dismissed EB-1A Case: Media Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 11211975 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 07, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a[ n] media management expert , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act(theAct) 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 any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at 
least three. 
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 )(1) 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 petitioner 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 
Visinscaiav.Beers,4F. Supp.3d 126, 131-32(D.D.C.2013);Rijalv. USCJS, 772F. Supp.2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is a media management expert residing inl..__~__.----"-'A=t--=t=h-=-e--=t=im=-=-e--=o=f--'f=il=in=g=,'-'h=e=---'-w'"""a=s'""'a"'-, 
general manager forl I and co-founder of thel.__ ____________ ____.l 
I 1. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he 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 Petitionerhadnotmetany of the evidentiaty 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3 )(i)-(x). On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets the evidentiaiy 
criteria relating to judging, original contributions, leading or critical role, and salary. After reviewing 
all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner has established that he meets only one of 
the ten criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
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 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The Petitioner contends that he meets this criterion in part through his service as a judge forthd I DA ward and submits evidence, such as documentation aboutthe award, his invitation to participate 
as a judge of it, and confirmation that he completed his duties in that capacity. The documentation 
describes thel I Award as "an industrial award for outstanding technology reports" whose 
purpose is "to find and encourage in-depth reports" and to "help outstanding technology news content 
creators." This is sufficient to demonstrate that the award is more likely than not offered to others in 
the same or allied field of media management, the area of specialization for which the Petitioner seeks 
classification. The Petitioner's invitation to judge the award and confirmation demonstrate that he 
2 
completed his duties as a judge for this award. Accordingly, the Petitioner has established that he 
meets this criterion, and we will withdraw the Director's finding to the contrary in this matter. 1 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role/or organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5 (h)(3 )(viii) 
In order to meet this criterion, the petitioner must establish both that he played a leading or critical 
role, and that the organization or establishment for which he played that role is recognized as having 
a distinguished reputation. If in a leading role, the evidence must establish that the alien is ( or was) a 
leader. A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is (or was), in fact, 
leading. 2 
In his decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not met this criterion as evidence in the 
record did not clearly distinguish between the multiple roles the Petitioner played in each company in 
a manner sufficient to establish that these roles were, in fact, leading. For the reasons discussed 
below, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for this criterion. 
The Petitioner asserts that he performed in a leading role forl I as a management 
committee member and general manager. To establish this, he provides an orrnizational chait 
identifying him as general manager, one of six positions reporting directly to the I 
management committee, and indicating that he is responsible for advertising, marketing, the sales 
agency, and publication. The organization chart further shows that the Petitioner is a member of this 
management committee. The Petitioner further submits a translated document titled "Economic 
Responsibility Audit Repmi" describinr his duties as general manager forl I as being 
"fully responsible forl :s advertising, operation, and management." This is sufficient 
to show the Petitioner's leading role forl I 
However, the regulation also requires that the Petitioner submit evidence establishingthat~I --~ 
I I has a distinguished re utation. To do so the Petitioner submits articles from the New York 
Times, an aiiicle fro .com and a 2015 Foreiczn Po lie aiiicle. TheForeionPolic 
aiiicle states that althou h 
The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the 
benefit sought have been satisfied from the time of filing continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103 .2(b )(1 ). Here the Petitioner provides evidence indicating that although! I may 
have enjoyed a distinguished reputation in the past, it does not continue to do so at present. Without 
evidence demonstrating thatl I cunently holds a distinguished reputation, the 
Petitioner has not shown that he has satisfied this eligibility requirement continuing through 
adjudication, as required. 
With regard to the New York Times articles, although they describd I briefly as 
I I' they primarily focus on actions atl , I to counter Chinese 
censorship. The Petitioner does not submit evidence demonstrating how these actionsreflectl I 
1 le a ckooufedge the Petitioner's argument on appeal that he also meets this criterion through his service as a judge of 
the,.__ __ .....,Award. However, as discussed, the Petitioner has already demonstrated he meets this criterion. 
2 Sec 6 USCJS Policy ManualF.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2. 
3 
___ ...__s _d_is_ti_n....., ished reputation. With respect to the._l ___ ___,lcom article, while it indicates that 
is one of the four most valuable new a ers the article highli hts the success of the ---------''-------~ 
L_ _____ _,-----1----1 which ow itself 
For example, the~ ___ ....... com article calls 'the most influential 
in China" and notes that the media group had been "selected as one of the '~~----~-~ 
for seven consecutive ears." The Petitioner does not submit evidence showing 
how the success of~ ____________ _.demonstrates thatl I enjoys a 
distinguished reputation. 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 ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 
806 (AAO 2012). Absent evidence showing that either censorship actions or the reputation of 
I I demonstrates that~ _____ _,.....enjoys a distinguished 
reputation, the Petitioner has not established that his leading role there meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner also asserts that he serves in a leading role as I I "co-founder 
Publisber!Pmducer Cbainuan :nd CEO" He submits registration information rod I 
I l 3 from the National Enterprise Credit Information 
PubliciT System, a letter of recommendation froml l chief editor ofi l D I s organizational structure, and media aiiicles. The registration documentation lists the 
Petitioner as one of three shareholders in that entity, but the Petitioner does not provide evidence 
establishing the duties he performs in his role as a shareholder. As we note above, a title, with 
matching duties, may help to establish that a role is leading. 4 Absent information on the duties the 
Petitioner performs as a shareholder, this evidence is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's role 
is a leading one. 
I ts letter of recommendation describes the Petitioner as having as having "single-
handedly founded the entirel I' but lacks detailed examples of the duties the 
Petitioner performed in a leading role fo~ I Further, I I did not indicate how he 
has personal knowledge of the significance of the Petitioner's leading role or that the author employed 
the Petitioner. Letters from individuals with personal knowledge of the significance of the alien's 
leading or critical role can be paiiicularly helpful in making this determination as long as the letters 
contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the alien's role for the 
organization or establishment was leading or critical. Further, the regulation at 8 CFR 204.S(g)(l) 
provides, in relevant part, that evidence of experience "shall" consist of letters from employers. 
Absent detailed examples of the duties the Petitioner perf. ormed in foundi~formation 
regarding Is personal knowledge of the Petitioner, and evidence that L__jemployed 
the Pefoioner thi~ letter is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's has performed in a leading role 
forl~--· --~J 
With respect to the organizational chart, this document indicates that the Petitioner is I l's 
chairman, CEO, and publisher. However, one news article in the record identifies the Petit/oner as 
I ~s general manager and a second article in the record discusseJ~----~-s return 
to I , I as its chief executive officer. These articles are discrepant with the organizational 
3 The Petitioner indicates in the brief accompanying the underlying petition that this is~I ---~i's registration 
documentation. 
4 Sec 6 USCJS PolicyManualF.2(B)(2), supra. 
4 
chart above. The Petitioner must resolve these discrepancies in the record with independent, objective 
evidencepointingto where the truth lies. MatterofHo, 19 I&NDec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). Absent 
evidence reso lvingthe roles performed by the Petitioner fo~._ ____ ___.khe Petitioner has not shown 
that he has served in a leading role for that entity, as asserted. 
In addition, the Petitioner does not submit evidence sufficient to demonstrate I l's 
distinguished reputation. For example, the Petitioner provides photographs and descriptions of 
awards received by magazines owned b~ land media articles regarding these magazines' 
staffing selections. However, this regulation provides that the Petitioner must establish the 
distinguished reputation of the entity for which he claims to serve in a leading or critical role. Here 
as discu
1
sed above, the Petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion through his leading role for □ 
I _ Although the evidence regarding these magazines indicates that they enjoy a distinguished 
reputation, the,...,_,,~,~~rn~"='•~n~._,,,es not submit evidence showing how these magazines' reputations 
established tha en· o s a distinguished re utation. The Petitioner also provides evidence 
demonstrating that~----~ invested in but does not submit documentation 
showing how this investment demonstrate ~---~'s distinguished reputation. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not offered evidence demonstrating that he meets this 
criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other sign[ficantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that he was "unable to compare the evidence of 
earnings" in the record with that of others in the field in paii because "it appears ... bonuses and other 
financial incentives are included" with the Petitioner's salary. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director is incorrect and that his base annual salary of 
Renminbi (RMB) 1,544,633.50 does not include a bonus or other financial incentives and also 
demonstrates his eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, the record includes the Petitioner's certificate 
of income dated August 2019, his tax return dated October 2019, an updated December 2019 tax 
return, and evidence relating to the salaries commanded by others in his field. 
Upon review, we first note that the Petitioner has not established that, at the time of filing, he had 
commanded a salary of RMB 1,544,633.50. Specifically, while the December 2019 income tax return 
submitted by the Petitioner corroborates this higher amount, the tax return includes income earned for 
the tax periods November 2019 and December 2019. 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. § 103.2(b)(l ). Without evidence establishing the Petitioner's salary at 
the time of filing, the record is insufficient to demonstrate that this salary is high relative to that of 
others in the field. 
This notwithstanding, we also consider evidence in the record relating to the Petitioner's income prior 
to filing the instant petition. We note that the August 2019 income certificate reflects an income 
totaling RMB 1,517,226 at the time the instant petition was filed. However, as the Director noted in 
his decision, evidence in the record is insufficient to demonstrate whether this income reflects the 
5 
Petitioner's salary, his salary and a bonus, or other remuneration. Specifically, the August 2019 
income certificate does not indicate whether this total income includes a bonus. The October 2019 
tax return shows that on May 08, 2019, the Petitioner made two tax payments - one payment 
described as "Normal Salaries" and one with a translated description of "One-time Bonus Income for 
the Whole Year," while the December 2019 tax return lists two tax payments on the same date in the 
same amount but attributes these items to payments for "Salary income." The Petitioner must resolve 
these incongruities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, at 591-92. Absent evidence resolving whether the Petitioner's reported income 
represents his salary, salary or bonus, or some other remuneration, the record is insufficient to establish 
the salary commanded by the Petitioner at the time of filing. 5 As we note above, absent evidence 
establishing the Petitioner's salary at the time of filing, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate 
that the Petitioner commanded a high salary relative to that of others in his field. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that he meets this criterion. 
As discussed above, we find that the Petitioner does not meet the two criteria relating to leading or 
critical role or to high salary. Although he claims to meet an additional criterion on appeal relating to 
original contributions of major significance, we need not reach this issue. We will reserve the issue 
as the Petitioner cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). 6 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established the Beneficiary's extraordinary 
abilityundersection203(b )(1 )(A)(i) of the Act. As such, we neednotdeterminewhetherhe is coming 
to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" under section 203(b )(l)(a)(ii). 
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 fmal 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Neve1iheless, we advise that we 
have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not suppmi 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 perfonning at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinaiy 
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 his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
5 We note that the Petitioner has offeredevidenceofsalaries from the U.S. DepartmentofLabor's CareerOneStopwebsite. 
However, these are wage statistics for the U.S., while the Petitioner is employed in China. Nonimrnigrants working in 
different countries should be evaluated based on the wage statistics or comparable evidence in that country, ra therthan by 
simply converting the salary to U.S. dollars and then viewingwhetherthatsalarywould be considered high in the United 
States. See 6 USC IS Policy Manua!F.2(8)(2), supra. 
6 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach); sec also MattcrofL-A-C-, 26 I&NDec. 516,526 
n.7(BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where anapplicantis otherwise ineligible). 
6 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. IO 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, I 990);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 he 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 reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7