisory Member of the Editorial 
Board of Who '.Y Who in the World - C'hinu." The letter further states: "We thank you and welcome you to 
Page 6 
continue your recommendations of people for inclusion in our directory. . . . Those you recommend for inclusion 
will receive notification one by one." This letter is unsupported by first-hand evidence showing that the 
petitioner actually participated as a judge of thc: work of others in the field of management science (or an 
allied field). Furthermore, issuing recommendations or referrals of individuals to be included in a frequently 
published directory of professionals is not evidence of national acclaim. 
The petitioner a1 so submitted a partially translated letter from Discovery, a reformist magazine published in 
China, notifying the petitioner of his appointment to Vice Chairmanship of its Board of Directors. The record, 
however, contains no quantitative evidence regarding the distribution volume of this publication, or specific 
evidence of the petitioner's "participation . . . as a judge of the work of others." 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a letter from Liguo Wang, Editor-in- 
Chief of Liuo-Y~an Mapine, "an electronic magazine in Chinese," stating the petitioner is a member of the 
online magazine's editorial board. The record. however, contains no quantitative evidence of this online 
publication's readership. Nor is there any first-hand evidence of the petitioner's specific activities as an editorial 
board member prior to the petition's filing date. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); see Matter of Katigbak at. 45,49. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the$eield, in professional or major trude 
publications or other rnujor media. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his authorship of a book entitled The Human Nexus: From East to West. 
The record, however, contains no evidence showing that this book enjoys a substantial national readership as a 
particularly significant work. For example, there is no quantitative evidence indicating the number of copies sold. 
In regard to the petitioner's articles, there is no evidence showing that they appeared in major media. Nor is there 
evidence establishing that they are widely viewecl throughout the petitioner's field as significantly influentia~.~ 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate that the 
alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim, is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. The petitioner in this case has failed to demonstrate that he meets at least three 
of the criteria that must be satisfied to establish the sustained national or international acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Review of the record does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself to such an extent that he may 
be said to have achieved sustained national or international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the 
very top of his field. The evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above 
almost all others in his field at the national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
Numerous independent citations would provide firm evidence that other scholars have been influenced by the 
petitioner's work and are familiar with it. If, on the other hand, there are few or no citations of an alien's work, 
suggesting that that work has gone largely unnoticed by the greater field, then it is reasonable to conclude that the alien's 
work is not nationally or internationally acclaimed. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. $ 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.