remanded EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : OCT. 2, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner , an artist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 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 Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner had not submitted properly certified English language 
translations of his documents. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief maintaining that he provided complete and accurate certified 
English language translations for his documents. 
Upon de nova review, we will remand the matter to the Director for further action and consideration. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) 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 m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
Matter ofY-P-
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to submit comparable 
material if he or she is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not 
readily apply to the individual's occupation. 
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). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be 
determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we 
examine "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." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
Any document in a foreign language must be accompanied by a foll 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. In denying the petition, the Director stated: "Because you did not offer properly certified English 
language translations identifying the corresponding foreign language documents, we cannot 
meaningfully determine whether the translated material is accurate and thus supports your claims." 
Our review of the record indicates the Petitioner provided "Certificate[s] of Accuracy" that 
immediately preceded the English language translations for his Chinese language documents. 1 In 
addition, many of the Petitioner's documents were in English and did not require a translation. 2 While 
we acknowledge the Director's concern that the Petitioner's Certificates of Accuracy did not list the 
specific documents they accompanied, these certifications and their accompanying English language 
translations sufficiently comply with the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). 
Accordingly, the Director's decision does not present a proper basis for denial. The Director should 
1 These signed and notarized certificates stated: 'This is to certify that my name is I I and I am competent in 
both Chinese and English and the attached translation from Chinese to English is accurate and complete to the best ofmy 
knowledge." 
2 For example, the letters of support from I 11 l and I were all written in English. Also. several 
of the Petitioner's other documents included duplicate sections with both English and Chinese text. 
2 
Matter ofY-P-
have evaluated both the documents properly translated from Chinese and those in the English 
language. 
Because the Director did not render a determination as to whether the Petitioner has received a major, 
internationally recognized award or satisfied at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), we are remanding for him to consider whether the Petitioner has met his 
burden of proof with respect to these criteria. Furthermore, if the Director determines that the 
Petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, he should 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 Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very 
top of his 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). 
III. CONCLUSION 
We are remanding the petition for the Director to determine if the Petitioner has demonstrated 
eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 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 ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799,806 (AAO 
2012). 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for farther 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision 
which, if adverse, shall be certified to us for review. 
Cite as Matter ofY-P-, ID# 5107130 (AAO Oct. 2, 2019) 
3