dismissed EB-1A Case: Printing Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10994686 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 30, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a printing engineer, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
The Director also found that the Petitioner had willfully misrepresented material facts. The matter is 
now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review , we will dismiss the appeal. We will 
also withdraw the finding of willful misrepresentation. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with 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; who seek to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability; and whose 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner describes herself as "an expe1ion flexographic technology" with "extraordinary ability 
in the field of printing engineering." Flexography is a method of printing involving flexible printing 
plates mounted on high-speed rotors, for printing on various porous and non- orous substrates. 
Materials in the record refer to her as the founder and chieftechnolo officer of technology officer of 
___________ and as general manager of If she 
is able to immigrate to the United States, she intends to establish a "Flexography Lab" in the 
I I area." 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that she 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). The Petitioner claimed to have satisfied six of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not met any of the regulatory criteria. On appeal, the 
Petitioner asserts that she also meets four criteria, pertaining to published material about her; original 
contributions; authorship of scholarly articles; and a leading or critical role. The Petitioner does not 
contest the Director's conclusions regarding judging and remuneration, and therefore we consider 
those issues to be abandoned. 1 
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, that she meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) through an article about her, 
pertaining to her work, in Peninsula City News. We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
1 See Matter of R-A-M-, 25 T&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)(stating that when a filing party fails to appeal an issue 
addressed in an adverse decision, that issue is waived). See also Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 
(11th Cir. 2005), citing United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-­
CV-2 7312011, 2011WL4711885 at* 1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiff's claims were abandoned as he failed to 
raise them on appeal to theAAO). 
2 
Evidence of the alien'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 Petitioner submitted translated copies of six articles. One of these articles, published in China 
Strategic Emerging Industry, is credited to an author other than the Petitioner. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director requested circulation data, to show that the publications 
meet the regulatory requirements. Evidence of such material should establish that the circulation 
( online or in print) is high compared to other circulation statistics and who the intended audience of 
the publication is. 6 USCJS Policy Manual F.2 (appendix), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. 
In response, the Petitioner stated that she had submitted "evidence to prove the journals are major." 
But the evidence in question simply described the publications, without providing circulation data as 
requested and required. 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to 
establish the existence of the claimed articles. We will discuss this issue further below, in the context 
of the Director's finding of willful misrepresentation. Here, it will suffice to say that the Director 
appears to have relied on incomplete information. 
But the Petitioner has not adequately addressed the Director's concern, stated previously, that the 
Petitioner had not shown that her articles appeared in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. For this reason, we agree with the Director's core conclusion that the Petitioner has not 
satisfied the requirements of the criterion. 
Evidence ofthe alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic. or business-related 
contributions ofmajor significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner indicated that the scholarly articles in the record include qualifying contributions. 
Those articles do not inherently show the significance of the contributions they describe. A petitioner 
can establish the major significance of published scholarly work by showing that it has "provoked 
widespread commentary," received notice from others working in the field, or been cited frequently 
by other scholars as authoritative in the field. 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.2 appendix. Here, 
the Petitioner has not submitted such evidence. 
The Petitioner claimed to be "listed by name as the inventor on four ... patents," but her name is only 
on two of the four submitted patent certificates. As with her articles, her patents are evidence of 
original contributions, but the patents themselves do not contain evidence of their own significance. 
The Petitioner must show not only that her contributions exist, but also how those contributions affect 
the field at a level demonstrating major significance. 
The Petitioner is one of two named inventors of a 
I I She asserted that this patent "has won wide industry praise and attention from foreign 
markets." The Petitioner also stated that her "academic articles introduced many advanced 
3 
technologies in the industry," and that she set technical standards at ___ which "gradually 
became the current industry standard ... widely used in the industry." 
To support these assertions, the Petitioner submitted letters from the co-inventor of the device, the 
chief executive officer ofl I and the executive director of I The letters identify 
contributions such as improvements in printing efficiency and reliability, and indicate that 7 
was the first company to exportl Ito Europe and the United States. The letters also 
indicate that the Petitioner's work addressed technical challenges of flexographic printing on 
I I 
The statements of individuals so close to the Petitioner, without further corroboration, cannot be 
presumed to represent a broader consensus in the field. The Petitioner did not submit objective 
evidence to document adoption of her methods or inventions throughout the industry, or to show that 
her contributions have advanced the field overall, as opposed to her companies' commercial interests. 
The Petitioner stated that her companies' products meet the standards of the Forest Stewardship 
Council and comply with European Union timber regulations. These regulations and industry 
standards are already in place; compliance does not amount to an original contribution. 
In the RFE, the Director asked for evidence to show how the Petitioner's contributions "impacted the 
field in a major and significant way." In response, the Petitioner repeated information from the initial 
submission and submitted new documentation showing that she drafted! "Enterprise 
Standards" for in 2006. Two other a er com anies in China later 
published similar standards - in 2011 and 
in 2012. The Petitioner asserts that the similarities demonstrate 
the influence of the standards she developed. We note that the 2011 standards were drafted by the 
individual named as co-inventor on the Petitioner's two patents. The 2012 standards do not identify 
their author. The documentation submitted does not establish the major significance of these 
standards. Also, nothing in the documents themselves establishes thatl I standards were 
largely or entirely original, rather than based on earlier work. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not shown how her contributions have 
major significance. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states: 
[W]e have provided sufficient evidence such as [the Petitioner's] patents, publications, 
and testimonials from professionals in the field. All the evidence indicate[s that the 
Petitioner] is a leader in the field of her endeavor and has set the standard for the 
industry. The [Director] failed to consider and did not even mention any of [the 
Petitioner's] achievement[s]. 
Since we have provided plenty of evidence and the examiner did not object, the 
[Petitioner] has satisfied the criterion. 
4 
The Director, however, did not disregard the Petitioner's evidence as asserted. The Director discussed 
the Petitioner's work, stating: "two other companies [are] using the same standards the petitioner 
drafted, but the petitioner did not demonstrate how these three companies using these standards 
impacted her field as a whole." 
The Petitioner has not overcome the Director's conclusions regarding 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)(3Xviii). 
In light of the above conclusions, the Petitioner does not meet the initial evidentiary requirement of 
three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Detailed discussion of the one remaining claimed criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), pertaining to the Petitioner's performance in a leading or critical role 
for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation, cannot change the outcome 
of this appeal. Therefore, we reserve this issue. 2 
The Petitioner has not met at least three of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Therefore, 
the petition cannot be approved, and we need not proceed to a final merits determination. 
Nevertheless, another issue remains to be discussed. 
B. Willful Misrepresentation of a Material Fact 
The Director made a finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact against the Petitioner, 
having determined that the Petitioner had submitted false evidence relating to the scholarly articles 
submitted in support of the petition. 
A misrepresentation is an assertion or manifestation that is not in accord with the true facts. As 
outlined by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), a material misrepresentation requires that the 
foreign national willfully make a material misstatement to a government official for the purpose of 
obtaining an immigration benefit to which one is not entitled. See Matter of Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N 
Dec. 288, 289-90 (BIA 1975). The term "willfully"means knowing and intentionally, as distinguished 
from accidentally, inadvertently, or in an honest belief thatthe facts are otherwise. See Matter of Healy 
and Goodchild, 17 I&NDec.22,28 (BIA 1979). To be consideredmaterial, themisrepresentationmust 
be one which "tends to shut off a line of inquiry which is relevant to the alien's eligibility, and which 
might well have resulted in a proper determination that he be excluded." Matter of Ng, 17 I&N Dec. 
536,537(BIA 1980). 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will deny a visa petition if the petitioner submits 
evidence which contains false information. In general, a few errors or minor discrepancies are not 
reason to question the credibility of a foreign national or an employer seeking immigration benefits. 
See Spencer Enters. Inc. v. U.S., 345 F.3d 683,694 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if a petition includes 
serious errors and discrepancies, and the petitioner does not resolve those errors and discrepancies 
2 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); see also MatterofL-A-C-, 26 I&NDec. 516,526 
n.7(BIA2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where anapplicantis otherwise ineligible). 
5 
given the opportunity to rebut or explain, then the inconsistencies will lead USCIS to conclude that 
the claims stated in the petition are not true. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591 (BIA 1988). 
Beyond the adjudication of the visa petition, a misrepresentation may lead USCIS to enter a finding 
that an individual foreign national sought to procure a visa or other documentation by willful 
misrepresentation of a material fact. This finding of fact may lead USCIS to determine, in a future 
proceeding, that the foreign national is inadmissible to the United States based on the past 
misrepresentation, under section 212(a)(6)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § ll 82(a)(6)(C). 
To find a willful and material misrepresentation in visa petition proceedings, an immigration officer 
must determine: 1) that the petitioner or beneficiary made a false representation to an authorized 
official of the United States government; 2) that the misrepresentation was willfully made; and 3) that 
the fact misrepresented was material. See MatterofM-, 6 I&N Dec. 149 (BIA 1954); Matter ofL-L-, 
9 I&N Dec. 324 (BIA 196I);KaiHing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. at 288. 
In this case, the Director determined that Petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles is directly 
relevant to an eligibility criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and therefore any misrepresentation 
regarding such articles would be material to the petition. While the Director has raised questions in 
this regard, we conclude that the Director has not adequately justified this finding. 
Most of the discussion of the Petitioner's alleged misrepresentation concerns an article which, 
according to the Petitioner, appeared in issue of Modern Business Trade Industry, in I 
2019. The journal's cover identifies the publication's website as http://www.xdsmgy.cn. 
In the RFE, issued December 3, 2019, the Director stated: "the evidence is not credible. The website 
for the journal Modern Business Trade Industry shows the latest issue for this magazine was number 
D but the petitioner is claiming her article was featured in issue numb er The Director did not 
identify a specific web page containing this information. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a web printout showingOnumbered issues of Modern Business 
Trade Industry from 2019, and another printout showing abstracts of several claimed articles, 
including the Petitioner's article, from issue D The Petitioner stated that these materials came from 
"the website page of the National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)" and "the official website." 
In the denial notice, the Director did not address these printouts. Instead, the Director stated that, 
according to the website named on the magazine cover, "issue number does not exist, because this 
journal has been printing semi-monthly since 2008. . . . [T]he issues for were I 
and there were only issues total for the year." 
Also, the decision included new allegations not found in the RFE, based on derogatory information 
from outside the record of proceeding. The Director did not give the Petitioner an opportunity to rebut 
this information prior to the decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(16)(i). 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits photographs, with translations, of what appear to be the print edition 
of Modern Business Trade Industry, showing information translated as indicating that the magazine is 
published "every ten days." 
6 
Because the Director acknowledged consulting the journal's website, we visited that site as well. 
While the home page does refer to the publication as "bimonthly," it also shows a link to CNKI. 
Information found at that linked site confirms that there were issues of Modern Business Trade 
Industry in 2019, and that the Petitioner's article appeared in issue0 3 Between this online 
information and the photographs submitted by the Petitioner, the preponderance of the evidence 
supports the conclusion that the article exists, credited to the Petitioner. 
Apart from the article discussed above, the Director also stated: 
A search of several websites was conducted, including Oripribe and CKNI, and they 
did not reveal any magazine for the ISSN number listed on the cover of Science Guide. 
In addition, in regards [sic] to the other four articles the petitioner claimed she authored, 
the websites Oripribe or CKNI did not reveal the issues in which the petitioner claimed 
her articles were published. 
The Director did not provide specific web addresses that would have allowed us to repeat the searches. 
It is also unclear that either of the named sources are complete and comprehensive databases. This is 
significant because if a database is complete, then the absence of a claimed publication from that 
database would serve as evidence that the claimed publication does not exist. But if the database, 
however large, has gaps, then the absence of a claimed publication would serve only as a lack of 
corroboration. 
Also, as above, this information was not in the RFE, and therefore the Petitioner did not have the 
opportunity to respond to this information before the denial was issued, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b )(l 6)(i). 
We withdraw the finding that the Petitioner willfully misrepresented material facts relating to her 
claimed publication record. There are ambiguities and deficiencies in the record, but upon 
consideration of the evidence submitted by the Petitioner there is not a sufficient basis for a finding of 
willful misrepresentation of a material fact with respect to her scholarly a1iicles. 4 
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 lesser criteria. As a result, 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 conclusion 
that the Petitioner has established the sustained nor or international acclaim and recognition required 
for the classification sought. 
3 
See https: (visited September I, 2022). 
4 Because the Director based the finding of willful misrepresentation solely on the information relating to the Petitioner's 
published articles, our contrary finding is, likewise, limited to such evidence. We take no position regarding other 
information that may exist outside the record of proceeding. 
7 
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. U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services 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 recognition of her work is 
indicative of the required sustained national or international acclaim or demonstrates a "career of 
acclaimed work in the field" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not othe1wise demonstrnte 
that the Petitioner 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). The record indicates that 
the Petitioner has had success in the printing industry, and has expanded her business by overcoming 
technical obstacles. But the record does not show that she has earned recognition beyond! ] 
and I I in Southeast China and sustained national or international acclaim. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. The appeal 
will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8