dismissed EB-1A Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 11271298 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : OCT . 14, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a software developer who specializes in Internet technologies, seeks classification as 
an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that he met at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification. The Director further determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he intends 
to continue work in his claimed area of extraordinary ability in the United States. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. 
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, the Petitioner has not met this burden. 
Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l) 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 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 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 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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has a bachelor's degree in computer science from !University in China 
and nearly 20 years of experience in the Chinese software and Internet technology industry. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received 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 order to meet the initial evidence requirements. 
The Petitioner previously claimed to meet five of these ten criteria, summarized below: 
• (iii), Published material in professional publications or major media; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (vi), Authorship of scholarly articles; and 
• (viii), Leading or critical roles for organizations with distinguished reputations. 
The Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the five claimed criteria, relating to judging and 
authorship of scholarly articles. The record reflects that the Petitioner has written several scholarly 
articles published in professional publications in his field, thus satisfying the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(vi). Specifically, he has authored articles published in the Chinese technology journals 
Digital Space, Computernik, and Wireless Internet Technology. However, we disagree with the 
Director's determination that the Petitioner satisfied the judging criterion and will address that criterion 
below. 
2 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to published 
materials in major media and leading or critical roles at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (viii). The 
Petitioner does not contest the Director's determination that he did not satisfy the original 
contributions of major significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and therefore, we deem this 
issue to be waived. See, e.g., Matter of M-A-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 762, 767 n.2 (BIA 2009). See also 
Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *l, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court determined the plaintiff's 
claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
After reviewing all the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director's conclusion that the 
Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidence requirement by meeting at least three of the criteria at 8 
C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. 
Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submitted two newspaper articles that are about him and relating to his work, both 
published in March 2019. The articles are similar in content and both appeared in Chinese-language 
newspapers that are published and distributed in the United States - The China Press and World 
Journal. Neither article identifies the author of the material, as required by this regulation. 
As evidence that these newspapers qualify as major media, the Petitioner initially relied on screenshots 
from the publications' respective Wikipedia pages and the circulation figures contained therein. 
However, Wikipedia is an online, open source, collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it 
cannot guarantee the validity of its content. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia (Sept. 29, 2020), 
https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer; Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th 
Cir. 2008). 
With respect to The China Press, the Petitioner subsequently submitted an excerpt from Chinese 
Media Guide indicating that it is "probably the third or the fourth largest Chinese newspaper in the 
United States" and is printed inl 11 I and I I Finally, he provided 
information regarding The China Press from an unidentified website indicating that the newspaper 
has a daily circulation of 70,000 copies. 1 Regarding World Journal, the Petitioner relied solely on the 
Wikipedia entry for this publication and submitted nothing farther. 
In order to establish that a given publication qualifies as major media, the Petitioner must establish 
that the circulation ( on-line or in print) is high compared to the circulation statistics of other 
publications. 2 In response to a request for evidence (RFE) the Petitioner submitted a list of the "Top 
10 U.S. Daily Newspapers," by print circulation, published on the "Media Blog" of the website 
1 The submitted screenshot of the unidentified website includes the copyright of~I ---~ 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005 .1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14, 7 (Dec. 22, 2010). 
http://www. uscis. gov /legal-resources/policy-memoranda 
3 
www.cision.com in January 2019. The Petitioner asserted that the circulation of World Journal would 
place it in the sixth position on the list. 
The Director determined that the additional evidence submitted in response to the RFE did not 
establish that The China Press qualifies as a major medium in the United States. On appeal, the 
Petitioner does not contest this determination. However, he contends that the Director overlooked 
evidence related to World Journal and asserts that its circulation figures place it among the top ten 
newspapers in the United States. 
However, as noted, the Petitioner has relied solely on Wikipedia to support its claims regarding the 
circulation of World Journal. Accordingly, his claims are not supported by sufficient reliable and 
probative evidence. Further, as noted, both submitted articles lack the required information regarding 
the author of the published material. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that he 
satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of 
the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
class[fication is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
Although the Director determined that the Petitioner meets this criterion, we conclude that he did not 
provide sufficient evidence related to the events or competitions at which he claims to have 
participated as a judge. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner stated that he has "frequently served as panel member, in evaluation 
of the quality of work of others." Specifically, he indicated that he served as one of nine judges at the 
"2013 Annual Meeting oA , I" In support of this claim, the Petitioner submitted 
a two-page screenshot from the website Chinae.net accompanied by a partial English translation. The 
translation indicates that the website refers to the 2013 Annual Meeting o±1 I I I The translation is otherwise limited to providing a list of eight "Special Invited Guests" 
which includes the Petitioner's name. It did not identify him as a judge or indicate what, if any, work 
he would be judging. Most of the text in the original Chinese-language document was not translated. 3 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted a letter froni I, who states that he 
is the CEO ofl I and writing in his capacit~ of the judging panel of 2013 Annual 
Meeting ofl I L___J states that the Petitioner was among 
nine IT leaders invited to serve on the judging panel, and states that he judged "the business model of 
the entrepreneurs team" with a focus on their "market analysis, financial projections and business 
planning." He also identifies two other members of the judging panel. 
We note, however, that neither! lnor the two other judges identified inl i's letter appear 
on the list of"special invited guests" provided at the time of filing, thus creating an inconsistency with 
the initial information provided regarding this 2013 meeting. The Petitioner did not attempt to resolve 
3 Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a full English language translation. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
The translator must certify that the English language translation is complete and accurate, and that the translator is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. Id. 
4 
this ambiguity in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). In light of this ambiguityJ Is statement 
alone is insufficient to establish the Petitioner's participation as a judge at this event. 
Further,! b brief explanation of the Petitioner's claimed judging activities does not clearly 
establish the nature of the event he judged in order to establish that he was responsible for judging the 
work of others in the same or allied field. Although! Is letter suggests that the Petitioner judged 
some type of entrepreneurial team event, the record contains little information regarding the 2013 
meeting and any competition that occurred at this event. As noted, the meeting information provided 
at the time of filing was not accompanied by a foll English translation. 
In his RFE response, the Petitioner also claimed for the first time that he had participated as a judge at 
th9 !Cup.__ _________ __. Competition in I 12014. In support 
of his assertjou ~e submitted au iuv~trion letter that refers to the Petitioner as the "General Manager 
and CEO of.__ ________ ....,' a position that he has not otherwise claimed to hold. The letter 
invites the Petitioner as "an important guest to participate in the competition and evaluate and assay 
on the projects as a judge." The letter bears the seal of the event's "competition committee" and refers 
to "our company" but is not on company letterhead, is not signed, and does not identify the name of 
the company that issued it. 
The Petitioner also submitted a "Press Release Confirmation Letter" thanking him for his participation 
in thel I Cup competition and "the wonderful remarks you made as a judge." The letter 
requests that the Petitioner review and approve some proposed text about his partici ation that would 
be included in a press release. This letter, which is not on letterhead, bears the seal of L..._ __ ---r----; 
[ I Internet Technology Company, and again refers to the Petitioner as the CEO of 
l I The Petitioner did not provide a copy of the published press release or any other 
supporting documentation regarding this competition, his judging activities or the nature of the event 
he judged. Therefore, the two letters provided are insufficient to document that he meets all elements 
of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
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 that he meets this criterion based on his leading or critical roles held with three 
of his employers. For a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. A 
title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 4 
Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that 
is of significant importance to the outcome of the organization or establishment's activities. It is not 
the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role 
is or was critical. 5 
The Petitioner did not claim that he satisfied this criterion at the time of filing, but in response to the 
RFE, he indicated that he could meet the requirements based on his roles wittj I 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
5 Id. 
5 
I ll I and~ _________ __,,.,.,, a subsidiary of 
I I The Director determined that the submitted letters from representatives of 
these employers did not demonstrate how the Petitioner's work for these companies was leading or 
critical. The Director farther found that the criterion was not met because "the evidence does not 
indicate that the organizations or establishments for which the petitioner has claimed to perform in 
leading or critical roles have a distinguished reputation." 
On appeal, the Petitioner does not address or contest th~ Director's determination as it relates to his 
employment withl • ..,, .,..,.J Accordingly, we will not address evidence 
related to the Petitioner's role with this company. 
The Petitioner submits additional letters addressing his employment wit~ I andD 
I Ion appeal but does not address the Director's determination that he did not submit 
sufficient evidence to establish that either organization has a distinguished reputation. For 
1 1 the Petitioner had submitted screenshots from Reuters (reuters.c9m) and Bloomberg 
(Bloomberg.com). The evidence obtained from Reuters provides a snapshot ofl _ f s stock 
price on th~ lstock exchange as of December 10, 2019, while the Bloomberg screenshot 
confirms the company's date of establishment and states that its business includes "providing 
communication services." The Petitioner did not explain how these materials establish that 
~---~hs recognized as having a distinguished reputation. Since the Petitioner did not meet his 
burden to establish that this organization has a distinguished reputation, we will not address the two 
letters submitted to establish the nature of his role with this company. 
The Petitioner d~cribes I I as a renowned.__ _________ _. technology 
company, and th I Chinese-language I lportal. However, in support of his claims 
regarding the company's distinguished reputation, the Petitioner submitted only a screenshot from 
Yahoo Finance that provided the company's real time stock price on the Nasdaq exchange; the 
evidence provides no additional information regardin~its reputation in the field. Therefore, 
the Petitioner did not establish that his previous role ~satisfies each element of the criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
With respect to this role, the Petitioner inirally lubmitted a letter froml I who states that 
he "has served" as general manager of the Product Division. It is not clear when he worked for 
□whether he currently works there, or whether he ever worked directly with the Petitioner. g 
states "I supervise some 2,000 employees and many departments including~!------~~ 
Product andl !Department where the Petitioner served as director" from "2014-2010." 6 
Although this statement appeared to reflect his current employment withe=], we note that his letter 
is printed on the letterhead that has a company logo for I I and indicates his email address at 
I I 
I I credits the Petitioner with acf°mplishjg several "oupstandiijg tasks," includmg expandmg 
the number of UC users, developing the voice platform L_J, and leading the development 
of the I I broadcast system, ~ voice telephone service, and the I lvideo broadcast 
program.I !concluded that the Petitioner made "very substantial contributions to our firm by 
6 Other evidence in the record indicates that the Petitioner worked atl~----~I from 2004 to 2010. 
6 
enhancing and internet technology" and states that his input helpeQ earn a "leading edge" in the 
market. We agree with the Director's determination that the letter lacked specific, detailed information 
establishing how the Petitioner's contributions were of significant importance to the outcome of the 
organization's activities. 7 
The Petitioner submits a second letter from I I in support of the appeal. Much of the content is 
the same as the initial letter, but he adds some statistics, noting that during the Petitioner's tenure, the 
company improved in several categories of user rankings for its communications and live broadcast 
platforms. He also adds that the Petitioner "played a critical role and made remarkable contributions 
to our entire company" but he does not provide sufficient detail to establish that the Beneficiary's 
individual contributions had a significant impact on the company's outcomes as a whole. 
Nevertheless, as noted, the Petitioner did not adequately support its claims regarding D I Is distinguished reputation. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner did not establish that he meets the leading or critical roles 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
B. Summary and Reserved Issue 
As explained above, we find that although the Petitioner satisfies the authorship of scholarly articles 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), he does not meet any additional criteria on appeal relating to 
published materials, judging, and leading or critical roles. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the initial 
evidentiary requirement of at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the appeal will be 
dismissed. Further, since the identified basis for denial is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to 
reach and hereby reserve the Director's separate determination that the Petitioner did not establish that 
he is coming to "continue work in the area of extraordinary ability" under section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of 
the Act. 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 Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on 
appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
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 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 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 
7 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10 (stating that letters from individuals with personal 
knowledge of the significance of a petitioner's leading or critical role can be particularly helpful in making this 
determination as long as the letters contain detailed and probative information that specifically addresses how the role for 
the organization or establishment was leading or critical). 
7 
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 section203(b)(l)(A) 
of the Act. The record indicates that the Petitioner has a successful career in the Internet technologies 
field but does not show his sustained national or international acclaim in the field and is not supported 
by extensive documentation. For example, the Petitioner's four scholarly articles, and the two media 
articles about him, were all recently published in 2018 and 2019, and he claims only two instances of 
judging the work of others in his field. Although his employers speak highly of his work-related 
contributions, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has 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)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
8