dismissed EB-1A Case: Philanthropy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8618586 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 29, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a philanthropist , seeks classification as an alien 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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which she 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)(l) 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 sustained 
acclaim and the 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 
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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner indicates employment as president of the.__ _ ____,......,..,....-,---,--,---,---,------,----,------' in 
I I Province, China. Because the Petitioner has not established that she has received a major, 
internationally recognized award, she 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 determined that the Petitioner 
fulfilled only one of the initial evidentiary criteria, judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The record 
reflects that the Petitioner judged two speech contests, thereby meeting the judging criterion. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that she fulfills three additional criteria. After reviewing all of the 
evidence in the record, we conclude that the Petitioner does not establish that she satisfies the 
requirements of at least three criteria. 
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). 
The Petitioner argues that she "submitted evidence of published material featuring her work as a 
Philanthropist by China Central Television [CCTV] ... on thel I 2010, titled! I 
[which] was published via three CCTV platforms; a '-------------------~ televised news segment, in print, and online." In order to meet this criterion, the Petitioner must 
demonstrate published material about her in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, as well as the title, date, and author of the material. 1 
The record reflects that the Petitioner presented translations of screenshots from viponline.cctv.com 
indicating an interview of three individuals, one of which is with the Petitioner. Although the 
screenshots indicate cctv.com is the source of the material, the Petitioner did not include the required 
author. The inclusion of the author is not optional but a regulatory requirement. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Moreover, the material is not about the Petitioner. Instead, the host asks questions of the interviewees 
relating to 'I I' Regarding the Petitioner's portion of the interview, the host requested 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
2 
the Petitioner to provide a briefing on includin the overall development situation. 
Here, the screenshots reflect published material about~----~rather than about the Petitioner. 
Articles that are not about an alien do not fulfill this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. 
Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *l, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles 
regarding a show are not about the actor). 
Furthermore, as indicated above, the Petitioner claims CCTV published the material on three media 
platforms: a televised news segment, in print, and online. However, the Petitioner did not support the 
record showing that CCTV broadcasted the interview on "a televised news segment" or that CCTV 
"printed" the interview in a publication. Again, the record reflects that the Petitioner submitted 
screenshots of an interview posted on viponline.cctv.com. Moreover, although the Petitioner 
submitted documentation relating to CCTV (the television station), she did not demonstrate that its 
website or viponline.cctv.com represents a major medium. 2 In addition, while a screenshot from 
cctv.com claimed that it "has become one of the most popular websites in the country," the Petitioner 
did not offer any independent, objective evidence to corroborate the website's assertion. USCIS need 
not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO 
(C.D. CA July 6, 2007), aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that self-serving assertions 
on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliant evidence of a major medium). 
Moreover, the Petitioner contends her eli for this criterion based on an article entitled, ~--~---------------~~ ublished in China Youth Dail and P,Osted on 
The article however is about the the 
r-----------r--------------~andthe~ ____________ ..,,.... 
. In fact, the Petitioner is briefly mentioned one time in providing a quote relating 
to thel , l Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
the article reflects published material about her relating to her work consistent with this regulatory 
criterion. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that China Youth Daily or cyol.net represents a major 
medium. The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted a screenshot from cyol.net claiming that 
"China Youth Daily is a very influential comprehensive daily newspaper in China" and "one of China's 
best selling domestic newspapers." In addition, the Petitioner offered a screenshot from 
commonpurpose.org reflecting that China Youth Daily is one of Common Purpose's sponsors and cites 
to information contained on cyol.net. However, the Petitioner did not provide independent, objective 
evidence supporting the self-serving assertions of China Youth Daily. Moreover, the Petitioner did 
not offer evidence relating to cyol.net's status as a major medium. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not show that she satisfies this criterion. 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (indicating that evidence of published material in 
professional or major trade publications or in other major media publications should establish that the circulation (on-line 
or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics). 
3 
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). 
In order to meet 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. 3 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 in the field. 
The Petitioner contends that she "has changed the lives of manyl implverished population nationwide 
via leading "and points to a letter froml I, of China Youth Daily 's c===J. 
As it relates to I l's letter, he described various projects of L__J r----,-su_c_h_a_s_t_h_e_';::::I =---------l-
0
-___.f 'and '1 . ~ 
~---'L." involving the construction of roads, bridges, and plazas and educating and training lower 
income students. In addition, the Petitioner points to media coverage of six articles from China Youth 
Daily, People's Daily, people.en, hn.qq.com, voe.com.en, and danzhou.gov.cn, reporting onl I 
I land its projects. 
The China Youth Daily article referenced above summarized~! _____ _.las: 
A large-scale social public benefit activity initiated by thel IProvincial Party 
Committee of Communist Youth League in 2004 on the basis of the touching artistic 
conception and creativity of Tang Dynasty Poem Troubadour's Lament composed by 
Jiao Meng. The purpose is to carry forward the Chinese civilization for feeding the 
people of the native land, and give full play to the emotional ties of family affection, 
hometown affection and friendship affection, so as to inspire the affection of feeding 
hometown and call the native people who are working or living far away hometown to 
do something for hometown, and jointly promote the economic and cultural 
development of the hometown and promote the harmonious progress of their society. 
Further the record contains a letter from.__ _____ __. vice director of I ,-'I~==--' --===--=--=-a~=--=-===---=---=~""'---'=;l who stated that the Petitioner joined the......,_I _____ ___ 
. I and acted as vice director in September 2007. Moreover, 1-----.,-l-s1-.m-1-.l-ar_l_y_s_u_m_m_a-ri-z-ed---.= .... =_=_=_=_=_=_=-_-~~~_, as: 
A large-scale social public welfare actively firstly launched by ~-----~ 
which is aimed at carrying forward Chinese Civilization and repaying homeland and 
kinfolk, giving full play the emotional ties of "kinship, nostalgia and friendship," 
inspiring the feelings of those travelers far from home, and calling on them to return 
hometown to jointly promote the economic and cultural development of hometowns 
and the harmony and progress of the society. 
3 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
4 
In regards to her claim of "leadingl I" the record does not support her assertion. In her 
initial cover letter, the Petitioner indicated that she "is the President of the renowned I I 
[sic] I [" However, none of the documentation contained in the record 
demonstrates that she has ever occupied the position of"President" with eitherl !Action overall 
or within any of the subsidiaries or departments within In fact accordin to her 
resume, she has held the positions of vice director of 
(2007 - 2008), director of (2008 - 2012), chairman of 
I l (2009-2012), and honorary chairman ofl I 
~----------------~ (2014 - present). The petitioner must resolve 
inconsistencies in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate thatl I is her original contribution. As 
indicated above, I I began in 2004 by thel I Provincial Party Committee of 
Communist Youth League, and the Petitioner commenced employment with the I I I I Province three years after and then later with the ~I-----~-
In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that an of the ro · ects conducted b the 
I lor the~----------------~ were attributed 
to her original contributions. Moreover, none of the media articles mentioned her, let alone credited 
her for creating any of the projects. Further, the letters generally claimed that the Petitioner led and 
directed the projects without providing specific information explaining how the projects were original 
to her. For instance,! I stated that the Petitioner "led all employees ofl land 
I I to actively plan and carry out a series of public welfare activities." Whilel !listed 
and briefly described six programs, he did not show how leading, planning, and carrying out the public 
welfare activities of the center or foundation are original contributions of the Petitioner. 
Moreover, although the articles and letters discuss various welfare projects assisting individuals, the 
Petitioner's evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate how the programs have been of major 
significance in her field overall. 4 Further, the documentation indicates the influence of the projects in 
I I Province rather than in her field in general. The Petitioner, for example, did not show how 
the welfare activities have influenced or impacted the field as a whole in a significant, major manner. 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information identifying her original 
contributions and explaining the unusual influence her contributions have had on the overall field. 
Letters that specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance in the field 
and its impact on subsequent work add value. 5 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use 
hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also 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). 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
5 
the basis for meeting this criterion. 6 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
statements. 1756, Inc. v. The US. Atty Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Furthermore, the Petitioner argues that she "has [sic] significant impact on the entire charity system 
in China which has been demonstrated by the adoption of her methodology by other local governments 
all over in China" and references an article from qstheory.cn, a propaganda website from the Chinese 
government, stating that.__ _____ __,s "activities extend[] to other provinces and even to abroad." 
However, the article does not credit the Petitioner with making original contributions, let alone 
mention her. Moreover, while the article claims that I I has expanded to other provinces 
and abroad, the article indicates several individuals who returned to I I Province to offer 
charitable work or provide donations. In addition, the article does not support the Petitioner's 
assertions that she impacted the entire charity system in China and her methodology has been adopted 
by local governments all over China. In fact, the article does not reference any local governments 
beyondl !Province. Here, the Petitioner did not establish that the article sufficiently shows that 
she has made original contributions, and that they are majorly significant in the field. 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that she has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that the Petitioner does not satisfy the criteria relating to published material and original 
contributions. Although she claims eligibility for an additional criterion on appeal, relating to leading 
or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), we need not reach this additional ground. As the 
Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), we reserve this issue. 7 Accordingly, 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 
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 of her work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is 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 section203(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 )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
6 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff' din part 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
7 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). 
6 
Although the Petitioner has experience in philanthropy, the record does not contain sufficient evidence 
establishing that she is among the upper echelon in her field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated her eligibility 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7