remanded EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave , N W , Rm A3042 
*+$*? ?#fl+q d*Jegd Washington, DC 20529 
: sr ;GoR4 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
h FILE: - 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 03 15 1 52265 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
ecided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
: Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The decision of the director will be 
withdrawn and the petition will be remanded for additional action and consideration. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 8 1 153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in 
business. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international 
acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner requests that the evidence submitted be compared with the regulatory criterion. While 
a minimal appeal, the director's analysis of the ten regulatory criteria for eligibility under this classification is 
sometimes confusing and, regarding two criteria, incomplete. As the petitioner was on minimal notice of the 
deficiencies in his case, we will not summarily dismiss the appeal. As discussed below, while the director 
correctly analyzed three of the criteria, the director's analysis is deficient for more than three other criteria. As 
only three criteria are required to establish eligibility, we must remand the matter for a new decision. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(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, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means 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. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(2). 
The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien has sustained national or 
international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
3 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner 
must show that he has sustained national or international acclaim at the very top level. 
This petition seeks to classify the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability in business management. The 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or international 
acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award). Barring 
the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at least three of which must be satisfied 
for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's membership in  association.^ in the field for which cIa.ssification is sought, 
which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their discip1ine.s or fields. 
The petitioner submitted a letter Chairman of th 
Namuna Machindra Campus Unit the petitioner "has been serving this institution 
since the last two years as an Executive Member of [the] Nepal University 
Machindra Campus Unit, Lalitpur, ~e~al."firms that execuive members are '.elected trom 
among the professors with extra ordinary [sic] ability in their field of endeavor." He further asserts that 
eligibility for executive membership "requires that the candidate have made an outstanding achievement and a 
major contribution in hisher field." 
In her request for additional evidence, the director inquired as to whether the petitioner had been "invited to join 
any type of national/international team, associations or organizations in the field of work." Understandably, the 
petitioner did not relate this inquiry to this criterion, assumed this criterion had been met, and submitted no new 
evidence. I? 
The director quotedletter and concluded that "the author did not cite the achievements that the 
petitioner, or the other Executive Members specifically made." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
however, only requires evidence that the association requires outstanding achievements of all its members, there 
is no requirement that the petitioner identify the outstanding achievement that resulted in election to 
membership. Thus, the director appears to have gone beyond the relevant regulatory language. 
Any new decision by the director should consider whethe eneral assertions are sufficient without 
the submission of the bylaws or other official forth the specific requirements and 
procedures for executive membership and whether executive "membership" is, in fact, a membership, and not a 
leadership position that would be better considered under the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The director may also wish to consider whetheletter suggests that the petitioner is an executive 
member of a local chapter of the association and, if so, the relevance of that fact to whether membership is 
judged by recognized national or international experts. Finally, the director should consider whether a 
teacher S association is an association in the petitioner's discipline or field, which is business management.' 
Published materials about the alien in professional or mujor trade publications or other major media, 
relating to the alien's work in the fieldfor which clussrfication is sought. Such evidence shall include the 
title, date, und author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
The petitioner submitted articles about his work that purportedly appeared in Kuntipur, Ajako Mankamuna, 
Ankush and Prateek. The petitioner asserts that all of the above publications are popular Nepal dailies. The 
translation of the article in Kantipur suggests that the original "article" is an opinion piece concurring with the 
I 
The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Teaching would appear to be the petitioner's occupation, rather than his discipline and field. 
ideas expressed by the petitioner in a previous article. It does not appear to constitute independent journalistic 
coverage of the petitioner and his work in the field. The remaining articles all involve the release of a book of 
short stories authored by the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner submitted a directory of authors and what 
appear to be commentaries included as introductions to his own books. 
The director requested "the circulation, and national breadth and coverage of the sources quoting you." The 
director also requested evidence that the articles appeared in major media, "including title, date, author and any 
necessary translation." In response, the petitioner provided such evidence for the newspapers that published 
articles authored by him, not about him. 
We are unable to confidently discern the director's ultimate basis for concluding that the petitioner fails to meet 
this criterion. As such, the petitioner was not put on sufficient notice of the deficiencies relating to this 
criterion. 
In reevaluating this criterion, the director should consider that it is the petitioner's burden to establish the 
national circulation of the publications that include materials about him. In addition, the director should 
consider whether a letter to the editor or opinion piece, as the piece in Kantipur appears to be, has the same 
evidentiary value as independent journalistic coverage. 
Moreover, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in business. While the petitioner 
has authored books in the field of business management, the director should consider whether any media 
coverage resulting from his publication of short stories is relevant to this petition. 
Finally, the director should consider whether inclusion in a directory of authors and commentaries that appear in 
one's own books are the type of published material about the petitioner contemplated by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Specifically, the director should consider whether such evidence is indicative of 
national or international acclaim. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either irrdiviu'ually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the 
same or an alliedJieM of specrfication for which classification is sought. 
The petitioner submitted another letter frossertingj that the petitioner is a member of the Report 
Evaluation Committee. ontinues: 
As a member of this committee, his responsibility is to evaluate, comment, and approve 
research reports submitted to this campus by researches involved in various research projects in 
the field of business management. This is an additional responsibility assigned to him 
compared to that assigned to his fellow professors. Since from his appointment as a panel 
member of the Report Evaluation Committee, he has already evaluated more than 20 research 
reports so far. 
In her request for additional evidence, the director requested the following evidence relating to this criterion: the 
invitation to iudge. the oroeram. the number of oarticiuants. the results. the tvnes of awards issued and a list of 
d " nu, 1 7 , - - - - . . . . - - - . - - . - .. . . - - . . - . - - 
the other panelists. In response, the petitioner submitted a chart prepared by 
Coordinator of the Research Report Evaluation Faculty. ndicates that the petitioner was one of 
Page 5 
three panelists in 2003 and 2004 evaluating research reports submitted to thelampus of 
Tribhuvan University. 
The director concluded that the "significant accomplishments required for membership are not named or 
specified; such university duties often go to many professors, not just those ranked among the highest in the 
field." 
We concur with the director insofar as a collateral duty, by definition a duty beyond the professor's normal 
teaching duties, at one's own university evaluating local research reports is not indicative of or uniquely 
consistent with national or international acclaim. 
Evidence of the alien 3 original scientzJic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or bwiness-related contributions of 
major sip$cance in the$eld. 
The entirety of the director's analysis under this criterion is as follows (grammar as it appears in original): 
Some of the petitioner's books are provided in translation, but do not cite or compare to 
others' research; but the lack of reference to others7 individuals work do not necessarily 
make his analyses original or significant above and beyond most others' work in business 
management. 
This analysis is confusing and fails to take into account the letters purporting to verify the significance of the 
petitioner's books. Any future decision should clearly explain any deficiencies in the evidence. While the 
petitioner asserts that his books relate to this criterion, the director may also wish to consider whether these 
books are more properly considered under the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the Jield, in professional or major trude 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submitted articles published in the general media and the business management course textbooks 
discussed above. The director considered the commentaries that appear in the front of the books and concluded 
that they did not demonstrate sustained national success. Any new decision should consider the letters from 
publishers regarding the s ook. Specifically, the director should consider whether the 
letter from the Chief Edito nd Stationary indicating that the petitioner's books were the 
number one and two be sufficiently compares the petitioner's books with books 
published by other companies. The director may also wish to consider whether the beneficiary's articles in the 
general media are "scholarly" as contemplated by the regulations. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in theJield at artistic exhibitions or showcuses. 
The director correctly concluded that this criterion does not relate to the petitioner's field. 
Evidence that the alien ha.: pefirmed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that 
have a distinguished reputation. 
The ~etitioner claims to have  laved a leading or critical role for Tribhuvan University. The director quoted 
from a letter from ut reached no conclusion as to whether the petitioner meets this 
criterion. Any new -I eclslon s ou ac ua ly conclude whether or not the petitioner meets this criterion. In 
evaluating thk evidence, the director should consider the relevant factors for this criterion: the position the 
petitioner was hired to fill and the reputation of the employer. Any contributions made while in that position 
should be considered under the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sulary or other significantly high remuneration for services, 
in relation to others in the$eld. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. In her request for additional evidence, the director 
inquired whether the petitioner had received "considerable monetary compensation for work in the field." In 
response, the petitioner submitted evidence of his compensation for his books. The director noted that the 
petitioner failed to compare his compensation with other authors in the field. We concur with this analysis. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box oflce receipts or record, cassette, 
compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner did not initially claim to meet this criterion. In her request for additional evidence, the director 
requested "evidence of commercial successes, letters from publishers attesting to and ranking the quantity of 
publishing noting [the] publisher's credentials." In response, the petitioner submitted letters from the publisher 
affirming that two of the petitioner's books were "best sellers." 
The director concluded: 
Nepalese Authors Dictionary shows, in translation, the first edition of unknown text with 1000 
copies at a price of one thousand rupees (rough equivalency to $13.39 USD). The above 
exhibit in 1999 may also be included. 
Once again, the director failed to conclude whether or not the petitioner meets this criterion. While the director 
specifically requested letters from publishers, he failed to consider the letter submitted in response to that 
request. Regardless, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(h)(3)(x) requires evidence of sales numbers. The 
director should consider whether an assertion that the petitioner's book was a "best seller" is sufficient evidence 
of that book's sales numbers. In addition, the director should also consider whether the data contained in the 
Nepalese Authors Dictionary relates to one of the petitioner's books in his field. As noted above, the petitioner 
has also authored short stories. 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(5) provides: 
No offer of employment required. Neither an offer for employment in the United States nor a 
labor certification is required for this classification; however, the petition must be accompanied 
by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United States to continue work in the area of 
expertise. Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of 
prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the beneficiary detailing plans 
on how he or she intends to continue his or her work in the United States. 
Page 7 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a statement detailing his areas of interest and asserting that he intended to 
"[flind a teaching position in the area of Marketing and Business management" and "continue a teaching 
career." The petitioner also outlined several areas of research he would like to pursue. 
The director requested evidence that the petitioner "is coming to the U.S. to continue work in the area of 
expertise: letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a 
specific statement from the alien detailing plans on how he intends to continue his work in the U.S." In 
response, the petitioner submitted a similar statement to the one submitted initially, adding three proposed 
benefits to the United States. 
The director concluded: 
The address [sic] of contemporary issues, the general list of governmental agencies to be helped 
by his research, the general hope that his research will contribute, and simply his teaching 
skills, do not clearly substantiate or delineate the prospective benefit the U.S. will reap from 
this petitioner's work as an immigrant to the U.S. 
The regulations do not provide specific evidentiary requirements to meet the statutory provision that the alien's 
entry to the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the United States. In most cases, it is 
presumed that an alien with extraordinary ability coming to work in his area of expertise will provide such a 
benefit. In her final decision, however, the director failed to consider the issue raised in the request for 
additional evidence. Specifically, the director did not consider whether the petitioner's statement - which does 
not explain how the petitioner intends to seek employment, identify specific schools that have expressed an 
interest in interviewing him, identify possible sources of funding for his research - sufficiently details "how" he 
intends to continue in his area of expertise. 
In light of the above, the matter is remanded to the director for a new decision that addresses our concerns stated 
above. As always, the burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1361. 
ORDER: The director's decision is withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director for further action 
in accordance with the foregoing and entry of a new decision that, if adverse to the petitioner, is 
to be certified to the Administrative Appeals Office for review.