dismissed EB-1A Case: Real Estate

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-L-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 18, 2018 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a real estate analyst and researcher, 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 the.ir field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of 
which he must meet at least three. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief, arguing that he meets at least 
three of the ten criteria. 
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 internatio11aI 
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 regulati?n 
.
Mauer of.1-L-
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if it is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily 
apply to a beneficiary's occupation. 
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 real estate analyst and researcher who is the director of real estate studies at 
Because he has not indicated or established that he has 
recei'-'.ed a major, internationally recognized award, he 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 found that 
the Petitioner met only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, judging under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The record reflects that the 
Petitioner served as a peer reviewer of manuscdpts for journals and at conferences, such as 
and the In addition, he authored 
scholar! y articles in publications, such as · and 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner satisfied the judging and scholarly 
articles criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets one additional criterion, discussed below. We have 
reviewed all of the evidence in the record and conclude that it does not support a finding that the 
Petitioner satisfies the plain language requirements of at least three criteria. 
2 
.
Mauer of.1-L-
Eliidence of Jhe alien ·s original scienli/ic. scholarly, arttsllc, athletic, or business­
relaled contribwions of major significance in tlzefie'ld. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) . 
In order to satisfy the regulation al 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 in the field. 
The Petitioner argues that his authorship of the _ and 
meets this criterion. As it relates to , the 
foreword indicates that the code was based on requirements from the 
the . While the Petitioner is listed as one of over a 
dozen individuals who "drafted" the code, he did not explain or establish what, if any, original 
content or concepts derived from him in codifying the government requirements . Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the extent of his role in drafting the code, and he did not specifically 
identify what contributions he made to and whether they are considered of major significance 
in the field. Moreover, regarding the Petitioner is listed as one of the editor-in-chiefs rather 
than the author of the guide. Furthermore, while , professor at 
indicated that is "now promoted by the central government as the key guidelines 
for real estate appraisers in China" and lecturer at , stated 
that the Petitioner was "responsible for providing case studies to candidates sitting for Professional 
Exams for they discuss the Petitioner's influence on the Chinese 
real estate market rather than the overall field. 1 For these reasons , the Petitioner did not establish 
that and are his original contributions and that they have been of major significance 
to the greater real estate field. 
In addition, the Petitioner contends that his lectures at the 
"are attended by some of the leaders of NAR and have made an influence on the organization." 
According to owner of __ "[e]vents primarily 
organized by [the Petitioner] are among the first and most influential exchange events ever organized 
between and the -
however, did not identify the Petitioner's con·tributions and explain how he influenced the 
real estate field. Likewise, the Petitioner argues that he served as the keynote speaker for the 
and coordinator for the 
and the 
1 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Ei1aluatio11 of Evidenc e Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions; Revisions to the Acljudicaror 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update A DI 1-14 8-9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
hllps://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d al 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not mel this criterio1_1 because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
3 
.
Mauer of.1-L-
Participation in a conference 
in-and-of-itself does not show original contributions of major significance. Publications and 
presentations are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of 
"major significance." See Kazarian v. USC IS, 580 F.Jd l 030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), qffJ in part, 
596 F.Jd 1115. Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his speaking engagements , lectures, 
and committee and coordinator positions at conferences significantly impacted his field. 
Further, the Petitioner submits citation summaries regarding professors in his field and compares 
them to his own total citations. An evaluation of the Petitioner's cumulative citations relative to 
acclaimed real estate researchers is generally more relevant in a final merits determination to 
demonstrate his sustained national or international acclaim, that he is one of the small percentage at 
the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation. Here, the appropriate analysis is to determine whether a petitioner 
has shown that his individual articles or presentations , fact?ring in citations and other corroborating 
evidence , have been considered important at a level consistent with original contributions of major 
significance in the field. Although citations show that his research has received attention from the 
field as demonstrated, for instance, by his highest cited article garnering 43 citations , the Petitioner 
did not establish that these citations to his individual papers show their "major significance ." The 
Petitioner did not present evidence, for example, indicating that his work has been singled out by the 
citing articles as particularly important or highly impactful. 
Further, the Petitioner maintains that he influenced through his positions and commissions 
and references the letter from who generally claims that he "has made extraordinary 
and irreplaceable contributions to China's most important real estate institution." 
however, did not provide specific information identifying the Petitioner 's original contributions lo 
the institution and explaining how they are considered of major significance to the greater real estate 
field. Evidence that the Petitioner served in a po_sition with without further information and 
documentation about his work and its impact, does not demonstrate original contributions of major 
significance in the field. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the field 
without providing specific examples of contributions that rise to a level consistent with major 
significance. Letters that repeat the regulatory language but do not explain how an individual's 
contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient lo establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian , 580 F.Jd at 1036, affd in part 596 F.3d at 1115. 
Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. The U.S. AU )1 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For these reasons, the Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that he has made original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
·4 
Matter of.!-l-
m. 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 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 aggrega~e, 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 his 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 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the 
Petitioner h~1s garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and he 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). 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifies for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of.T-L-, ID# 1545180 (AAO July 18, 2018) 
5