dismissed EB-1A Case: Printing Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 28, 2023 InRe: 28819177 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, who runs a business that manufactures and sells pnntmg equipment, seeks 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(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 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 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 nova. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
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. These individuals must seek to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and their entry into the United States will substantially benefit 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 their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement in the form of a major, internationally recognized award. Or the petitioner can submit 
evidence 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. If those standards 
do not readily apply to the individual's occupation, then the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows 
the submission of comparable evidence. 
Once a petitioner has met the initial evidence requirements, the next step is a final merits 
determination, in which we 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner states that her "main research field is printing and packaging, with an emphasis on UV­
LED [ultraviolet light-emitting diode] printing technology .... Since 2006, the petitioner has served 
as the general manager of I Ia well-known enterprise [in China] 
that specializes in R&D, production and sales of printing press related equipment." The Petitioner 
plans "to establish a company specializing in UV-LED curing technology," using some of the 
technology that she has invented and patented. 
The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the Director did not adequately explain why the Petitioner's 
evidence was not sufficient to meet her burden of proof. Below, we will address the Petitioner's 
evidence and arguments in greater detail. 
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 claims to have satisfied six of these criteria, summarized below: 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iii), Published material about the individual in professional or major media; 
• (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 met only one criterion, relating to authorship of scholarly 
articles. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that she also meets the other five claimed criteria. 
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner has satisfied the criterion 
relating to scholarly articles. We also conclude that she has satisfied the third numbered criterion, 
relating to published material about the individual. We will discuss the other claimed criteria below. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class(fication is sought. which require outstanding achievements of their members. as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or _fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
2 
The Petitioner claims to satisfy this criterion as "the Chief Expert Member of
I I' (GPA). The GPA's vice president stated in a letter: "we require m~em-b-er_s_o_f_t_h_e_e-xp_e_r~t 
database to have excellent attainments," and that the Petitioner "became the Chief Expert because of her 
outstanding professional knowledge and industry reputation in the research and application of UV-LED 
printing technology." 
The record does not directly establish that the Petitioner is a member of the GPA. A translated certificate 
from the GP A refers to the Petitioner's one-year "appointment" as "the Chief Expert of the UV process 
technology category." A translated "Notice on Calling for Expert Members" states that, in order to 
"implement the innovation-driven strategy implemented by the party and the state," the GPA was "calling 
forl !printing industry experts from relevant organizations in the province." The documents 
do not indicate that "Expert" is a class of membership in the GP A, or that the "expert database" is an 
association in its own right, rather than an advisory body for the GPA. (The word "member" in the 
translated document refers to membership in the "expe1i database," rather than membership in the GPA.) 
The materials describe an appointed position with several listed responsibilities. A separate criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) addresses a person's role within an organization. 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of a certificate designating her appointment as a chief expert, but no 
ce1iificate of membership or comparable documentation identifying her as a member of the GPA. The 
vice president's letter refers to the Petitioner as a "consultant expert of our association" but does not 
specify that the Petitioner is a member of the GPA. The record does not establish that the GPA's 
membership consists of individuals (such as the Petitioner) rather than companies (such asl I The 
vice president's letter indicates that 'I IGroup is a council member of the I I 
I t' and refers to "printing companies" as '"members" '"of the association." 
Other submitted materials are consistent with the conclusion that the GPA's members are organizations 
rather than individuals. An "Introduction to '-------------~' states that the GP A 
consists of "printing enterprises, reproduction enterprises, printing equipment and other production and 
operation organizations, and printing research and education institutions inl t' Published 
reports about meetings of the GPA' s member congress refer to attendees not as members, but as "member 
representatives." 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director stated that the Petitioner's initial evidence did not satisfy the 
requirements of the criterion. The Director stated that the Petitioner "may submit" sections of the GP A's 
"constitution or bylaws which discuss the criteria for membership for the beneficiary's level of 
membership in the association" and "the qualifications required of the reviewers on the review panel of 
the association." 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE included a translation ofthe GP A's by-laws, which state"[ m ]embers 
of the association are collective members." This is consistent with GPA being an association of 
organizations, rather than individual members. The Petitioner acknowledged this information but 
attempted to minimize its significance, stating: 
[D]ue to the evolving nature of the association and its continuous adaptation of its 
organizational structure and membership categories, the constitution may not always 
3 
reflect the current situation in a prompt and comprehensive manner. For example, the
I Iconstitution only mentions its collective members. 
Subsequent changes to the association's structure are often communicated through other 
official documents of the association. 
The Petitioner did not submit any other official association documents to reflect such a change. The 
unsubstantiated assertions contained in the brief are not evidence and are not entitled to any evidentiary 
weight. See Matter ofS-M-, 22 I&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998). Even then, the Petitioner did not specifically 
claim that the GPA had, in fact, changed its membership structure. The Petitioner offered only the 
general, speculative asse1iion that the GP A's governing documents "may not always" be up-to-date. The 
GPA' s by-laws do not establish individual membership, and the Petitioner has not submitted evidence of 
equal or greater weight to establish that the published by-laws have been superseded. The a1iicle 
discussing the attendance of "member representatives" at a GPA meeting dates from August 2022, which 
was less than two months before the Petitioner filed the petition. 
In the denial notice, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not submitted evidence such as "the 
association's constitution or bylaws which discuss the criteria for membership of the beneficiary's level 
of membership in the association." The Director concluded that, without such evidence, the Petitioner 
had not established that her membership in the GPA meets the regulat01y requirements. 
On appeal, the Petitioner cites previously submitted evidence and maintains that her chief expert 
appointment is a qualifying membership. For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not 
established that this appointment is a membership category. The record as a whole indicates that GPA 
memberships are institutional rather than individual. The Petitioner has not submitted documentary 
evidence to rebut this conclusion, and, therefore, has not established that she meets this 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 initially stated that she "has applied for at least thirteen patents and eight computer software 
copyrights," and that her "commitment to innovation has significantly impacted China's printing and 
packaging industry." The Petitioner asserted that she has contributed "to the R&D [research and 
development] and promotion of new UV-LED printing equipment" and "promoting energy conservation 
and environmental protection in [the] printing and packaging industry." 
Evidence that the person's work was patented, while potentially demonstrating the work's originality, 
will not necessarily establish, on its own, that the work is of major significance to the field. See generally 
6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. But evidence that the person 
developed a patented technology that has attracted significant attention or commercialization may 
establish the significance of the person's original contribution to the field. Id. 
The Petitioner relies heavily on a letter from the dean of the School of Printing and Packaging Engineering 
at theI !Institute of Graphic Communication. Such letters may provide valuable context, but they 
have less weight if they lack documentary corroboration. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F.2(B)(l). The dean provided background information about UV-LED printing, stating, for instance, 
4 
that the technique allows for faster ink drying without the use of harmful solvents. Regarding the 
Petitioner's work in particular, the dean stated: 
UV-LED light source curing technology has not been able to achieve large-scale 
commercial applications for a long time. 
To solve the above industry problem, [the Petitioner] and her team developed an LED 
device ... for curing traditional UV ink, which can instantly cure traditional UV or LED 
ink. 
The dean listed various advantages of UV-LED printing "[c]ompared with traditional printing," but did 
not specify how many of these benefits originated with the Petitioner's work. Entirely new technology, 
or substantial improvements to existing technology, would tend to have greater significance than 
incremental improvements to technology that is already available. Technical details about the Petitioner's 
patents, such as the assertion that "the power supply controls the average voltage output by the thyristor, 
thereby adjusting the voltage at both ends of the UV lamp to achieve the purpose of dimming," are not 
self-explanatory with regard to their significance. 
The dean stated: 
[The Petitioner's] patented technology has undoubtedly achieved success in the printing 
and packaging industry and attracted wide attention. Many internationally renowned 
printing press manufacturers . . . were very interested in the advanced and stable 
perfomiance of I I UV-LED device and are willing to open their rights in the 
matching of this offset press, giving priority to using UV and LED curing systems of 
I I. .. [The Petitioner] is one of the pioneers in improving the printing and packaging 
industry for energy saving and environmental protection. 
The record, however, lacks documentary evidence to corroborate these general assertions and provide 
more specific information. 
The
,_______________ ___,recognized one o~ Ipatented products as "a high-
tech product." Information from the certifying entity states that, to qualify for certification, a product 
must have "great market potential, excellent economic, social and environmental benefits, and meet[] the 
requirements of sustainable development." The Petitioner did not establish that this certification meets 
the regulatory requirement at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), which requires "major significance in the field." 
The Petitioner submitted documentation identifying five customers that had purchased equipment from 
I lbetween 2013 and 2022. The Petitioner did not establish that these sales constitute significant 
attention or commercialization at a level that indicates major significance. Also, it is not clear how much 
of this equipment is the Petitioner's own patented technology. A manufacturer in New Jersey stated that 
I l"has helped sell our UV curing lamps to [ customers in] mainland China." 
Published articles in the record describe the advantages ofl !technology, but as noted above, the 
promotional tone of these articles raises questions about their objectivity. One of these articles indicates 
5 
that "I IUV-LED technology has taken the lead in achieving wide application in the industry," but 
that article and others primarily discuss! Icontracts with the same five customers. 
In the RFE, the Director asked for "independent objective evidence" to establish the major significance 
of the Petitioner's original contributions. The Petitioner's response to the RFE largely repeated the 
Petitioner's initial statement with minimal revisions, and cited prior submissions. 
In the denial notice, the Director acknowledged the documentation ofpatents in the record, but concluded 
that the Petitioner had not submitted "independent and objective evidence" of the significance of her 
original conttibutions. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asse1is that "the petitioner's patented technology and products are purchased 
and used by one of the leading enterprises in China's printinf machinery manufacturing field." The use 
of the Petitioner's inventions by a major client contributes to !commercial performance, but does 
not necessarily show that those inventions are of major significance in the field (as opposed to benefiting 
~and individual customers). 
Much of the evidence cited in the petition and on appeal attests to the overall benefits ofUV-LED printing 
technology. For example, a submitted article states: "the overall market size of UV-LED printing has 
exceeded RMB 2 billion in 2021." But the record does not show that the Petitioner invented UV-LED 
printing, or made significant, widely-adopted enhancements to the technology. Statistics about the 
economic and environmental benefits of the entire UV-LED printing industry do not establish the 
significance of the Petitioner's specific contributions to that industry. 
The Petitioner has established that she has made original contributions in her field, but has not met her 
burden of proof to show the major significance of those contt·ibutions. 
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 Petitioner claimed to satisfy this criterion through her position as general manager ofD and her 
appointment as a chief expert with the GP A 
The record establishes that the Petitioner's general manager position is a leading role at~I-~I The next 
question is whether! lhas a distinguished reputation. 
The relative size or longevity of an organization or establishment is not in and of itself a determining 
factor but is considered together with other information to determine whether a distinguished reputation 
exists. Other relevant factors for evaluating the reputation of an organization or establishment can include 
the scale of its customer base or relevant media coverage. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F.2(B)(l). 
The Petitioner submitted a profile of the company from the GP A's website. The translated printout in the 
record does not identify the author of the profile, and therefore we cannot determine whether it is a self­
promotional piece written by ac::=] employee. The profile, therefore, is not strong evidence ofl 
distinguished reputation. 
6 
I 
The Petitioner submitted documentation showing thatl lhad won or bid on contracts with various 
customers in China, and that~ is a distributor for UV curing lamps manufactured by a company in 
New Jersey. These materials document! !business activity but do not directly establish or attest to 
the company's distinguished reputation. 
Translated certificates in the record show the following information aboutLJ 
• In 2015, I I was accredited as a 'I IScience and Technology Innovation Giant 
Ente1prise"· 
• In 2016,Obegan a two-year appointjent as "the third session council member of the China 
Printing Technology Association 1 Printing Branch"; 
• In 2017, the GPA namedl Ito a four-year term as a council member; 
• In 2017 and again in 2020, various provincial authorities namedl Ia "High-tech Enterprise," 
valid for three years; and 
• In 2018 and 2020, thel~---~IAdministration for Industry and Commerce namedc=] a 
'I I Province Enterprise of Observing Contract and Valuing Credit." 
The Petitioner did not provide indelpender evidence to establish the significance of these ce1tificates and 
explain how they demonstrate that has a distinguished reputation. 
In the RFE, the Director asked for more evidence of the nature of the Petitioner's roles and the 
distinguished reputations of the organizations. In response, the Petitioner submittld cop es of previously 
submitted materials and a translated 2022 article from Huanqiu that called 1"a well-known 
enterprise in the printing and packaging industry." The article did not elaborate farther, instead discussing 
the overall importance of "green and environment-friendly production methods" and I I eff01is in 
that vein. 
Media coverage is one factor to consider when examining an organization's distinguished reputation. See 
generally 6 USCJS Poli? Man ual, supra, at F.2(B)(l). But while the Petitioner has submitted a small 
number of articles about 1and some of its business deals, the Petitioner did not establish the extent 
to which this level of coverage distinguishes~ from other companies in the same field. 
The Petitioner also named some of....l ___.I clients, but did not explain how these clients establish that 
I lhas a distinguished reputation. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the Petitioner had not established the distinguished reputations 
of the organizations. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that evidence submitted in response to the RFE 
is sufficient to establish! I distinguished reputation. As discussed above, the record establishes the 
Petitioner's leading role ate=] and it identifies some ofl !clients, but the record lacks sufficient 
objective, independent evidence to show thatl I has a distinguished reputation among companies in 
its industry. 
The Petitioner also claims to have performed in a critical role for the GPA. For a critical role, we look at 
whether the evidence establishes that the person has contributed in a way that is of significant importance 
to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities or those ofa division or department of the 
7 
I 
organization or establishment. A supporting role may be considered critical if the person's performance 
in the role is (or was) important. It is not the title of the person's role, but rather the person's performance 
in the role that determines whether the role is, or was, critical. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, 
supra, at F.2(B)(l). 
With respect to the Petitioner's appointment as a chief expert for the GP A, the "Letter of Appointment" 
specified that the Petitioner had been named "the Chief Expert of the UV process technology category of 
" The Petitioner did not provide documentation demonstrating the~-----------~ nature and scope of the duties she had performed as a chief expert. 
The vice president of the GPA stated that the chief expert is "the highest-level member of the expert 
database" and that the Petitioner "played an essential role in promoting the growth of the [GPA]." 
Regarding the nature of that role, the official stated that the Petitioner helped member companies to 
upgrade to "environmentally friendly and energy-saving UV-LED curing printing systems." The official 
also observed thatl lsells those curing systems. The record does not demonstrate that, or explain 
how, the Petitioner's promotion of her own company's products was of significant importance to the 
outcome of the GP A's activities. Therefore, the Petitioner did not establish she had a leading or critical 
role for GPA. 
In the RFE, the Director asked for "detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the 
beneficiary's role for the organization or establishment is or was leading or critical. Details should include 
the specific tasks or accomplishments of the beneficiary as compared to others who are employed in 
similar pursuits within the field of endeavor." In response, the Petitioner resubmitted the same letter from 
the GP A's vice president, which discussed the Petitioner's qualifications for the chief expert appointment 
but not the duties of that appointment or why the role was critical for the GP A. 
In the denial notice, the Director stated that the letters submitted in response to the RFE "did not provide 
the detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the beneficiary's role for the 
organization or establishment was leading or critical. Also, the letters did not explain the specific tasks or 
accomplishments of the beneficiary as compared to others who are employed in similar pursuits within 
the field of endeavor." 
On appeal, the Petitioner quotes the previously submitted letter from the GP A's vice president. That letter 
indicates that the Petitioner "played an essential role in promoting the growth of the~------~ tbut the letter does not explain how the Petitioner's work as a chief expert advanced that 
goal. Instead, the letter contends that the Petitioner and I I have helped companies adopt new 
technology. But this assertion speaks to the Petitioner's role atl lwhich sells the technology in 
question to some of the GPA's member companies. The quoted passage from the vice president's letter 
does not explain what the Petitioner's role as a chief expert entailed or how it was critical to the GPA. 
The assertion that I I products are beneficial to the GPA's member companies is not sufficient, 
because the benefit from those products is not contingent on the Petitioner's appointment as chief expert. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that her role as a chief expert was critical for the GP A, we need 
not explore the separate issue of whether the GP A has a distinguished reputation. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the regulatory requirements for this criterion. 
8 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salmy or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field. 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
The Petitioner submitted a "Proof of Personal Income" document from I I indicating that the 
Petitioner's annual salary plus bonuses was about ¥1.17 million in 2019, ¥1.36 million in 2020, and ¥2.1 
million in 2021. 
The Petitioner submitted a "Printing and Packaging Industry Salary Survey Report" for 2020, indicating 
that general managers in China with more than 10 years of experience earned average salaties ranging 
from ¥995,000 for high school graduates to ¥1.29 million for individuals with doctorates. 
The Director stated, in the RFE, that the submitted evidence was not sufficient to satisfy the regulatmy 
requirements. In response, the Petitioner submitted additional excerpts from the salary survey report, 
primarily dealing with the salaries oflower-level employees in the p1inting and packaging industry. 
In denying the petition, the Director concluded that "[t]he petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to 
compare the beneficiary's salary with others of the same position in the field." On appeal, the Petitioner 
cites previously submitted evidence and repeats the claim that her "salaty is significantly high relative to 
others working in the field." 
Also in the denial, the Director stated: "The petitioner did not submit the evidence like media rep01is of 
notably high salaries earned by others in the beneficiary's field; and list [sic] compiled by credible 
professional organization(s) of the top earners in a field." On appeal, the Petitioner protests that the 
Director introduces "new grounds" beyond the information in the RFE, and that therefore the Petitioner 
did not have an opportunity to submit such evidence. But in the RFE, the Director listed both media 
reports and lists of top earners as evidence the Petitioner could support in response to the RFE. 
The documentation of industry averages the Petitioner submitted shows salaries only, while the figures 
for Petitioner's earnings combine salary and bonuses. These mismatched figures do not permit a direct 
comparison between the Petitioner and others in the industry, either on the basis of base salary alone or 
total compensation. Therefore, the evidence submitted does not show that the Petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
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 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. 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 
9 
I 
(Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner has not shown a level of recognition of her work that 
shows 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)(1 )(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate 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 Petitioner has patented useful inventions and developed software relating to UV-LED printing, 
and she has used this technology to run what appears to be a successful business. She has not, however, 
shown that this success has risen to the level of sustained national or international acclaim. Her 
reputation, instead, appears to be heavily concentrated inl !Province. Her appointment as a 
chief expert, for example, is with a provincial-level association. We acknowledge the assertion that 
Ihosts a disproportionate share of China's printing industry, but this does not establish 
sustained acclaim at the required national or international level. 
The Petitioner's name has appeared in a small number of nationally published articles, but the tone of 
the articles appears to be promotional rather than journalistic. Rather than announce recent 
developments that would account for media attention, most of the articles offer general praise for the 
Petitioner, her company, and its products. Marketing materials created for the purpose of selling the 
person's products or promoting the person's services are not generally considered to be published 
material about the person (this includes seemingly objective content about the person in major print 
publications that the person or their employer paid for). See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, 
at F .2(B)( 1 ). 1 Among the materials that the Petitioner submitted in attempt to establish that the articles 
appeared in major media is part of a report by a marketing agency, stating that one such "website 
seems to have companies who want to put their information online as their clients, and post positive 
information for them on their website." 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. We will 
therefore dismiss the appeal. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
1 We note that most of the articles are broadly similar and appeared within a short period of time immediately preceding 
the September 2022 filing of the petition.