dismissed EB-1A Case: Marketing And Media Relations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 2, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a marketing and media relations consultant, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(1 )(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 I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, and a subsequent motion, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten 
initial evidentiary criteria, of which she must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that she fulfills at 
least three of the ten criteria. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(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 C-C-
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 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 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). 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 ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was serving as Director of Marketing and Media Relations forl I ~-~I Because she has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, the Petitioner 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 the 
published material and leading or critical role criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (viii), 
respectively. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she also meets the awards, original 
contributions, and display criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), and (vii), respectively. Upon 
review, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner meets the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the.field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
"Most As evidence under this criterion, the Petitioner i,resented five awards received b 
Innovative" I J at the "2014 ," "Best Design" 
......._ _____________ at the "2011 ," Robb Report magazine's 
2 
Matter of C-C-
"Best of the Best 20 l lL __ ---f"" _______ __.__'_.' .........,u.......L.........,......._-1..._---, _______ ____J 
category at the 2011 Internationa..___~~~-----~~-------" and "Best Asian Built 
~----.--------~ at the 2014' Awards, jointly organized by Asia-Pac[fic 
Boating and China Boating magazines." 
The Director noted that the above awards were "won by al ~" and that they were "given 
for product design, and not for marketin ." 1 For example, the record includes an article in Robb 
Report's "Best of the Best 2011 's ecial issue edition stating that the I ~as 
designed byl land built by.__ ____ _.. Ibis artjc)t does not mention the Petitioner or 
her marketing work. The evidence does not show thatl s awards for its design, innovation, 
and building of various types of1 I were mostly attributable to her work or that those awards were 
in the marketing and media relations field. 
In order to fulfill this criterion, the Petitioner must demonstrate her receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 2 Here, the 
Petitioner did not receive these awards; rather, her employer garnered them. The description of this 
type of evidence in the regulation provides that the focus should be on "the alien's" receipt of the 
awards or prizes, as opposed to her employer's receipt of the awards or prizes. 3 Furthermore, the 
information about the awards from the presenting organizations and I I is not sufficient to 
demonstrate that they are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. 
In addition, while the Petitioner contends thatl I received "Best I lof the Year 2013 by 
I IAwardsJ I China," the evidence does not show that her company 
actually won this award. Instead, the record includes a I I 2013 I lpress release 
distributed bv PR Newswire stating: I I 2013 finalist for 
i----...------'l 2013" ( emphasis added). The Petitioner also provided a list of the "2Q.Llj 
wards Winners" from "SPH Magazines Blog," but this list does not identifyL I as 
having won either of the aforementioned awards. Moreover, the record does not contain sufficient 
evidence demonstrating that the company's selection as a finalist constitutes a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the Petitioner's field. Nor does the 
evidence show thatl Is standing as a finalist was mostly attributable to her work. For the 
above reasons, the Petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
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 necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
1 The Petitioner has identified her field of endeavor as "marketing and media relations." 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 Id. 
3 
Matter of C-C-
The Director found that that the Petitioner had demonstrated her eligibility under this criterion. For 
the reasons outlined below, we find that the Petitioner has not submitted sufficient documentary 
evidence showing that she meets the requirements of this criterion. Accordingly, the Director's 
determination on this issue will be withdrawn. 
The record includes a 2016 article about the Petitioner, entitled '1._ _________ __. 
.__ ________ ____. in Canada.GreekReporter.com. In addition, she provided information about 
GreekReporter.com from its website. This information states that GreekReporter.com operates 
"different local portals" such as '1 I USA, Australia, Canada, Europe, World, Greece" 
reaching an "audience of more than 4 million." Regarding GreekReporter.com's claimed readership, 
USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 
06 5105 SJO, aff'd 317 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9). The record also includes a Wikipedia entry stating that 
Greek Reporter is a news organization that operates an "online portal consisting of a collection of 
internet news web sites for Greek people and people of Greek descent who live and work in and outside 
Greece." The Petitioner, however, has not presented comparative statistics or other evidence 
indicating that Greek Reporter's Canadian website, Canada.GreekReporter.com, has a readership 
elevating it to major media relative to other news publications. 
The Petitioner also presented various magazine articles from Yates, Yachts Russia, Invictus, Design 
Bureau, Inside Marine, Argos Yachts, and MegaYacht News, but these articles only mention her in 
passing or briefly quote her discussing information about her employer and it yachts. This regulatory 
criterion requires "published material about the alien." Articles that are not about her do not meet this 
regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plwnpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) 
(upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). Furthermore, the Petitioner has 
not presented comparative statistics or other evidence indicating that the aforementioned magazines' 
readership elevates them to major media relative to other publications. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided documentation showing that she hosted various 1 I Videos" 
that were broadcast weekly via Y ouTube and Twitter. The record includes information from I I I I stating: I I with host [the Petitioner], is a weekly news show recapping the world's 
top trending international headlines. . . . Great for people on the go, the show runs 5-7 minutes, and tells 
you all you need to know to sound 'in-the-know' at your next dinner party or social gathering." The 
evidence indicates that these videos covered the world's top trending international headlines and were not 
about the Petitioner. Nor has she demonstrated thatl lis a form of major media. The Petitioner 
has not established therefore that she meets this regulatory 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). 
The Petitioner argues that she revolutionized the presentation of yachts at industry exhibitions through 
ex eriential marketing. She contends that her booth exhibitions recreated the experience ofl I 
.___-+-in_c_l~uding special visual effects and music, and that "[h ]er approach was immediately copied by 
4 
Matter of C-C-
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. 
As evidence for this criterion, the Petitioner provided letters of support discussing her creativity in 
delivering effective I I displays. 4 However, as discussed below, these letters do not offer 
sufficiently detailed information, nor does the record include adequate corroborating documentation, 
to demonstrate the nature of specific "original contributions" that the Petitioner has made to the field 
that have been considered to be of major significance. 
For example, I I, president of~-----------~ stated: "Transforming 
the traditional exhibition space into an experiential landscar for potential owners, [the Petitioner] 
shook up the formerly conservative, fuddy duddyl _ community and pushed the exhibition 
industry into the 21st century in terms of creative progressiveness and cutting edge artistic styling." 
He further indicated that "[a] side from having shared her vision for I I design, a style 
which has been adopted by many ofc=]s competitors the Petitioner's] artistic expression and 
marketing genius is vividly on displa at each and ever global showcase." Similarly, 
I I Director of Sales for~-------~' a company that produces! I 
shows in Florida, contended that the Petitioner "quickly set a new bar amongst!, !manufacturers 
and brokers, introducing a new global standard forl !displays, and com[er]ing the arena of 
'experiential marketing."' I I and I !however, do not provide specific examples 
of how the Petitioner's experiential marketing approaches have widely affected the industry or have 
otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance in the field. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted a letter from~------~ President ofl I I la cloud solutions and information technology company. 5 He asserted that the Petitioner led 
"not onl)'LJ but was a forerunner for the whol~ I industry in recognizing that platforms that 
display video content offer multiple layers of engagement. ... This ultimately assisted in the meteoric 
rise thatc=Jrealized .... " The record, however, does not contain sufficient evidence showing that 
the Petitioner's multi-media strategies had a meaningful impact to the overall field beyondl I 
I I The language of this regulatory criterion requires that the Petitioner's original contributions 
be "of major significance in the field" rather than mainly affecting her employer. See 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). Without sufficient evidence demonstrating 
that her work constitutes original contributions of major significance in the field, the Petitioner has 
not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
4 Although we discuss a sampling ofletters, we have reviewed and considered eacP-h-=on=e""'". ----, 
4._ ____ ~boted that he previously served as Chief Technology Officer for._l ---~ 
5 
Matter of C-C-
The Petitioner initially asserted that her marketing displays and promotional booths at various boat 
shows meet this criterion. The record indicates that the design and craftsmanship of1 I was 
on display at these commercial boat shows. The language of this criterion specifically requires display 
of the Petitioner's work at "artistic exhibitions or showcases" (emphasis added). Here, the evidence 
does not demonstrate that the work on display was her work product, nor that these commercial boat 
shows were "artistic" in nature. 6 Accordingly, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied this criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that she satisfies this criterion based on comparable evidence under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(4). Specifically, she asserts that her "preparation of the booths, 
promotional materials, [and] organizing presentations" at boat shows should be considered as 
comparable evidence. 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. 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. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 7 
In this case, the Petitioner has not shown that the listed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not readily 
apply to her occupation. She has not asserted or demonstrated that she cannot offer evidence that 
meets at least three of the ten criteria. As discussed, the Petitioner has claimed to meet more than 
three criteria. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that marketing and media relations consultants 
cannot present evidence relating to the other regulatory criteria. For these reasons, the Petitioner has 
not established that she is eligible to meet this criterion through the submission of comparable 
evidence. 
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 evidence shows that as Director of Marketing and Media Relations forl I the Petitioner 
has performed in a critical role for a distinguished organization. Accordingly, the record supports the 
Director's determination 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 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 9-10. 
7 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
6 
Matter of C-C-
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 and recognition of her work are indicative of the required sustained 
national or international acclaim or that they are 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 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. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with 
each considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, 
it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, 
that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of C-C-, ID# 3629500 (AAO July 2, 2019) 
7