dismissed EB-1A Case: Real Estate Reclamation

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-P-S-M-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR.l9,2018 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, who works in real estate reclamation, 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)(I)(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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that although the Petitioner had satisfied three of the initial evidentiary criteria, 
he did not show sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. In addition, the Director determined that 
the Petitioner did not establish that he intends to continue to work in the United States in his area of 
expertise and his entry will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and a brief~ arguing that he has shown 
extraordinary ability in the field. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l )(A) of the Act makes visas available to qualified 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 
.
Mauer ofC-P-S-M-
(iii) the alien's entr y into the United Stat es will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extrao rdinary ability " refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the ~eld of endeavor." 8 C.F. R, § 204.5(h)(2) . The implem enting regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets fortry two option s for satisfying this clas sificati on's initial ev idence 
requir ements. First, a petiti oner can demon strate a one-time achieve ment (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petit ioner does not submit this evidence , then he or she 
must provide doc umentati on that meets at least three of the ten catego ries listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (includin g items s uch as awards, pub lished material in certa in medi a, and 
scholarly article s). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then 
consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determinati on and assess whether the record shows sustai ned 
national or international accla im and d emonstr ates that the individual is among the small percen tage 
at the very top of the field of endeavo r. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) 
(disc ussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counte d and then , if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria , considered in the context of a final m erits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C . 20 13); Rijal v. USC IS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.O. Wash. 2011 ). This two-step analysis is consis tent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determin ed not by the quantit y of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the princ~ple that we 
examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value , and cred ibility, both indivi dually 
and with in the con text of the totality of the .evidence , to determine whethe r the tact to be proven is 
probably true." Maller (~(Chcni, alhe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 20 1 0). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Peti tioner served as the project manager for the renov ation of the 
111 New York. Becaus e he has not indicated or estab lished that he has received a 
major , internationa lly recognized awa rd, he mus t satisfy at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R . 
§ 204.5 (h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The Director found that the Petitioner met three criteria, but determin ed that he did not show 
sustained national or intern atio nal acclaim and demonstrate that he is among the small percentage at 
the very top of the tield of endeavor. We have reviewed all of the evidence in the reco rd and 
conclude that it d oes not support a finding that the Petitioner satisfies the plain language 
requirement s for any of the criteria . 
Documenrcaion (?lthe alien's receipt (~llesser nationally or inlernationa!ly recognize d prizes or 
award sfor excellence in !he .field of endeavor . 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Director conclud ed that the Petitioner met this criterion. T he record , however , does not indicate 
that the Petitioner receive d nationa lly o r intern ationa lly ~eco gnized pri zes or award s for exce llence . 
·2 
.
Matter c?fC- P-S-M-
Instead, the Petitioner presented ev idence showing that and another busine ss received 
preserva tion awards relating to a project in whi ch he was involved . For inst ance, the Petitioner 
subm itted evidenc e refle ct ing that received the following awa rds: I) 
the 
In additi on, 
project, received the 2014 
the company that designed 
and the 2015 
As the Petitioner was not a reci pient of these awards , 
he did not establis h his "receipt " of lesser nationa lly or internationally recog nized prizes or awards 
for exc ellence consistent with thi s reg ulatory cri terion .1 Accordingl y, we withdr aw the Direc tor 's 
tin ding, and conclude the Petiti oner did not demon strate that he satisfied this criterion . 
Publi shed material about rhe alien in profess ional or major trade publi cations or other major 
media . relating to !he a lien 's work in !he .fie!d.fo r which classtficalion is so ught. Suc h evidence 
shall includ e the tiJ!e. date . and author of the material , and any necessary translati on. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(J)(iii). 
The Director found that the Petiti oner met this criterion. Upon review , the recor d does not show 
publi shed material about him relatin g to his work in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. Specifically, the Petiti oner presented press coverage regardin g rather than about 
him . Although the Petitio ner is quoted or mentioned in the material as the project manager, the 
media cover age is about For exam ple, the Petitioner submitted screenshots from 
and which discuss the renovation of the but are not about him.~ 
Artic les that are not about a petit ioner do not meet this regul atory criterion ._ See. e.g.. Negro-Piumpe 
v. Okin. 2:07 -CV-820 -EC R- RJJ at * l , *7 (D. Nev . Sept. 8, 200 8) (upholding a finding that articles 
regarding a show are not about the acto r). Here, articles or screen shots that mention the Petitio ner as 
the projec t manager or qu ote him in support of the art icles' subjects without a discussion regarding 
him and his work in the lie ld do not constitut e published material about him. 
The record does indicate that the Petitioner provided two screen shots from and 
reflecting materi al abo ut him . Both screenshot s indicate an interviey.' of the 
Petitioner discu ssing his hist
ory with the· project. However, the s creenshot from 
archleague .org does not contain th e requir ed date and author . In additi on, the Pet itioner did not 
demo nst rate that the scrcenshots are profes sional or major trade public ations o r other major media. 
Specifi cally, alt hough the Petitioner offered screenshots from 
20 15/20 16 annual report for the 
regar ding the 
, thi s doc umentation 
1 See USC IS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .I, Evaluation t?f £~.-· iden ce Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 
Petitions: Revis;ons to the Adit/(/icator ·.1· Field Manual (AFMj Chapter 22.2. AFM Updale AD/1 -14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
http:/!www. uscis.gov/laws(pol icy-memoranda. : 
2 While we discuss a sampling of articles, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
.
Muller ofC-P-S-M-
relates to and does not show that its website is a professional or major·trade publication or 
other major medium. Moreover , the Petitioner submitted screenshots from 
indicating that is a "co mmunity paper " and distributes 
" I 0,000 copies to over 500 locations throughout and and 
-area hotels." While the scree nshots relate to prin t 
edition rather than the distribution statistics of this community paper is not 
indicative of a professional or major trade publication or other major medium. Accordingly, we 
withdraw the Director's determination because the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he satisfies 
this criterion. 
Evidence (l/he alien ·s original scient{fic, scholarly, artistic , athle tic. or business-related 
contributions r~f major sign(ficance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion. In order to sat isfy the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(v), a petitioner must establish not only that has he made original 
contributions but that they have been of major sig nificance in the field. For example , a peti tioner 
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 that his work in the restoration of satisfies this criterion. 
On appeal , the Petitioner submits a book entitled , which contains two 
paragraphs ·discussing While the book indicat es that " is also helping anc hor similar 
revitalization efforts around the neighborhood,
" the boo k does not show that the 
project is considered a contribution of major significance to the field at large. See Visinscaia, 
4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this cri terion 
because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a whole). The Petitioner, for examp le, did 
not establish that his contributions to the -project have greatly impacted the real estate 
reclamation field. 
The record contains reference letters that praise the restorati on proj ect but do not identify what 
contributions h~.: made to fi eld and how they are considered of major significance. 3 For example, 
former executive vice president of the 
stated that in an effort to reuse the former refinery, he sought 
"inspiration" from the project. however , did not specify the Petitioner's 
contributions and how the greater field considers them to be of major signiticance. In addition, 
although founder of claimed that "had a fundamental 
role in shaping architectural designs and concept s throughou t the entire United States," he did not 
provide any exa mples of other reclamation project s in the United States that were based on or 
show that the architectural des igns and concepts used in the project were orig inal contributions 
of the Petitioner.
4 
Further, founder and managin~ partner of 
>We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
As indicated under the awards criterion, the record shows that · provided the architectural 
4 
.
Matter ofC-P-S-M-
opined that the Petitioner 's "wor k with the building is remarkable ." did 
not indicate what the Petitioner contributed to the project , nor did he explain why he believed the 
Petitioner's work is remarkable and how it is considered to be of major significance to the field. 
The letters considered above primarily contain attestations of the Petitioner's status in the tield 
without providing specific examples of how his contributions rise to a level consist ent 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 to establish original contributions of 
major significance in the field. Kazarian , 580 F.3d at I 036, a.ff'd in parr 596 F.3d at 1115, 1122. 
Moreover , USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756. Inc. v. The U.S Att y 
Gen., 745 F. Supp . 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990) . For the se reasons, the Petiti one r did not demonstrate his 
eligibility for rhis criterion. · 
Evidence 1hat !he alien has pe1:{ormed in . a leading or crilical role .for organizations or 
eslab lishm ents that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h )(3)(v iii). 
The Director found that the Petit ioner met this criterion. The Petitioner claimed chat he "has been 
employed as the Project Manager and General Manager with both and 
related entities owned by the holding company, 
He further explained that is the general contracting company 
responsib le for reclamation, restor ation, and renovation of and is re sponsible for 
operating the nev.'ly restored as an art gallery and event space. While the record indicates that 
he perlonned in a critical role for the project, he did not document that the organizations or 
es tabli shmen ts involved , . have a distinguish -ed reput ation . For example, while 
the Petitioner provided articles and lette rs, considered above , confmni ng that the .project has 
att racted attention in the field , this eviden ce does not discuss the reputation of 
For thes e reasons, we withdraw the Director's tinding, and the Peti tioner did not establish that he 
satisfies th is criterion . 
Evidence (l comm ercial successes in the performing arls, as sho ·wn by box <~[lice receipts or 
record, casselfe, compact disk or video sales. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x ). 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not meet this criterion becau se he is not a performing 
attist. The Petitioner does not contest the Director's decision or otler additional evidence relating to 
this criterion. We agree with the Direct or' s finding, and the Petitioner did not establish that he 
fulfills this criterion. 
II L 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 
designs for the project 
5 
.
Matter (~lC-P-S-M-
final merits determination referenced in Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 5 Nevertheles s, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate , concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petition er has established the level of experti se required for the classificat ion sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa clas sitication , intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCJS has long 
held that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the 
"extraordinary ability" standard. Maller of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm 'r. 1994). In 
the case here, the submitted evidence largely relate s to a single real estate reclamation project. The 
Petitioner has not shown that his work on this project is indicative of the required sustained national 
or internation al acclaim. See section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act. Further, the Petiti oner has not 
provided documentation demonstrating his work prior to and after the project shows a "career 
of acclaimed work in the tield" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. l 0 1-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). Moreover, the record does not otherwi se demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field. See sect ion 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that he qualifie s for classificatio n as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Maller o[C-P-S-M -, 10# 1082111 (AAO Mar. 19, 2018) - . 
5 In addition , as the Petitioner has not established his extraordinary ability under section 203(b )( l )(A)(i) of the Act, we 
do not need to determine whether he intends to continue to work in the United States in his area of expertise and his 
entry will substant ially benefit prospectively the United States. See section 203(b)( l )(A)(ii) and (ii i) of the Act and 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). 
6