sustained EB-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE: MAY 2 4 2013 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF 
PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
)62(2;£_ 
CJ!-­Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
(b)(6)
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
sustained. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the hnmigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 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. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that an alien can 
establish sustained national or international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement of a 
major, internationally recognized award. Absent the receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines 
ten categories of specific objective evidence. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) through (x). The petitioner must 
submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, 
the AAO is satisfied that the evidence of record in the aggregate, including that submitted on the appeal, 
adequately establishes the petitioner's eligibility for the classification. 
I. LAW 
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 into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
(b)(6)
Page3 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and legacy Immigration and Naturaliz,ation Service 
(INS) have consistently recognized that Congress intended to set a very high standard for individuals 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). 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. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international recognized award) or 
through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and ifthe petitioner 
failed to submit sufficient evidence, "the proper conclusion is that the applicant has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence (as the AAO concluded)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria 
As noted by the petitioner on appeal, he seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in 
business. Upon review of the entire record, the AAO finds that the petitioner's submitted evidence 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page4 
meets three of the regulatory categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v), and (viii). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has established the minimum eligibility requirements necessary to qualify as 
an alien of extraordinary ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
B. Final Merits Determination 
The AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence 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[ir] field of endeavor," 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim and that 
his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The petitioner's performance as entrepreneur introduced laminate flooring to China and built two 
successful laminate flooring companies, one of which is described in the published material as "the 
most valuable brand in [the] Chinese furniture industry." The published materials in the record also 
describe the petitioner as a "legend" and the "godfather of Chinese floor[ing]." He also served as the 
equivalent to a Chief Executive Officer for a college where he has also achieved success, presiding over 
a more than three-fold increase in enrollment. In the present matter, consistent with Matter of Price, 
20 I&N Dec. 953 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1994), the petitioner has submitted extensive documentation of 
his achievements in the field of business and has demonstrated a "career of acclaimed work in the field" 
as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990). The submitted evidence is 
sufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's sustained acclaim and that his achievements have been 
recognized in the field of expertise. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
While the AAO does not find that all ofthe petitioner's evidence as qualifying, the AAO does find 
the evidence on record is sufficient to establish that the petitioner has demonstrated his eligibility for the 
classification sought. Specifically, upon careful review of the record, it is concluded that the petitioner 
has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that he is within the small percentage of 
individuals who have risen to the very top of the business field. The evidence submitted establishes that 
the petitioner has sustained national or international acclaim, his achievements have been recognized in 
his field, he seeks to continue working in the same field and his entry will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of 
Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 1966)). Here, the petitioner has sustained that burden. Accordingly, 
the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The decision of the director is withdrawn. The appeal is sustained and the petition is 
approved.