dismissed EB-1A Case: Venture Capital

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6388134 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 30, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, the managing partner of a venture capital firm, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required . 
The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens 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 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 that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then they 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). 
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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner was employed in Japan atl I a telecommunications company; his exact title 
and responsibilities there are not clear from the record. He seeks employment as the managing partner of 
the U.S. office of~-------~' a venture capital firm. The Petitioner contends that he "enjoys 
an international reputation as one of the top venture capitalists in the world," and "as a pioneer who single­
handedly developed the Japanese startup scene." 
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 Petitioner claims to have met five criteria, summarized below: 
• (iii), Published material about the alien in professional 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 role for distinguished organizations or establishments. 
The Director found that the Petitioner did not meet any of the claimed the evidentiary criteria. On 
appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he meets all five that he had previously claimed. After reviewing 
all of the evidence in the record, we agree with the Director, as explained below, that the Petitioner 
does not meet any of the claimed criteria. 
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 necessa,y 
translation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) 
The Petitioner submitted copies of articles from several publications. The only publication that meets the 
"professional or major trade publications or other major media" requirement is Asahi Shimbun, a major 
Japanese newspaper. Asahi Shimbun held a symposium about its Accelerator Program and venture 
investments, and the newspaper printed quotations from the Petitioner and three other participants. 
The article also identified the occupations of each of the symposium's participants. Although the 
2 
Petitioner is quoted several times in the article, the article is about corporate venture capital, and 
presents the perspectives and observations of the symposium participants regarding the state of 
corporate venture capitalism in Japan and abroad. The Petitioner's brief comments in this article are 
not enough to satisfy the regulatory requirements. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner 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. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. See 
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWU 
v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The Petitioner initially stated that he "contributed to the field in a major way by opening channels of 
investment between Japan and I I: 
While [the Petitioner] rorked atl l he led the investment team in a then little 
known startup called _ I After investing an initial $2 Million,! I 
invested another $15 Million later on. Today, I I is worth over $1 Billion andLJ 
I learned a return of four times its original investment. . . . [The Petitioner] 
developed the structure that has since then been used countless times by Japanese venture 
capitalists. 
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his involvement inl h investment inl I but 
did not provide objective evidence to support his key claim that Japanese venture capitalists follow the 
model that he established. 
The Petitioner submitted letters from five individuals: 
• The spouse of Japan's prime minister, who met the Petitioner during a business trip, asserts that 
the Petitioner "achiev[ ed] successful investment inl pompany and business collaborations 
with startups." 
• The former chief executive officer (CEO) ofl I states that the Petitioner "concluded the 
partnership contract within 3 months," whereas "it usually takes about 6 months to finalize a deal 
with a large Japanese company." 
• The founder and CEO of1~~------~l "Ja~ 1.__ _____ ____.company," 
who worked with the Petitioner and the then-CEO ofL___j"on the [company's] expansion in 
Japan." He calls the Petitioner "a very rare talent" with "deep insights of the US venture capitalist 
and market and startup ecosystem." 
• The vice president of.__ _______ ___., involved in "investing in startup companies in the 
United States," states that the Petitioner "advised us with thorough knowledge [ of] startups in 
I land..._- _______ __,J" He states that the Petitioner "has helped to attract 
3 
many Japanese companies to I l" and "is recognized [ as the] first choice to meet 
when inl V as hi alway! gives practical and insightful advice." 
• The chief representative of s I I office appointed the Petitioner as a mentor 
because he "was very impressed with [the Petitioner's] experience as an investor in [fJast-paced 
startups, and as the mastermind behind countless collaboration[ s] between US startups and large 
companies in Japan." 
While the letter writers praise the Petitioner and his abilities, they do not explain how specific original 
contributions are of major significance in the field, rather than important to specific companies. General 
assertions regarding the Petitioner's reputation cannot suffice in this regard. The letters do not indicate 
that the Petitioner has had a significant and broadly evident effect on the way Japanese venture capitalists 
invest in U.S. businesses. 
The Director requested documentary evidence to establish both the nature and the significance of the 
Petitioner's contributions to the field. In response, the Petitioner stated: 
I came up with the blue print on how large Asian companies could successfully invest in 
I I The previous model involved the company itself making the investment, 
which often involved a complex, lengthy, and tedious approval process frequently leading 
to the start-up closing a deal with a competitor. My approach was different: I would help 
such large corporation[ s] create a small, autonomous, and independent investment arm: 
this structure proved to be the key to successful investment in the United States, and has 
helped large companies generate large returns. 
This model was followed by others. For instance,! I the finance newspaper, 
followed in my footsteps: the company created a venture capital arm called! I I I Essentially, before setting up the fund, I I used to invest in start-
up companies directly. The spin off from the company's headquarter[s] helped it to 
succeed. 
In his letter, the vice president of acknowledged that the Petitioner provided 
"practical assistance" when the company established! L but he did not indicate 
that, in doing so, the company was following a model that the Petitioner had established. 
The Petitioner submitted information about Japanese investment in American companies, but this 
information did not mention the Petitioner or establish how his activities had major significance. 
Furthermore, the submitted materials address Japanese investment in the aggregate, and do not distinguish 
between investment in startups and in more established businesses. 
In the denial notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had made original contributions, but had 
not shown them to be of major significance in the field. The Director stated: "most of the letters of 
support were written by experts who have employed, instructed, or collaborated with" the Petitioner, and 
therefore did not amount to independent assessments of the Petitioner's work. 
4 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that "none of the letters ... are from individuals who worked for [the 
Petitioner], or for whom [the Petitioner] worked." The individuals do not appear to have been the 
Petitioner's employers or employees, but the Director was broadly correct in that four of the five writers 
have worked closely with the Petitioner in some way. 
The Petitioner states that these ties to the writers do not inherently discredit the letters. This is true as far 
as it goes, because individuals close to the Petitioner are in a position to attest to the nature of the 
Petitioner's activities. But those individuals cannot directly attest to the effect that the Petitioner's work 
has had outside of his own circle of colleagues, clients, and collaborators. If the Petitioner's work has 
had a significant impact on the field, then that impact would not be limited to those who have worked 
closely with him. 
The Petitioner asserts that he "developed a new process for large companies to quickly and efficiently 
invest foreign funds into the US economy, specifically young startup companies," and that "his new 
process has rapidly been adopted by other Japanese companies and is now common practice among large 
Japanese companies." This vague and general statement lacks the details and corroboration necessary to 
verify such claims. The Petitioner has not shown that companies to which he has no direct connection 
have, nevertheless, adopted his "new process," with field-wide significance. The Petitioner has not 
documented what was "common practice among large Japanese companies" or submitted direct, 
documentary evidence to show that his method has supplanted former "common practice" to a significant 
extent. 
The Petitioner has not established that he made original contributions of major significance in his field. 
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 wrote a piece with the (translated) title '.__ _____________ ___. The 
Petitioner stated that the piece is an article published in Nikkei Shimbun, "the world's largest financial 
newspaper." 
Outside the academic arena, a scholarly article should be written for learned persons in that field. 
("Learned" is defined as "having or demonstrating profound knowledge or scholarship"). Learned 
persons include all persons having profound knowledge of a field. USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-
602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; Revisions to the 
Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADll-14, 9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
http://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. 
The submitted piece is written in an informal style, and conveys the Petitioner's personal perspectives 
rather than scholar! findin s. For exam le one sentence reads: 
The Petitioner also 
speculates about business matters, stating: I 
5 
The Director found that the submitted writings "are not scholarly in nature." On appeal, the Petitioner 
states that the "article contains concrete advice and recommendations regarding the strategy behind 
corporate restructuring," and that he "clearly intended to write an article to be read by learned persons in 
his field of expertise and his choice of The Nikkei demonstrates that." The article begins with general 
opinions and observations before focusing on restructuring at Google and related companies. While this 
information would be of greatest interest to a specialized audience, the content of the piece appears to be 
at the level of general commentary rather than "profound knowledge or scholarship." 
The Petitioner also contends that Nikkei Shimbun is a business newspaper "intended to be read by learned 
businesspeople, and therefore scholarly." This argument does not address the content of the article itself 
Rather, the Petitioner seeks to establish that the article appeared in a scholarly forum. 
However, we need not consider whether Nikkei Shimbun is a scholarly publication, because the Petitioner 
has not shown that Nikkei Shimbun published the article. The submitted printout is from Medium.com, 
and it appears to be a post from a blog entitled The Sun Also Rises. A separate printout appears to show 
that a link to the blog post appeared on another website, which may be Nikkei Shimbun' s site, but this is 
not clear because the printout is untranslated and greatly reduced in size. The link is at the bottom of the 
page, consistent with the placement of sponsored links to outside content that routinely appear on many 
news sites. The Petitioner did not show that Nikkei Shimbun directly published the piece or exercised any 
editorial control over its content or publication. 
Furthermore, the evidence indicates that the piece is one of a series of blog posts, rather than a standalone 
article in Nikkei Shimbun. There is a "(2)" in the title; the piece begins with the phrase "[l]ast time ... "; 
and the final sentence is "[n]ext time I would dig deeper and consider these hints." Nevertheless, the 
Petitioner claims only this one piece as a scholarly article. The Petitioner has not shown that The Sun 
Also Rises is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
There remain two farther claimed criteria: 
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) 
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) 
Because the Petitioner cannot meet the initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), detailed discussion of these last two criteria cannot change the outcome of this appeal. 
Therefore, we reserve the remaining issues. 1 
1 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 l&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
G 
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. 
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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7