dismissed EB-1A Case: Television News Production

MATTER OF K-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 24, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a satellite television news producer, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) secti'on 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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not met any of the ten regulatory criteria, of which a petitioner must satisfy at least 
three. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits a personal statement and 
maintains that the Director erred by downplaying the significance of his credentials and applying 
circular reasoning. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made. available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph 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, 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-C-
(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 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying 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). 
Satisfaction of at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this 
classification. See Kazarian v. USCJS, 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), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that 
the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that 
USCIS examines "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"). Accordingly, where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at 
least three 
criteria, we will determine whether the totality of 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 ende~vor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is the senior editor and deputy director of the news center at 
in China. To demonstrate his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary 
ability, the Petitioner ,relies on (1) employer recognition; (2) awards received by the show he 
produced; (3) media articles, including an interview with him, pieces about his employer, and those 
he authored; and (4) reference letters. The Director concluded that the Petitioner had not met any of 
the regulatory criteria. The Petitioner maintains that the Director downplayed the significance of the 
evidence, and characterizes some of his conclusions as arbitrary or circular. The Petitioner contends 
that he meets the criteria relating to receiving awards, appearing as the subject of published material, 
judging the work of others, authoring scholarly articles, and serving in a leading or critical role. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (viii). For the reasons discussed below, we find that 
while the Petitioner does meet the scholarly articles and leading or critical role criteria, he has not 
satisfied any of the remaining criteria. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-C-
A. Evidentiary Criteria 1 
As the Petitioner has not affirmed or documented that he received a major internationally recognized 
award and the record does not contain such an achievement, he must satisfy at least three of the 
alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
Documentation of the alien 's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Between 2004 and 2010, recognized the Petitioner with several certificates. The Honorary 
Credentials from are as follows: and 
The Petitioner did not corroborate the significance of these awards and the Director 
concluded that they were local, work-rel'ated honors. The Petitioner maintains that the Director's 
reasoning was circular, deducing that the criterion was not met because the awards were not indicative 
of extraordinary ability. While the Director's evaluation of whether the submitted awards show 
extraordinary ability would have been more appropriate under a final merits analysis had the Petitioner 
met three criteria, he ultimately found that these awards did not meet the plain language of this criterion, 
which requires that the awards be nationally or internationally recognized. We agree with this finding. 
The record does not contain evidence that these items are recognized beyond For example, the 
Petitioner did not provide announcements of the selection in the general or trade media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner also focuses on different awards that programs he produced have received. 
More specifically, the Petitioner maintains that he "is the recipient of the 
and that the "name and title of the award speak volume for itself." Further, he references 
coverage of the event in the media, including on the website of the Chinese Internet company 
Initially, the Petitioner offered two certificates recognizing shows that he produced. First, in July 2005, 
the honored the show 
with the honorary title of the 
2007, the 
same show with the title, 
and 
First, both the award and the 
Second, in March 
presented the 
award recognize a show and the certificates do not name the Petitioner. The plain language 
of the criterion requires that the Petitioner be the recipient of the award. Here, the Petitioner has not met 
his burden to document that he is a credited recipient of the honor. 
Second, while both awards contain the word "national," independent corroboration of the honor's 
recognition is more persuasive than the title alone. The Petitioner did not supply any coverage of the 
With respect to the other award, one of the judges from the 
1 We will discuss those criteria the Petitioner has raised and for which the record contains relevant evidence. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-C-
describes the panel members and ceremony, but does 
not elaborate on the award's recognition beyond the issuing organizations. The record also includes a 
paragraph posted on announcing the start of the appraisal and election campaign for the 2006 
This webpage reflects that it is hosted by the 
Also, posted an explanation 
for the selection of a different show, 
Award. The 
for a 2006 
and are the 
sponsors of the award. Their coverage of their own award is not necessarily indicative of the award's 
recognition beyond the issuing entities. 
In summary~ the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the certificates from his employer are recognized 
beyond that company. In addition, he has not met his burden of confirming that he is the recipient of 
the two awards garnered by the show he produced. Finally, he has not established that either of these 
awards is nationally or internationally recognized. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
Published materials 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 Director concluded that most of the published material in the record was not about the Petitioner 
and that he had not demonstrated that the published interview he submitted appea~ed in major media. 
The Petitioner provided an interview he had given that appeared in The interview is a 
transcript of the Petitioner's appearance at a forum on Chinese Media jointly organized and co-hosted 
by its affiliates, a party committee, the and the 
The Petitioner supplied confirmation that lists as 
number on its list of innovative companies and provided information on the company's smartwatch. 
This information does not reflect the entity's status as a media company. The record does not include 
distribution or circulation data for 
On appeal, the Petitioner also focuses on an article in the affirming that it has a 
"nationwide circulation and is an affiliate of one of the three largest media agencies 
in China." It is the Petitioner's position that this article featured one- of his successful television 
projects, the news . banquet, which has been "widely implemented in China and set up multiple new 
records." The Petitioner submitted a piece by entitled 
_ that appeared in the The article reports 
that "multiple websites" including have launched a news banquet style program from 10:20 pm 
to 11 :00 pm. The article then describes production. The item quotes the Petitioner in one 
2 According the translation , his first name is not clear. 
3 The translation identifies the publication as 
record suggest the publication is 
but the remainder of the article and other items in the 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-C-
paragraph. We agree with the Director that this material is not "about" the Petitioner. Moreover, he did 
not corroborate his statement that the enjoys a national distribution as required. 
See Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Cornrn'r 1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Cornrn'r 1972)). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not met 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 specification for which classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
In an August 2015 supplement to the initial filing and in response to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE), 
the Petitioner maintained that he had participated "as a panel member in valuation of the work of 
others." He offered two examples: serving as a panel member at the event 
and as a training consultant and distinguished expert for the 
The Petitioner provided materials about the 
event that lists under "Radio & Television System," one of 13 
industries being appraised; and a letter from a director at who confirms that 
the Petitioner gave lectures and served as a mentor. 
The Director concluded that the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner served as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field. On appeal, the Petitioner refers to the letter from 
establishing that he served as a panel member for a state agency. The Petitioner also 
maintains 
that the Director used circular reasoning, requiring evidence that the judging duties were indicative of 
national or international acclaim. 
Again, the Director's conclusion that training and advising students and novices does not show 
sustained national or international acclaim is more appropriate for a final merits determination had the 
Petitioner satisfied three criteria. Nevertheless, we agree with the Director's earlier findings. 
Specifically, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his participation as a judge of the work of others in the 
same field or an allied field. 
First, while the materials for the list the program the Petitioner produced as 
one of several radio and television systems, this item does not identify him as an adjudicator for the 
event. Page 4 of the translation of this exhibit indicates that the "shall make 
final decision[ s] and award the titles." 
Second, does not list duties commensurate with serving as a judge of the work of others. In 
the Petitioner's position as a training consultant and distinguished expert, he gave "lectures to learners 
during business trainings and shar[ ed] practice experiences and skills in terms of news interview 
production, program planning and the like." He also served as a mentor. While the regulation 
references a "panel," it does so in the context of judging the work of others. It is insufficient to serve on 
a panel that does not include such activity. We agree with the Director that the Petitioner has not shown 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-C-
giving lectures, sharing experiences, and serving as a mentor involve participating as a judge of the 
work of others. For the above reasons, the Petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
In the August 20 15 supplement and the Petitioner's response to the RFE, he maintained that he had 
made contributions of major significance in the field. Specifically, he affirmed that his news programs 
have received top national awards and "profoundly impacted the entire industry." The Petitioner relied 
on three letters in support of this criterion. The Director concluded that the letters did not identify 
specific contributions and the record did not demonstrate an influence in the field. The Petitioner does 
not raise this criterion on appeal or offer further relevant evidence. 
Regardless, we find the record supports the Director's conclusion. The referenced letters are general 
and do not identify specific contributions or their influence in the field. a professor of 
literature at notes that as a reporter, the Petitioner authored over 100 articles in 
prestigious media, including the does not elucidate how these articles, inherent 
to the position of a print journalist, have influenced the field of journalism. further discusses the 
Petitioner's television shows, characterizing them as involving "new approaches." While avers 
that the Petitioner "has attracted substantial followers," he does not identify other broadcasts that have 
been influenced by those the Petitioner developed. vice president of states that 
is innovative as the first nationwide passion news production, which captured the top 
audience rating among provincial satellite television programs at that time. While the Petitioner has 
produced a successful provincial satellite television presentation, the record lacks evidence from the 
media or other television stations confirming his influence at a level consistent with a contribution of 
major significance. of affirms that "stood out" 
for its program, resulting in recognition as one of the 
He does not, however, explain how the format influenced television news. An article in the record by 
and entitled that appeared in 
expressly states that is the only satellite station with an emotion theme, revealing it has yet to 
influence the industry. With respect to the news banquet concept, as noted above, the article by 
·in the reports that multiple websites have adopted a news banquet. While the 
item focuses on it does not suggest that their program originated the concept. 
General, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCJS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010).4 As the reference 
letters in this matter do not elaborate on how the Petitioner has influenced the field, he has not satisfied 
this criterion. 
4 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
foreign national's] contributions "in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 
596 FJd at 1122. 
6 
(b)(6)
. Matter of K-C-
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The Petitioner provided an essay that appeared in the publication his 
reflection on the origin and practice of emotions news from and his news reports 
in the and the The Director found that the materials are news 
reports and opinion pieces rather than scholarly articles. On appeal, the Petitioner avers that the finding 
is "arbitrary" as the Petitioner's authored items appeared in the "most prestigious trade publication 
where he discussed the professional standards of journalism." The Petitioner 
further states that 
news reports in the 
they do not meet this criterion." 
is a professional journal. The Petitioner maintains that the 
are qualifying, concluding that it is "beyond comprehension why 
The record does not include an article that appeared in Rather, the record 
contains only a cover from that magazine with no translation. The record does not contain information 
~ ~~~~~~~ 
demonstrated that they are professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Also, the Petitioner's news stories in and the and articles in 
and do not qualify as scholarly. Scholarly 
articles report on original research, experimentation, or philosophical discourse, and in general have 
footnotes, endnotes, or a bibliography, and may include graphs, charts, videos, or pictures as 
illustrations of the concepts express in the article.5 Often, scholarly articles are written for learned 
persons in that field.6 Accordingly, the Director's determination that news reports are not scholarly 
articles is not arbitrary. In addition, which appeared in 
is a reflection on historical outlooks on material life. It does not relate to the Petitioner's area of 
expertise, journalism. Further, the article in 
examines emotions news. Rather than analyzing the concept from a scholarly perspective, 
however, it recounts the history and experiences of 
The remaining article to consider is 
which appeared in This item presents a more m depth 
examination of emotions and passions news than The 
publication is a journal of the The table of contents defines the 
piece as a "case study." The record is persuasive that this article is qualifying and, as such, the 
Petitioner has satisfied this criterion. 
5 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 ADJJ-14 9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis .gov/laws/policy-memoranda. ' 
6 !d. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter of K-C-
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 relies on his role for to meet this criterion. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner did not offer letters from attesting to his role there or evidence of distinguished 
reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner notes that he supplied a letter from Vice President of 
awards issued to the Petitioner, and published material about confirming its reputation. 
The record supports the appellate affirmations. confirms that the Petitioner serves as 
senior editor and deputy director of news. He is also the general producer of which 
is corroborated by two of the Petitioner's articles and the piece in the That last 
item also references the rise of As noted by has issued several honorary 
credentials to the Petitioner. His program has itself received accolades and has been mentioned in the 
media. Based on this evidence, the Petitioner has established that he performed a critical role for 
a noted satellite television company, and accordingly satisfies this criterion. 
B. Summary 
As explained above, the exhibits the Petitioner provided satisfy only two of the regulatory criteria. As a 
result, 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 listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
III. CONCLUSION 
Had the Petitioner satisfied at least three evidentiary categories, the next step would be a final merits 
determination that considers all of the filings in the context of whether or not the Petitioner has 
demonstrated: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) that the individual "has sustained 
national or international acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field 
of expertise." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although we 
need not provide the type of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the 
record in the aggregate supports a finding that the Petitioner has not established the level of expertise 
required for the classification sought. · 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of K-C-, ID# 17830 (AAO Aug. 24, 20 16) 
8