dismissed EB-1A Case: Political Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 5, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a blogger, writer, and political analyst, 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 )(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 petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish, as required, that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized award, or, in 
the alternative, that he has met the requirements of at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets four of the initial evidentiary criteria, has sustained 
national or international acclaim, and is one of the few at the very top of his field. 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(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 in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter of S-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 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) 
( 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 of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is "a writer, blogger, economical/political analyst and critic on China issues." As he 
has not received a major, internationally recognized award, the record must demonstrate that he 
satisfies at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the 
Director found that the Petitioner met the criteria for original contributions of major significance in 
his field at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he meets four of the evidentiary criteria. After reviewing all of 
the evidence in the record, we find that he does not meet the initial requirement of at least three 
evidentiary criteria. 
Documentation of the individual'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) 
The Petitioner claim that he meets this criterion based on his a=pearance on several Chinese "Top Ten 
Bloggers" lists published byl _ ~ and I ~­
Specifically, he states that the following achievements qualify as nationally recognized awards for his 
writing: 
• "Top Ten Bloggers oflmpact," as named by in 2011, 2012 and 2013; ~---======-~ • "Top Ten Current Affairs Bloggers," as named byl I in 2014; 
2 
Matter of S-C-
• "China's Top Ten Writers," as named byl • I in 2012; 
• "Top Ten Most Influential Biogs," as named by j~---~I in 2015 and 2016. 
With respect to the recognition he received from I l the Petitioner provided what 
appears to be a photograph of an award statuette, accompanied by a translation that states "Top Ten 
Bloggers oflmpact award" with the Petitioner's name. The Petitioner states that this is evidence of his 
2011 award. He also provided a copy of a "Certificate of Honor" stating "[Petitioner] was awarded 
Top 10 Most Influential Blogger ofl lin 2012. Thank you for your support to our blog 
newspaper." The statuette and certificate where accompanied by two translated pages identified only 
as "[Appendix] Blogger List on I t' which appear to be the blogger lists from two 
different years. 1 The source of these appendices is unclear and only one of them is dated. The lists 
indicate that there were various Top Ten lists for "Most Influential," "Most Appealing," "Most 
Insightful," as well as "special awards." The Petitioner's name is included on the lists among the 
"Most Influential." 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted an article titled "The Past and Present of the Famous Bloggers 
(Part 2) The tol ten influential bloggers ofthel I [the Petitioner]" which was published 
by the website I in December 2016. The article mentions that the Petitioner was named 
"Top Ten Bloggers oflmpact o~ I in 2011, 2012 and 2013," but this article, written 
three years after the fact, is not media coverage of his appearance onl l's top ten lists or evidence 
that being name to such lists is regarded as a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award 
for excellence in the field. The article also indicates the Petitioner was chosen "to be a finalist in 'The 
Past and Present of the Famous Bloggers' but that appears to be a different honor or recognition that 
he does not claim he ultimately received. 
The Petitioner also provided overviews of,.!::::===::;------~ from Nasdaq.com and 
Bloomberg.com, and a corporate profile froml This evidence indicates thatl I is a 
"major new media" company in China, but it does not provide any information regarding the company­
sponsored awards in support of the Petitioner's claim that being named to a list is considered a 
nationally recognized prize or award for excellence. Finally, the Petitioner submitted profiles 
~d from various online sources) of four other Chinese bloggers who have been named to the 
l___JTop Ten Blogger lists since 2011, emphasizing that they are all "high profile figures." While 
it appears that this evidence was submitted to establish that being named to the Top Ten blogger list 
is an award for excellence in the field, we cannot make a determination without information from the 
issuing organization regarding the criteria for selection. 
The Petitioner asserts that this information was provided in a blog post from a fellow top ten list 
honoree ~ I titled 'I I I f I h post includes information from a blog written by another top ten blog 
honoree I I regarding the list of winners in eight blog categories. The quoted blog post 
mentions that 250 "excellent bloggers" were selected to enter the voting stage according to factors 
such as "activity, blog quality and click volume." The quoted blog indicates that voting was performed 
by "netizens" over a one-month period and subject to a final evaluation by the editorial department. 
1 One list is dated 2012 and the other is not dated. The translated pages are numbered page 323 and page 307 of an 
unidentified publication or publications. 
3 
Matter of S-C-
Notably, I I mentioned in his post that he did not realize he had been nominated or selected 
as a winner until he saw the results on the I I' homepage. 
Therefore, while the Petitioner provided evidence that he received an award and provided information 
rerrding the organization that issued it, he did not provide evidence regarding the nature and scope 
of Is Top Ten bloggers lists, any limitations on the pool of competitors, the criteria 
used to select the honorees, or evidence of any contemporaneous national or international media 
coverage associated with his recognition onl l's "Top Ten" lists. 2 Therefore, he 
has not established that he received a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
writing from this organization. 
As noted, the Petitioner indicates that he was also recognized byl I as being one of"China's 
Top Ten Writers" in 2012, and has having one of China's "Top Ten Influential Biogs" in 2015 and 
2016. He submitted a certificate that states "Congratulations on your winning of Top 10 Writers in 
I I column ofLJ community in 2012. It [sic] is hereby issued the certificate for 
encouragement." The certificate was issued in January 2013 by.__ _____________ __. 
~-------~I He provided similar certificates issued in recognition of his 2015 and 2016 
appearances on the "Influential Biogs" top ten lists. 
The Petitioner also provided a screenshot of a page from the ~-------------- ....... 
which explained the criteria for selection of the "Top Ten Most Influential Biogs." There was a three­
stage process: (1) bloggers entered the preliminary selection process through "netizen's 
recommendation and self-recommendation"; (2) those entered through this selection process were 
scored by netizens and the I I blog editorial office; and (3) 50 finalists are scored based on "the 
number of votes in the primary" and the score of the I • • • I' 
According to this document, the top ten bloggers were given the title and "exquisite gifts." 
This information is insufficient to establish that the Petitioner's appearance on thel ITop Ten 
influential bloggers list is considered a nationally or internationally recognized award or prize for 
excellence in the field of writing. Further, the Petitioner did not provide any evidence that he received 
any recognition other than a certificate as a result of his appearance on either I ltop ten list. Also, 
the record does not show that the release of these top ten lists received national media coverage. 
Although the Petitioner submitted information regarding! I from various sources, this 
evidence does not reference the company's awards for writing or blogging. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he has received nationally or internationally 
recognized awards or prizes for writing. 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with certain 1-140 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. (noting that relevant considerations regarding whether 
the basis for granting a prize or award was excellence in the field include: the criteria used to grant the awards or prizes; 
the national or international significance of the awards; and the number of awardees or prize recipients as well as any 
limitations on competitors). 
4 
Matter of S-C-
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which class[fication 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 maintains that he meets this criterion based on the above-referenced 2016 article 
published byl 13 While this article is about the Petitioner and his work as a blogger 
focused on Chinese economics and politics, the evidence does not identify the author of the article as 
required by the regulation. 
Further, the Petitioner did not demonstrate thatl I is a professional or major trade 
publication or other major medium, such as through circulation statistics or other relevant data. The 
Petitioner seeks to rely on information from the website ofth ~-----------~ which 
describes.__ _____ _, as "a private nonprofit multimedia news corporation" that "brings award-
winning domestic journalism and uncensored content to people in six Asian countries that restrict free 
speech." While the provided information includes an estimate of the I Is audience size, 
the Petitioner did not establish that the circulation is high compared to the circulation data of other 
publications. 4 Therefore, we find that the article does not meet all requirements for the published 
materials criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's original scientific, 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 satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish that not only 
has he 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. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted evidence that satisfies this criterion, but did not 
discuss the evidence or reasoning that supported this determination. We disagree with the Director 
and will withdraw his finding that the Petitioner submitted evidence that meets this criterion. 
The Petitioner notes that his work has been cited in academic journals and conferences, and submits 
copies of two such articles published in International Journal of China Studies and ICS(UM)­
EAI(NUS) International Conference. While the Petitioner's work is cited, the authors of these articles 
do not discuss or comment on his work or his original contributions to the political discourse in China 
or its significance. The articles do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's written work from the 
other cited papers. Similarly, while the Petitioner is quoted more extensively in articles in other, non-
3 The Petitioner submitted other articles from online publications, such as Science and Financial Times, but they only quote 
him or his published work. These articles are about the topic on which he is quoted, and not about him or his work in the 
field. On appeal, the Petitioner's claim that he meets this criterion is based solely on the aiiicle published byl I 
CJ 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra at 7. 
5 
Matter of S-C-
academic publications, most notably in Financial Times and Science magazine, it is unclear how this 
evidence establishes his original contributions of major significance to the field. 
The Petitioner has also submitted letters of recommendation from experts in Chinese and East Asian 
studies. ~------~ professor of political science at I I University, states that the 
Petitioner is "one of the most popular and influential book writers and social media writers in China." 
He discusses the Petitioner's boo which rovides ' 
I" I I states that the book "had wide influence in China and went into a 
._s_e-co_n_d-,-----,,,~and notes that the Petitioner's concern "was subsequently proven justified as ._I _ __. 
markets in many parts of China." He also states that the Petitioner's book 
__________ ....___ _____ -'--i_ which included reform proposals for I I 
management, "received more than 70 million visits and enjoyed great influence." Finally, he addresses 
the Petitioner's prolific blogging on the Chinese Internet, and notes that his work is hiphly ranked by 
the I , I which he describes as "the most influential! Jin China." 
~------[ founder and president of~ ____________ __,. indicates in his letter the 
large number of articles the Petitioner has published, noting that "his articles have been read over 
500,000 times." He emphasizes that in the Petitioner 
"proposed some rational suggestions for ~-;::::=============::::;--------~ on the Chinese stock market" and notes thatl I is "an important book 
on the development and construction ofl I." Finally, he notes that the Petitioner's "column 
is carried by a large number of overseas Chinese media outlets." 
In addition, I I a freelance media consultant, states of the Petitioner that "we are often 
together invited for media forum and open discussion, to write biogs and columns in media and 
Internet, to take interviews on domestic and [international] media." He states that the Petitioner has 
"500 million readerships with 4000 articles" and states that the Petitioner's books "are bestsellers with 
profit and great social significance." 
While these letters indicate that the Petitioner has made original contributions to the political and 
economic discourse in China through his writing, they do not articulate how his contributions have 
been widely implemented throughout his field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or 
have otherwise risen to a level of major significance. Rather, the authors of the letters simply broadly 
describe the Petitioner's work as influential by stating that it had a "profound impact," "enjoyed great 
influence," or is of "great social significance," without describing, for example, how his book on the 
I I actually "profoundly impacted" the stock market. Overall, the letters lack 
detailed information regarding the major significance of the Petitioner's contributions. Letters that 
specifically articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its 
impact on subsequent work add value. 5 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics or use hyperbolic 
language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis 
for meeting original contributions of major significance in the field. 6 Here, the letters do not provide 
5 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
6 Id. At 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in palt 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters the repeat the regulatory 
6 
Matter of S-C-
sufficient information and explanation, nor does the record include sufficient corroborating evidence 
of the influence of the Petitioner's work. 
Finally, the Petitioner submits a screen shot from his page at 1~-...,,.0 ,--__ J" which indicates that his 
column has 3208 articles, 1038 followers and over 21 million views. While the Petitioner's reported 
numbers of articles and views varies in the submitted evidence, the record reflects that the Petitioner 
has a large body of published work and a significant number of readers. However, the sheer volume 
of his written work alone is insufficient to demonstrate that he has made original contributions of 
major significance to the field of.__ _______________ _, Publications are not 
sufficient under this criterion absent evidence that they were of "major significance" in the field. See 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), ajf'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115. 
For all of the reasons discussed above, we find that the evidence does not establish that the Petitioner 
has made contributions of major significance to his field. 
Evidence of the individual's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional 
or major trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
The Director determined that the Petitioner submitted evidence that meets this criterion. The Petitioner 
provided evidence that he authored an article titled '-------------------~ 
.__ _____ _. published by China Strategic Analysis. We agree with the Director that this criterion 
was met. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The evidence does not establish that the Petitioner received a major, internationally recognized award 
or that he meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria. As a result, we need not provide the type of final 
merits analysis determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in its entirety, and conclude that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the sustained acclaim and standing in his field required for the 
classification sought. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he 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. Here, that 
burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of S-C-, ID# 5214476 (AAO Nov. 5, 2019) 
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