dismissed EB-1A Case: Tax Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17774594 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 14, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a tax accountant, 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)(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that while the Petitioner met 
the initial evidence requirement for the requested classification, the record did not establish that he 
enjoyed sustained national or international acclaim and was among the small percentage of those at 
the top of his field . 
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 )(1) 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. 20 l 0) 
( 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
TI. ANALYSIS 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a vice chair and international tax partner witH'--------' 
where he indicates that he has been em Joyed in several positions for more than 30 years. He earned 
an MBA from the Universit in 2017, and also holds degrees from the University._! __ ___. 
and the University ~----~ The Petitioner states that if his petition is granted, he intends to 
open his own international tax consulting firm in I I focusing on Chinese-owned 
technology companies in the area. 
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). The Director found that the Petitioner met three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relating to published material about him and his work, his 
authorship of scholarly articles in his field, and his leading role for distinguished organizations. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets the evidentiary criteria relating to his high remuneration 
in relation to others in the field. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the 
Director's conclusions regarding his leading roles for the~------~andl I as 
well as his authorship of scholarly articles in the business field. However, as will be briefly discussed 
below, upon review we do not agree that the record includes published material about the Petitioner 
relating to his work, and we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to show that his remuneration is 
significantly in relation to others in his field. 
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) 
In order to establish that they meet this criterion, a petitioner must show that the evidence meet each 
of its elements, which in part require both that the published material be about them and that it relates 
2 
to their work in the field for which classification is sought. Here, the Petitioner initially submitted 
several articles in which he is quoted regarding tax and international business issues, which include 
articles published in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and South China Morning Post. In 
responding to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), which stated that none of the articles 
submitted were about him, the Petitioner argued that since the nature of his work is to provide tax 
advice, "which invariably includes his views and opinions," all of these articles met the plain language 
of this criterion. Although the Director ultimately concluded that the evidence submitted in support 
of this criterion was sufficient, he did not provide an analysis of this evidence in his decision. 
As noted above, each of the articles in the record includes at least one sentence in which the Petitioner 
provides his expert opinion regarding the subject of the article. The article appearing in the Wall Street 
Journal, for example, is about the acquisition by Chinese companies of companies in other countries, 
and includes a statement from the Petitioner about such deals with which he is involved. Although he 
and his employer are identified, this material is not about him. Even articles which consist almost 
entirely of interviews of the Petitioner, which appeared in the South China Morning Post and on the 
website of the.__ ______________ _, similarly identify him and his employer, but 
do not include details about his career history or accomplishments. Instead, these materials are about 
the Chinese tax system and infrastructure investments, respectively, and thus do not meet this 
regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at* I, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 
8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the actor). Accordingly, we 
disagree with the Director's conclusion and withdraw that part of his decision. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salmy or other significantZv high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
Initial evidence of the Petitioner's remuneration consisted of a letter from I which stated 
that his total after-tax income from June 2017 to May 2018 was HK$ 12,224,019, and that his 
"drawing" in the period from June 2018 through February 2019 was HK$ 568,000 per month. In 
addition, to demonstrate that this remuneration was significantly high in relation to others in his field, 
the Petitioner submitted two salary surveys showing annual salaries for what he asserts are similar 
positions in his field of between HK$ l million and HK$ 2 million. However, we note that the Robert 
Walters Salary Survey 2018 shows that in Hong Kong, the annual salary for a Managing Director in 
the "Investment Banking" category, which includes the Petitioner's field of mergers and acquisitions, 
ranges between HK$ 2.4 million to HK$ 4. 7 million. In addition, the Michael Page Hong Kong Salmy 
Benchmark 20 I 9 lists the annual salary range for the position of Regional Head of Tax in the "Back 
Office -Tax" category ranges between HK$ 2million and HK$ 3 million. 
In response to the Director's RFE, the Petitioner submitted additional evidence of his earnings, 
including screen shots of his monthly earnings statements between July 201 7 and June 2019. These 
show his receipt of a monthly drawing of HK$ 484,666.67 each month under one employee number, 
and an additional monthly drawing of HK$ 83,333.33 in most months under a different employee 
number. These figures confirm those regarding the monthly salary from the initial letter, with an 
annual salary of about HK$ 6.8 million. In addition, he also submitted statements showing profit­
sharing payments of approximately HK$ 2.87 million in 2018 and HK$3.1 million in 2019. For 
purposes of comparison, a report from payscale.com indicated that the average salary for a partner in 
an accounting firm in Hong Kong was HK$ 3.7 million, with 75% earning less than HK$ 5 million. 
3 
This evidence demonstrates that the Petitioner's salary was high, and his total remuneration 
significantly high, in relation to other similarly situated accounting professionals in 2018 and 2019. 
As such, we disagree with the Director and conclude that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In a final merits determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine 
whether the Petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim and 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 Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence 
that he meets that standard. 
The Petitioner argues on appeal that the Director did not conduct a proper final merits determination 
in his decision, because he only considered evidence submitted under the criteria he found that the 
Petitioner met, and analyzed this evidence in a piecemeal fashion without considering the totality of 
the record. We agree, as USCIS policy following the Kazarian decision clearly indicates that all of 
the evidence in the record should be considered together in this second part of the analysis. 1 We will 
therefore conduct a final merits analysis in accordance with this policy. 
The evidence shows that the Petitioner has spent almost his entire career with a single employer in 
China, although his resume indicates that he spent a brief period working in the United States for an 
affiliated office. He lists several roles he has played forl I including international tax 
partner and national mergers and acquisitions leader, and these titles are confirmed in media reports 
in which he is quoted for his expert opinion and elsewhere in the record. Although a letter from 
I !confirms that he currently holds the position ofl I for the company, the record 
does not include evidence explaining his duties in this role or any of the others he has held. We agree 
with the Director that this evidence is sufficient to show that he has played a leading role, but it does 
not describe his specific performance and achievements in this role forl I Vague 
statements that he has "interacted with senior business leaders, government officials and the media 
and press" and that he is "Hong Kong's top provider of professional advice and consulting services in 
both U.S. and China tax matters" are not sufficient to demonstrate how this work has elevated his 
status within the broader field of business, or his specialization in taxation. The Act requires 
"extensive documentation" that a petitioner's achievements have been recognized in the field, and the 
record regarding the Petitioner's achievements atl I does not meet that requirement. 
Whether as an official part of his duties withl lor not, the Petitioner also submitted 
evidence that he has written articles on Chinese and U.S. tax issues that were published in professional 
magazines and journals. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the submitted materials, published 
between 2013 and 2018, represent only his most recent published work, and that it was the Director's 
burden to request the submission of additional articles if he felt that the record was insufficient to 
support the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested classification. We first note that it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
1 See 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(2), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual (stating that USCIS officers should then 
evaluate the evidence together when considering the petition in its entirety to determine if the petitioner has established, 
by a preponderance of the evidence, the required high level of expertise for the immigrant classification). 
4 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). In addition, 
beyond acknowledging that the Petitioner's initial submission included evidence sufficient to meet the 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the Director's request for evidence (RFE) also reminded him 
that eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability is not established by meeting the minimum of 
three of the evidentiary criteria alone, and explained that the response should also show that he meets 
the high standards of the requested immigrant classification. Therefore, if he felt that evidence of the 
additional articles that he authored before 2013 would help to establish his eligibility, the Petitioner 
should have submitted that evidence. 
The evidence that is in the record includes several articles that the Petitioner co-authored with 
colleagues froml I published in magazines and journals including The Bulletin, 
Bloomberg BNA Tax Planning International Review, China Tax Intelligence and Tax Notes 
International. In his decision, the Director stated that some of these articles did not meet the relevant 
criterion, in particular those published in The Bulletin, and that the record lacked evidence that others 
in the field had cited to these articles. As pointed out on appeal, the Petitioner is not a researcher, and 
does not work in a field where authors of such material typically cite to each other's written works. 
However, the Petitioner's assertion that authorship of scholarly articles in his field is rare is not 
supported by evidence in the record, nor does he suggest an alternative means for measuring the extent 
to which the evidence of his published work supports his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. 
Further, the record does not include evidence about the publications in which these articles were 
published beyond the copies of the journal covers and articles. For instance, the covers of the editions 
of The Bulletin indicate that it is published and/or distributed by the 'l I 
.__ ________ _., but no information is provided regarding the circulation or readership of this 
magazine, or its prestige within the Chinese or international taxation community. Another article was 
published in a newsletter of the I I' which according to the website at the address printed on 
the cover is the '--------------------~ but the record does not include 
information about whether this newsletter would have influence or reach beyond the members of this 
organization. While the titles of some of the other publications suggest that they may have had a 
broader readership, and thus provided a wider platform for distribution of the Petitioner's views and 
expertise, again the record lacks such evidence. Thus, although the authorship of these articles shows 
the Petitioner's expertise in the area of international taxation, as well as a certain level of 
acknowledgment of that expertise by the editors and publishers of the journals in which they were 
published, it does not set him apart from his co-authors and others who are published in these and 
other media. Again, the Act requires extensive documentation of recognition in a petitioner's field, 
and the evidence of the Petitioner's published work does not rise to that level. 
In addition to this evidence of materials authored by the Petitioner, the record also includes the 
previously discussed evidence of published materials which include quotations from him on issues of 
taxation, investment and mergers and acquisition. The Petitioner asserts on appeal that the interview 
of him on twd !segments and his contributions to articles in The New York Times, Wall Street 
Journal and South China Morning Post, among others, "automatically places him in an elite category 
at the top of his field in Hong Kong." We acknowledge that the appearance of his expert opinions, in 
most cases brief snippets among those of others, in well-known media such as these shows that his 
expertise in his field is acknowledged and sought after. However, even if this statement was proven 
5 
to be correct, this does not accurately reflect the requirements for eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability, as placement at the very top of the field of endeavor is not limited by geography. 
Although the single articles from The New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and the two interviews 
in segments aired o~ I suggest that the Petitioner's expertise has been recognized beyond the 
borders of Hong Kong and even China, much of the remainder of the evidence consists of articles 
published in primarily locally focused media, such as the South China Morning Post, or in media about 
which little or no information exists in the record, such as two articles in a magazine identified in its 
header as A Plus. The totality of this evidence does not help to show that the Petitioner has received 
acclaim for his expertise at the national or international level over a sustained period. 
Likewise, the evidence of the Petitioner's salary and total remuneration in 2018 and 2019, together 
with the salary surveys and other evidence, demonstrates that in those years he was compensated at a 
rate that is significantly higher than average, but does not show that he has consistently been 
compensated at a rate which would place him amongst those at the top of his field. In addition, the 
evidence showing that the Petitioner was named as one of several tax experts in Hong Kong in 
International Tax Review's .__ _______ ___, in 2009 does not set him apart from others so 
named, or from those taxation experts who work in other parts of the world. 
Other than his work for, and associated with 
of his long-time service with the 
several roles most recent! as it 
the Petitioner also submitted evidence 
m 
A letter from .__ __ ___, 
.__ ________________ ~of the organization, describes the Petitioner's work as 
a board member for more than twenty years, including his involvement with it~ I main source 
of revenue, and his service on several committees including the finance and audit committee. This 
evidence shows that he has served as an effective leader for this well-know~ I organization, 
but the Petitioner does not suggest or establish that this work has brought him acclaim in the 
international tax community, or that any recognition for this work extends beyond thq I 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals 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, after analysis 
of the totality of the evidence, we conclude that 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 has garnered national or international acclaim in the field, and that 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6