sustained EB-1A Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF P-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 24, 2019 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
m the areas of the .-------'----------'------...._ __ __,,........, 
-------,.--....---..-----------------seeks classification as an alien of 
ex tr a ordinary ability.1 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, as required, that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized award or met 
the requirements of at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that the submitted evidence 
establishes that he meets the requisite three criteria and qualifies as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's distinction between "legal consulting" and the 
practice or field of law is unfounded. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
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
1 The Petitioner also bases his claim to the requested classification on his activity as a human rights activist (initially) and 
as a "social entrepreneur" and "international corporate activist" (on appeal.) 
Matter of P-C-
(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 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). 
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
The Director found that the Petitioner met two of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x), relating to participation as a judge of the work of others, and a leading or critical role for 
organizations having a distinguished reputation. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that he also meets 
the evidentiary criteria relating to published material about him and his work, and his authorship of 
scholarly articles. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we find that the Petitioner meets 
the requisite three criteria. 
A. Evidentiary Criteria
Published material about the individual in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. relating to the alien's work in the field for which class(fication 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 Petitioner submitted multi le articles about him and his work as in-house counsel, as well as his 
role with the and the I I 
These materials were published in Commercial Dispute Resolution, Decideurs, ,..__ ______ __. 
2 
Matter of P-C-
and Le Monde du Droit, and were accompanied by evidence about these publications from their own 
websites. The Director determined that because the record did not include comparative circulation 
data or other independent supporting documentation, this evidence does not establish that the 
publications qualify as professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the publications in which this material appeared are 
professional in nature, produced for legal and business professionals, and therefore that he need not 
demonstrate by virtue of comparative data that they are "major" since that term does not apply per the 
plain language of the regulations. We agree, and find that the submitted evidence sufficiently 
demonstrates that these are professional publications. For example, the cover, title page and table of 
contents of the issue of Commercial Dispute Resolution in which an interview of the Petitioner appears 
show that the focus of the publication is international commercial litigation, and intended to be read 
by legal and business professionals engaged or interested in this field. This is also demonstrated by 
the subject of the interview, in which the author describes the Petitioner's legal career and his work 
with! I Similarly, whether or not Decideurs is "the leading monthly magazine" for executives, 
finance and legal professionals as its website claims, the evidence of its content, purpose and target 
audience adequately demonstrates that it qualifies as a professional publication. 
Thf Petitioner also submitted the transcript of an interview of him that aired on France 24 regarding
the !and his proposal for a new introduction to the book.
Additional evidence establishes that France 24 qualifies as major media. 
Therefore, this evidence establishes that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the individual's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge 
of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) 
The record includes evidence of the Petitioner's service on a judging panel for the "legal r d Tax
Prize," a student paper competition sponsored by a prestigious business school in and an 
international law firm, for five straight yars. In addition, the Petitioner served as a jury member for
the I and Awards in 2010 and 2011, participating in the selection 
of "Best Benelux Law Firm" and "Best European Law Firm." Accordingly, we agree with the Director 
that he meets the requirements of this criterion. 
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) 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director, in generally describing the traits of "scholarly 
articles," introduced additional requirements to the regulations and did not properly consider articles 
written by him which were published in qualifying media. 2 We note that the Director has not added 
requirements to the regulation, but instead described the general characteristics of scholarly articles, 
such as the inclusion of citations to reference material and the target audience for which they are 
2 The description used by the Director is taken from Chapter 22.2(i) of the USCIS Adjudicator's Field Manual, which 
addresses in part the evidentiary requirements under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
3 
Matter of P-C-
usually intended. He then indicates that some of the material submitted under this criterion does not 
possess these characteristics, such as the article published in Gazette du Palais about the I I ------------------ In his appeal brief, the Petitioner does not challenge
the Director's finding regarding that work, but lists a total of six other articles, papers and books. Two 
of these articles are claimed to have been published in the online bulletin e-Competitions, which is 
exclusively available on the website of the quarterly journal Concurrences, but onl one of these, a 
foreword written by the Petitioner for a special issue on 1s 
included in the record. This article is scholarly in nature, concerns the area of the 
I I and is published in professional media. 3 .__ _____ __.
Another article, edited and authored in part by the Petitioner, is a white paper titled .... 1 ______ ..... 
....._� ______ ...., The evidence shows that this 400-page document includes an introductory 
chapter written by the Petitioner, concerns the .__ _______ ...,..... _______ ___.and was 
published by legal publisher LexisNexis. As such, it also qualifies as a scholarly article in the 
Petitioner's field and published in professional media. 
The record also includes evidence of the Petitioner's authorship of two books in the areal I 
activism. The most recent of these is titled I I 
Although a copy of this book, or relevant pages of it, are not included in the record, it is described in 
two reviews as "an inventory of! Ion the Internet," together with a list of 50 proposals to combat 
its various forms on social networks, including the use of the I I logo created by the
Petitioner. However, without further evidence of the content and nature of this book, the evidence 
does not establish that it qualifies as a scholarly article. Leaving aside questions of format, the 
Petitioner has not shown that this book's intended audience are others in this field sl\ch as other 
activists, scholars, governmental officials or others involved in establishing or influencingl I 
policy. 
The same can be said of a second book coauthored by the Petitioner,.____________ A 
review of this book describes it as providing an overview of the subject title's history and suggesting 
solutions to help mitigate its spread via online platforms. As with the previous book, this evidence is 
insufficient to establish that it qualifies as a scholarly article. In addition, we note that the evidence 
does not show that either of these books qualify as professional or major trade publications, or other 
major media. 
Therefore, based upon the articles concerning .__ _______ _. discussed above, we disagree 
with the Director and find that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the individual 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) 
3 The Director differentiated between "the business of legal consulting and the practice of law," and further found that 
because the practice oflaw is a profession under section 101(a)(32) of the Act, the practice oflaw is not one of the fields 
eligible for to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. He then determined that because the evidence submitted under 
this criterion concerns the practice of law, rather than legal consulting, it did not meet the requirements of this criterion. 
4 
Matter of P-C-
The Petitioner submitted evidence of his role as President of both I I as well as evidence
which establishes that these organizations have a distinguished reputation. In addition, the record 
includes evidence which establishes the Petitioner's role as Vice President and General Secretary of 
, a French industrial group focused on I I.__ __________ __. 
In addition, the record includes evidence of the Petitioner's role as the President of! I a 
French non-profit organization which aims to combat I I on the internet and social media 
platforms. In support of this organization's reputation the record includes several pages from its 
website, a list ofwebpages stated to include stories about d the Petitioner's other work 
regarding! 1 I, and a letter frou'L-----___,.--1mem er oft e French National Assembly. 
I lnotes that the organization works with UNESCO in its social media campaign. 
Accordingly, we agree with the Director that the Petitioner meets this criterion. 
B. Final Merits
The Petitioner has submitted the requisite initial evidence, having provided evidence that he meets at 
least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) as a legal consultant specializing in the 
area of the practice of .__ __________________ ___. . In a final merits 
determination, we examine and weigh the totality of the evidence to determine whether the Petitioner 
has sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage at the very top of the 
field of endeavor, and that his achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive 
documentation. 
1r-------___._ ........ .......,.......,......., .................................................................................................. ......., ........ ....&..l..>,"fd for his work in promoting 
The I I largely 
drafted by him for -�was later also adopted in large part bJ.._ __ due to his efforts. In addition, 
he continues to write and present in national forums. This work and the recognition it has brought 
him, in addition to his years serving as general counsel for the 1 I and leadership 
position with] lolaces him as one of the small percentage at the top of his field. 
C. Continue to Work in the Field
Per section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, the Petitioner must establish that he seeks to enter the United 
States to continue work in his area of extraordinary a ilit Initi lly, he indicated that he would 
continue to work in the area of and establish in the United States, while also 
continuing work in establishing an __________________ - In his response 
to the Director's request for evidence, the Petitioner presented a more detailed plan, which included 
developing ties between D and the as well as advising, writing 
�eaking onl I He also further expanded upon his work withl I 
L_J and I 1 I in general. To the extent that the Petitioner intends to continue working in the 
4 We note that the evidence regarding his work in the area of combatting hate speech relating to ] land more 
generally on social media has not met the requisite three criteria, and is therefore not considered in the final merits analysis. 
5 
Matter of P-C-
areas of.__ ________________ ___, the areas in which he has established his 
sustained national and international acclaim, we find that he meets this requirement. 
III. CONCLUSION
The Petitioner has submitted the required initial evidence, and demonstrated in the final merits 
determination that he is an international legal consultant of extraordinary ability. In addition, he has 
shown that he will continue to work in his area of extraordinary ability and that his entry will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of P-C-, ID# 2755109 (AAO May 24, 2019) 
6