dismissed EB-1A Case: Micro-Irrigation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 31, 2023 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
In Re: 26712901 
The Petitioner, an inventor of the.____________ __,technology in the micro-irrigation 
field, 1 seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability . See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) 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 the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements for the classification by establishing his 
receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or by meeting three of the ten evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe , 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo . Matter of Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015) . Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
On appeal, the Petitioner presents a brief and documentation regarding the translation company 
responsible for the translation of documents in the record. As a preliminary matter, the Director did 
not consider several documents in the record since they were not accompanied by a full English 
language translation certified by the translator that the English language translation is complete and 
accurate , and that the translator is competent to translate from the foreign language into English 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). As the Petitioner notes on appeal, he submitted with the initial 
petition documents about the translator to include a diploma from the University ofl 
awarding I I a Master of Translation and Interpreting, and a certificate from the National 
Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters awarded to I las a certified translator 
from Chinese to English. However,! ldid not indicate which documents he translated and did 
not certify each translation. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a document listing the translated 
1 The Petitioner indicated three other occupations in the record to include student, professor and chief executive officer. 
After the second request for evidence whereby the Director asked for clarification on his job occupation, the Petitioner 
stated he was an inventor. 
I 
evidence and indicated .___________________ __, performed the translating 
services. This information appears to differ from the translator mention previously. In addition, the 
documents on appeal were not signed by the translating company and the translations were not 
properly certified. 
We adopt and affirm the Director's decision. See Matter of Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 872, 874 
(BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230,234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (noting that the practice of 
adopting and affirming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit that 
has squarely confronted the issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight circuit 
courts in holding that appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they 
give "individualized consideration" to the case). The Director thoroughly analyzed the Petitioner's 
evidence and arguments and provided him with a compete decision reaching the correct conclusion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief referencing the same arguments and evidence previously 
submitted. On appeal, the Petitioner explains the technology behind the trace irrigation. Although the 
Petitioner quickly touches on a few issues discussed in the Director's decision, he does not provide 
sufficient evidence to overcome the Director's concerns. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2