dismissed EB-1A Case: Real Estate Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20882300 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUN. 15, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , area estate developer , 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 Nebraska Service Center initially approved the petition, but then revoked that 
approval, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner had established eligibility for 
the immigrant classification she sought. The matter is now before us on appeal. 1 
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)(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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien 's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
1 The Petitioner submitted a brief statement in support of her appeal, and indicated that a supplemental brief would be 
forwarded to our office within 30 days. No further documentation has been received. Therefore, the record will be 
considered complete as currently constituted . 
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). Congress set a very high 
benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring that the Petitioner demonstrate "sustained 
national or international acclaim" by presenting "extensive documentation" of the alien's 
achievements. 56 Fed. Reg. 30703, 30704 (Jul. 5, 1991). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). 
With respect to revocations, section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1155 states, in pertinent part, that the 
Secretary of Homeland Security "may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, 
revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204." 
Regarding revocation on notice, the Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of record 
at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a denial 
of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of proof. The 
decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the time the 
decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the petitioner 
in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
By itself: the Director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the revocation of the approval of an immigrant petition. Id. The approval of a visa petition 
vests no rights in the beneficiary of the petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step 
in the visa application process. Id. at 589. A beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, 
entitled to an immigrant visa. Id. 
2 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability based on her work as a real 
estate developer, and her Form I-140 petition was initially approved. Subsequently, the Director 
issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval upon receiving information from the United 
States Consulate in Guangzhou that the Petitioner did not intend to work in the United States in the 
field as outlined in her business plan, and further indicated that she had no involvement in the real 
estate projects she initially claimed she would develop. In the NOIR, the Director stated that this 
information contradicted the claims set forth by the Petitioner in her business plan and cast doubt on 
whether the Petitioner would continue to work in the field of real estate development as required under 
8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(5). 
In response, the Petitioner submitted a personal statement, stating that she and her husband 
incorporated their U.S. company in California in 2015 2 with the intention to provide planning and 
development services to rundown and impoverished areas of the United States . She claimed that in 
2017, as a result of academic challenges faced by her son, her family moved back to China, and this 
unexpected move put her development plans on hold but that she intended to resume her plans in the 
future. Regarding the contradictions noted during her consular interview, the Petitioner asserts that 
the consular officer either misunderstood her responses or incorrectly translated her answers. 
The Director revoked the approval of the petition on December 17, 2020, dete1mining that the 
Petitioner's response to the NOIR was not persuasive in establishing that she would be coming to the 
United States to continue working in the field of real estate development. Specifically, the Director 
noted that the documentation submitted in response to the NOIR, which included undated copies of 
an international investment certificate and wire transfer to a U.S. bank, documents demonstrating the 
account balance of a I laccount for the period from November 30, 2017, to March 31, 2018, a 
2018 wire transfer receipt that is partially illegible, and her marriage certificate, did not support her 
claim that she was misunderstood during her interview or was coming to the U.S. to continue working 
in her field of expertise. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a one-page personal statement, again asserting that her answers to 
the questions posed in the consular interview were misunderstood. She argues on appeal that the 
Director erred by ignoring the documentation she submitted in support of eligibility, specifically 
asserting that her business plan, proof of finance, articles of incorporation, and proof of wire transfer 
sufficiently established that she would be coming to the U.S. to work in the field of real estate 
development. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(5) requires "clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United 
States to continue work in the area of expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective 
employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the 
beneficiary detailing plans on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States." 
Here, the record does not contain clear evidence that the Petitioner will continue work in her area of 
expertise in the United States. Although she asserts on appeal that her original business plan, covering 
2 Corporate records submitted into the record demonstrate that her company was incorporated in California in 2014, but 
dissolved in 2015. 
3 
the period from 2017 to 2019, sufficiently outlines her intended business operations in the United 
States, the plan is now outdated as noted by the Director, and the Petitioner acknowledges she departed 
the United States in 2017 prior to implementing any projects outlined therein . Although she refers to 
articles of incorporation on appeal, corporate documentation submitted in response to the NOIR 
indicate that her company I was dissolved in December 
2015, over a year prior to the filing of the instant petition , and no documentation has been submitted 
to demonstrate that a new corporation or business venture was in operation at the time of filing or has 
since been launched. 
We also note her reliance on the financial documents submitted in response to the NOIR, but as 
discussed by the Director, these documents do not establish that she wi11 be coming to the United 
States to work as a real estate developer as originally claimed. Some documents are undated, one is 
illegible, and the documents demonstrating a wire transfer and thel I account balances are in her 
husband's name. The Director noted that these documents did not have significant evidentiary weight 
given their illegibility and absence of dates. Moreover , given the consular officer's report that the 
Petitioner stated she had no intention of working in the U.S. and that the identified projects were her 
husband's projects , the fact that the legible financial documents submitted relate solely to her husband 
suggests that the projects may in fact be his projects and the consular officer reported, and thus 
unde1mine her claims that she was misunderstood during her interview. 
The above inconsistencies, discrepancies, and contradictory statements are not resolved by 
independent, objective evidence, and diminish the reliability of the evidence in support of the 
Petitioner's claim that she is coming to the United States to work in the field of real estate 
development. Doubt cast on any aspect of a petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the 
reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of 
Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591-92. While the Petitioner maintains that there was some misc01rununication 
that occurred during her interview, she did not submit new objective independent evidence 
establishing her intent to come to the United States to work in the field or to support her assertion that 
her answers were misunderstood by the consular officer. A mere explanation is not the independent 
objective evidence contemplated by Matter of Ho, and we find the explanations offered unpersuasive. 
Insufficient reason exists to doubt that the consular interview was competently conducted and 
faithfully reported. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The record does not contain clear evidence that the Petitioner will continue work in her area of 
expertise in the United States. Therefore, she has not established eligibility pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition's approval will remain revoked. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4