dismissed EB-1A Case: Media

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 2 7 2015 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: PETITIONER: 
BENEFICIARY: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, tiling location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
��:?� 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss 
the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" as a news anchor and 
director, pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)( A), which makes visas available to petitioners who can demo nstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in their field through extensive documentation. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which 
requires docume ntation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets the criteria under the regulation at 8 C.P. R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (iv) and (v). On January 26, 2015, we issued a notice of intent to dismiss 
(NOID) based on inconsiste ncies pertaining to the petitioner's identity, translation accuracy and 
completeness, and lack of evidence re lating to the petitioner's intent to continue his work in the 
United States. In his NOID response, the petitioner submitted additional evidence, including his 
statement, an employment offer, retranslations of some foreign language documents in the record, 
and documents relating to the petitioner's involvement in the drafting of automotive legislation. The 
petitioner's NOID response resolved the issue of his identity by submitting his re gistration card with 
both names, and his intent to continue his work in the United States, through the submission of a job 
offer in radio production. Neverthele ss, his response did not include translations that meet the 
regulatory requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3) for all foreign language documents in the 
record. For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not 
established his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not 
submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C. P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or 
evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not de monstrated that he is one of the small 
percentage who is at the very top in the field of ende avor, and that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's 
appeal. 
I. LAW 
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 --
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for 
individuals seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. /d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the beneficiary's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the beneficiary's 
achievements in the field through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner 
must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
(discussing a two-part rev ie w where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Rijal v. 
USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of 
Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "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"). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of a one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his evidence that he is the recipient of a major, 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. As such, as initial 
evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C. P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204. 5(h)(3)(i). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he has been awarded the 1998-
1999 First Class and the 2002 Second Prize Award of 
The petitioner has not shown he meets this criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not shown that he is the recipient of the 1998-1999 First Class 
The record includes a certificate of award issued by the 
that the ' 
won [the] 1998-1999 First Class 
stating 
_ The certificate does not identify the petitioner as the recipient 
of the award. Moreover, the petitioner has submitted evidence showing that the award was given to 
news outlets, rather than to individuals. Specifically, according to a February 14, 2014 statement 
from, according to the translation, the ' all the award recipients in 2000 were 
news outlets, not individuals. 
In response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted an undated 
statement from 1 who the translator identifies as the spokesperson for the 
1 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the petitioner claims 
to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
2 The petitioner also submitted an English translation entitled ' 
. ' identifying the 
spokesperson as , not The record also includes a July 16, 2013 document entitled 
for which the translator identified the author as In response to our NOID, the 
petitioner submitted a document entitled ' 
_ _ _ 
indicating that 
is the "Deputy Inspector and Spokesperson of the General Office of the ' The 
translation for this same document that the petitioner submitted in response to the RFE identifies the spokesperson as 
(b)(6)
NONPPRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The undated statement indicates that the petitioner is "the 1999 recipient of first class 
" while the petitioner asserts that he is the recipient of the "1998-1999 First Class 
' (Emphases added.) The foreign language document the petitioner submits as the 
award certificate is an incomplete copy of the certificate that does not include the numbers that 
follow the "19" notation. 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not submitted independent evidence corroborating the conclusory 
statements in documents that, according to the translations, originate from the 
stating that the ' is prestigious. According to a July 16, 2013 statement from 
entitled ' ' the " is the nationally highest 
award honored by the The record lacks evidence 
that substantiates the conclusory statement. Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Notably, the February 14, 2014 statement 
from the lists 38 first prize awardees, 13 second prize awardees and 15 third 
prize winners in 2000. The petitioner has not submitted any information relating to the 
competitiveness of the award, i.e., information on how many individuals were considered for the 
award or explaining the significance of placing as one of 38 first prize winning news organizations. 
In addition, the evidence submitted to show the recognition of the award is from the entity that, 
according to the translations, issued the award. Such self-promotional evidence has limited 
evidentiary value. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO 10, 2007 WL 9229758, at *1, 6-7 
(C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), aff'd, 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to 
rely on the promotional assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major 
media). The petitioner has not supported the self-promotional evidence with more independent 
evidence, such as, but not limited to, independent journalistic coverage of the 1999 or 1998-1999 
award in nationally or internationally circulated publications. Although the July 16, 2013 statement 
indicates that "Each year, all media including TV, Radio, Newspapers, Magazines, websites etc. 
have widely reported various meeting, activities, programs, news, which are hosted or related to 
as well as culture itself," the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing 
media coverage of the Award or his receipt of the award. The petitioner 
has not shown that the award enjoys recognition beyond the issuing entity. 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that the 2002 Second Prize Award at the 
issued by the is a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field of endeavor. The 
September 2003 certificate of honor for which the translator identifies the 
as the issuing authority, indicates that "[t]he Program ' 
won the Second Prize Award at [the] 2002 
(Chief contributors: [the petitioner], 
" The certificate does not indicate that the petitioner has received the award, as 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
required under the plain language of the criterion. Rather, it states that the petitioner contributed to a 
program that won the award. 
In addition, the petitioner has not submitted evidence relating to the number of programs that, or 
individuals who, entered the competition, or how many other programs and/or individuals won the 
second prize award at the competition. The record also lacks evidence showing that the 2002 award 
received any media coverage in nationally or internationally circulated publications. The petitioner 
has submitted insufficient evidence showing that the award enjoys recognition outside the issuing 
entity. 
Moreover, the petitioner asserts in his appellate brief that a February 20, 2014 statement from 
entitled· establishes that his 2002 Second Prize Award at the 
indicates that the program ' 
is a qualifyin� award under the criterion. The award certificate 
" won the 
2002 Second Prize Award at the competition. The February 2014 statement from 
however, states that in an unspecific year, the petitioner won "the first-class award for his program 
of' " The February 2014 statement makes no mention of the 2002 Second Prize 
A ward, the 
_ _ 
or the program ' 
� _ " As such, the February 20 14 statement from 
not demonstrate that the 2002 Second Prize Award is qualifying under the criterion. 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not shown that the "first-class" 
does 
issued in 2003, is a qualifying award under the criterion. According to the award 
certificate, the award was given to not the petitioner. Specifically, the award 
certificate, dated June 2003, is addressed to and states that "your program 
won the 2002 1st class award, Economic Section." The award certificate makes no 
mention of the petitioner. The award certificate contradicts the February 2014 statement from 
which states that the petitioner had won the award. In addition, although states that 
the is a "prestigious award" and "a huge honor 
and great achievement," neither the petitioner nor has provided evidence or pointed to 
evidence in the record establishing that the award is either nationally or internationally recognized. 
For example, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that there had been media coverage 
of the award in nationally or internationally circulated publications or major media. As such, even if 
the petitioner has shown that he is the recipient of the award, he has not shown that the award is 
qualifying under the criterion. 
Similarly, the petitioner has not shown that the 2006 
is a qualifying award under the criterion. In support of his NOID response, the 
petitioner submitted a re-translation of an August 2007 award certificate, which states: "The special 
program is hereby awarded the second place award in the news category in 
the 2006 
'' 
The certificate names the 
petitioner as one of six primary creators of the program. The certificate does not indicate that the 
petitioner received the award, as required under the plain language of the criterion. Rather, it states 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
that the petitioner contributed to a program that won the award. In addition, the petitioner has not 
submitted evidence relating to the reputation, prestige or recognition of the award on a national or 
international level. As such, the petitioner has not shown that the award constitutes a nationally or 
internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field, as required under the plain 
language of the criterion. 
Although the record includes evidence that the petitioner has received other accolades, including the 
Editorial Award at the 2004 a 1998 Outstanding 
Individual Honor, and a Second Prize Award at the 1997 on 
appeal, the petitioner has not specifically asserted that these accolades constitute evidence of his 
receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned these issues, as he has not timely raised them on appeal. 
Sepulveda v. United States Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, 
No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States 
District Court found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
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). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he has submitted a 
article entitled ' 
and a June 19, 2012_ 
First, the petitioner has not shown that the material meets this criterion. The record includes 
the translation of a July 12, 2013 question and answer document that reflects '' 
at the top. In this document, the petitioner answered questions reporter posed 
about the automotive laws that he assisted in drafting. As we noted in our NOID, the petitioner 
submitted an English translation of the material that does not meet the regulatory requirements. 
Specifically, the petitioner submitted a translation certification that does not affirm that the 
translation is "complete." See 8 C. P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). In his NOID response, the petitioner did not 
submit a retranslation of the material or a translation certificate that meets the regul atory 
requirements. As such, the material does not have any evidentiary weight. Even if we are to 
consider the material, the material does not discuss the petitioner's work as a news anchor or 
director, which is the field in which he asserts extraordinary ability in the petition. The petitioner 
has not shown how his involvement in automotive safety regulations relates to the field in which he 
asserts extraordinary ability. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
In addition, the petitioner has not shown that is a professional or major trade publication or 
other major media. In response to the director's RFE, the petitioner submitted a February 20, 2014 
statement from indicating that it "is published Monday through Friday, expect [sic] Saturday 
and Sunday with daily nationwide circulation of 300,000.00 issues" and that it has "some 30 local 
report centers throughout China, which makes [it] most influential news agency." This English 
translation does not meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3), because the 
translation certificate does not affirm that the translation is "complete." Moreover, the evidence 
does not establish that is a professional or major trade publication. The record also lacks 
comparable circulation levels for other major Chinese publications such that he has established that 
may be considered major media. Furthermore, the evidence submitted to show status 
as a major media is from . Such self-promotional evidence has minimal evidentiary value. See 
Braga, 2007 WL 9229758 at *6-7 (concluding that we did not have to rely on the promotional 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that the June 19, 2012 article 
constitutes published material about the petitioner in a professional or major trade publication or 
other major media, relating to the petitioner's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner has submitted two English translations for the foreign language material. As we 
found in our NOID, the first English translation does not meet the regulatory requirements because it 
lacks a translation certification affirming that the translation is complete. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
In his NOID response, the petitioner submitted a retranslation of the material, which includes more 
content than the initially submitted translation. The accompanying translator certification, however, 
does not affirm that the translation is complete. As such, the retranslation, similar to the initial 
translation, does not meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 
Even if we are to consider the retranslation, entitled ' 
3 it does not show that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Specifically, the retranslation shows that the material is published online in . 
The petitioner has not established that constitutes a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. On appeal, the petitioner points to a 
February 2, 2014 certificate the translator indicates is from 
Department, Director of Broadcasting, as supporting evidence that the magazine constitutes a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. The certificate, however, does not 
support the petitioner's assertion. Specifically, the certificate makes no mention of a publication 
called . as the mal!azine is referenced in the retranslation, or 
, as the publication is referenced in the initial 
translation and filing. The February 2, 2014 certificate also discusses the views of opinions and 
remarks on the website but does not mention the June 19, 2012 published material 
entitled · is Added to " As 
such, the February 2, 2014 certificate does not establish that is a 
3 The words ' appear on the documents as reflected in this paragraph. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. In addition, the record lacks 
information on the author of the June 19, 2012 material, as required under the plain language of the 
criterion. 
As noted above, the February 2, 2014 certificate from does state that the petitioner's 
"expertise and opinions" and program ' ' posted on were 
broadcasted throughout China. The petitioner has not shown, however, that his opinions or remarks, 
even if broadcasted, constitute material about him, as required under the plain language of the 
criterion. Rather, they are materials originating from him that do not meet this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a foreign language document that appears to be an article. The 
petitioner, however, has not submitted an English translation for the foreign language material. As 
such, this foreign language document does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 4 
Moreover, the record includes a May 3, 2012 document entitled" ' The English 
translation of the material does not meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.P. R. § 103.2(b )(3), as 
the translation certification does not affirm that the English translation is complete. The material 
also does not include information on the author of the material. Nor has the petitioner submitted 
evidence showing that the material has been published in a professional or major trade publication or 
other major media. Finally, the record includes other materials that have been posted online. On 
appeal, the petitioner has not specifically asserted that these materials establish that he meets this 
criterion. As such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. 
Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented published material about him in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, relating to his work in the field for which classification is 
sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) .. 
The director concluded that the petitioner met this criterion. We disagree. We may deny an 
application or petition that does not comply with the technical requirements of the law even if the 
director does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial decision. See Spencer 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 F.3d 683 
(9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that 
we conduct appellate review on a de novo basis). 
4 The foreign language article bears no indicia that it is the 
only a translation, and not the foreign language original. 
article for which the petitioner previously submitted 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Specifically, the petitioner relies on foreign language documents to show that he has established this 
criterion. As discussed, the petitioner has not submitted English translations that meet the regulatory 
requirements under 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3). In response to our NOID, the petitioner did not submit 
retranslations of foreign language documents relevant to this criterion or a new translation 
certification affirming that the English translations are complete. As such, the English translations 
relevant to this criterion do not have any evidentiary value. In the alternative, the petitioner's 
English translations contain inconsistent information relating to this criterion. According to a 
February 14, 2014 statement purportedly from the the petitioner served on the ' evaluation committee in 2000 and selected awardees. According to a July 
16, 2013 statement that the translator identifies as from the , the petitioner "was 
invited in August 2011 to serve as [a] member of [the] committee for [the] 2000 
The petitioner has not explained how he could have been invited in 2011 to serve on a 
committee in 2000. While the petitioner also submitted an August 13, 2001 "Certificate" that the 
translator indicates bears the seal of the inviting the petitioner to serve as a 
member of the AwarCI Evaluation Committee for the 2000 the petitioner did 
not submit a copy of the foreign language original. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence of his participation, either 
individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of 
specification for which classification is sought. The petitioner has not met this criterion. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) . 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because his "endeavor has resulted in 
substantial contributions to business/economy." He states that "his service as [a] news 
anchor/program director helps facilitate the communication between consumers and car makers." 
He also states that his "vigorous participation at and efforts to the drafting of relevant Chinese laws 
and regulation governing the quality of cars and Bill of Rights for consumers have significantly 
protected the rights of consumers and enhanced the quality of China-made and foreign cars in 
Chinese market and therefore benefited the business and economy as a whole." (Bold and underline 
in original omitted.) 
To meet this criterion, the petitioner must demonstrate that his contributions are both original and of 
major significance in the field that he identifies as his area of extraordinary ability. 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase "major significance" are not superfluous and, 
thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 
(3d Cir. 1995) (quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2d Cir. 2003)). Contributions of 
major significance connotes that the petitioner's work has already significantly impacted the field. 
See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-36. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
In his initial filing, the petitioner asserted that he qualifies for the exclusive classification because he 
"is a national award-winning news anchor/director from China who has risen to the top of his field 
of endeavor." 5 To meet this criterion, the petitioner therefore must establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field of news broadcasting and production. Evidence relating to the 
petitioner's work in automotive safety, a field unrelated to news broadcasting and production, does 
not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. In response to our NOID, the petitioner 
submitted retranslations of documents the translator identifies as from the 
According to 
these documents, the petitioner participated in the 
and 
-
(Emphases omitted.) Other than 
stating that the petitioner participated in the the documents do not 
discuss what impact, if any, the petitioner had in the field of news broadcasting and production, the 
field in which he seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Cf Lee v. I.N.S., 237 
F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (holding that an individual seeking to coach may not rely on his 
achievements as a competitive athlete to qualify for the classification at issue in this proceeding). 
Similarly, documents from do not establish that the petitioner 
meets this criterion. According to a February 12, 2014 statement from the petitioner has 
served as a member of the expert committee since 20P and has organized training seminars on 
" He also served as a "director/supervisor at the program of 
in August 2013." According to a July 10, 2013 statement from the petitioner 
has served as a panel member of the expert committee, automobile section. Neither certificate 
states that the petitioner has made any original contributions of major significance in the field of 
news broadcasting and production. Rather, the certificates provide general information relating to 
the petitioner's work in radio programs and his involvement in automotive safety. 
Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that his work as a news anchor or director resulted in original 
contributions of major significance in the field. According to a June 6, 2013 "Certificate of 
Employment of [the Petitioner]," filed in response to our NOID, the petitioner has been working for 
which belongs to the 
since 1993. He has worked as a producer, editor-in-chief, and has been in charge of live 
broadcasting of auto shows and a broadcasting program that "cover[s] the entire country." The 
certificate states that the petitioner "has made tremendous contributions to ' 
As discussed, the translation certificate does not indicate that the translation is complete, and thus 
does not meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). In addition, neither the 
5 In his February 12, 2015 statement filed in response to our NOID, the petitioner asserts that he is "nationally 
recognized as an expert in automobile related issues." To the extent that the petitioner is now seeking the exclusive 
classification as an automobile expert, rather than as a news anchor and director, this constitutes an impermissible 
material change to the petition and does not establish his eligibility for the petition. Specifically, the petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter 
of Jzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
certificate nor other evidence in the record establishes that the petitioner has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field of news broadcasting and production. Regardless of 
the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major significance in the field" requires 
evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or customers. 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 demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). The petitioner has not met 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 director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has 
not asserted that he meets this criterion. Accordingly, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he 
did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that [he] has sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his ... achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); 
see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the proper conclusion is 
that the petitioner has not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting evidence that 
satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3} and (4). Kazarian, 
596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final merits determination 
referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence on which the petitioner relies on appeal in the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
aggregate supports a finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated, through the submission of 
extensive evidence, that he has attained the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 6 
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 Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA §§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).