sustained EB-1A Case: Marketing

identifyingdat3 deletedto ,
preven'tclearly unwarranted
,invasionofpersonalprivacy
-PUBLICcopy
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000
Washington, DC' 20529 '
U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration
Services ,-
FILE: WAC 05 18052865 Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER Date:, APR' 2 6 2011/
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien ofExtr~lOrdinary,Abili!y Pursuant to
. Section 203(b)(l)(A) pf the Immigration and Natlonality.Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1f53(b)(1 )(A) .
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
This is the decision ofthe Administrative Appeals Office i~ your cas~. All documents have b~eIi returned to '
the office that originally'decide4 your case. Any further inquiry must be made'to that office.
vtWv;))~/dL'
,,{})RobertP. Wiemann, Chief ."
,1'" Adininistrative Appeals Office
' ....
~w.uscis.gov .
:,J
! '
.' I.
WAC 05 J 80 52865
Page 2
DISCUSSION:, The Director, California, Service Center,' denied the employment-based inimigrant
visa' petition, which is now before the Administrativ~ Appeals Office on ~ppeal. The appeal will be
sustained and'the petition willbe approved.
The petitioner seeks clasSifiCation 'as an "ali~n of extraordinary, ability" pursuant 'to section
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration 'and:Natiomility Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), as an alien of
extraordimiry ability in business, .The dIrector determined the petitiop.er had not estabiished the;
'requisite national or international acclaim:. Specifically, the director determined that the petitioner only
, meets one of the ten regulatory criteria forthe classification sought, ofwhich~aIl alien ~ust meet atleast
three. ' ,
.' . . .. ..
On appeal,counsel submits a brief. ' Fo~ ~e reasons discussed below, while some Qrthe director's
concerns are Valid, we find that the petitioner has demonstrated that he meets two additional criteria
, ,through judging thf: work of 'others and serving in a leading or critical role for, entities with a
dis~inguished reputati~n: . " , ',' " '
Section 203(b) ofthe Act states, in pertiIient part, that:
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first b~' ma~e available .' .. to qualified immigrants who are
'aliens described in any ofth.e following subparagraphs (A) through (G): '
: (A) Aliens wi~ Extraordinary Ability. ':'- Ali alien IS described in this subparagraph if-~ ,
',(i), the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education,
, business, or athletics which has'Qeen ,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 (lbllity, and '
,(iii) the ali~n's, entry to the United States, will substantiallY9enefit
, ,prospectively the United States.. '
:. ..
, ' , ' .. , , , ; , ' "
As used'in this ,section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indiCating that the , '
individua~ is one of that small pergelltagewho 'l1ave risen to the very top of the fiel~ 9f endeavor.
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). " "
, , , An alien, or any person on behalf of the alien, may file for classification under secti,op 203(b)( 1)(A} of
the Act as an 'aJ.itmof extraordinary ability in science, the arts, education, business, or athletics. Neither
an offerof employment nor a labor certification is required for this classification. '
" '
wAc 05 180 52865
Page 3
The specific requir~ents for stipporting document~ to establish,that an alie~ has achIeved sustained
national or 'international acchiim are set forth in regulations at 8, C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The Televant
" criteria will be discussed below. It should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he'
haS su~tained national Of international'acclaim at the very top level. '. ;,
',This petition seeks to classify 'the petitioner as an alien with extraordinary ability' as a marketing
professor. The petitIoner is currently a professor at the University of Hong Kong. In compliance with
the regulation at 8 C.F~R.§204.5(h)(5), the petitioner submitted several offers of employment and
letters of interest from U.S. universities.
The regUlation at8 C.F.R: ,§ 204.5(h)(3) presents ten criteria for establishing"'sustainednationa~ or
international acclaim, and requires that an alien must meet at' least three of those criteria unless the alien.
has received a major; internationally recognized award. Review of tJ:lt~ evidence of reCord establishes
that the petitioner has in fact nift three,of thenecessary criteria. ' , . ,,"
, . \'
EVidenc~ of the alien's authorsh'l; of scholarl; articl~~ in the field; in professional o~ major 'tfade
publications or other major media. (8 C.PR. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)) .
, '. . . '. ~ '. '
,
The director concluded that the petitioner meets this criterion. The evidence relating tO'this criterion,
however, is so'indicative of the petitioner's acclaim ip. the field that it bears discussion beyond our mere
concurreI1ce. The petitioner is the author of at least 45,articles'in prestigious journals. Significantly",
the 'petitioner has also been frequently and widely cited." For example, he documented ,that he h~
authored articles citedJ34, 122,71,60 and 2~tiines, respectively, as of the date of filing. Mor~ver,
, the' article' or book ,chaptet: "Twenty Years of Research on Marketing in China: A Review and
Assessment of Journal Publications" lists the petitionyr as the most cited author of journal papers 'on
marketing in China from 1996 through 1998., ' .
Under a separat~,criterion, 'the dIrector dismissed the citation evidence, stating that citatio~ of the work
, of others "is expected and routine in the research community." While it is ethically required to cite any
work o,n which you are relying; that fact does not diminish the, significance of frequent and wide
citation. Rather, such evidence is highly probative objective evid~nce that others in the 'field have not '
only fOUIidthepetitioner's work of interest, but have relied on his work in their own work... :. -. . .'
. . '. . . '.
,,', In light of the above, we cOncurwith the director that the petitioner meets this criterion., '
. . -,
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually,or on a panel, as ajudge of the work of '
'others in th~ same or an allie,dfield of specification.Jor which ciassification is sought. (8 c.P.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v))
'. '. ~"
The petitioner' submitted, evidence that he hasser'Ved, as a departmental editor for the Journal of
International'Business Siudies and has served on editoriill boards for the following journals: the
Journal of International Marketing, China Marketing, the Multinational Business Review and the
',',.
WAC 05 180 52865 ...
.Page 4
Harvard BUsinessRevi~ .China. ~ As gu~t editor for a 2003 issue of th~ Jo~rnpl oflnternatioluil
Marketing, the petitioner selected the three r~gular articles completing the series on marketing in East
Asia as well as authoring the·.foreword: In additio~, the petitioner judged "cases" for the European
Foundation· for ,Management Development's award In,the. "Emerging Chinese Global Competitors"
category. further, the petitioner was invited to assess proposals submitted to the Research Grants .
Council (RGC) of Hong Kong, although it is tiot clear that he actuallyperform~ this duty prior to·the
date of filing.. Finally, .lesspersuasive but sti\l·worth' mentioning, the petitioner reviewed manuscripts
for journals not mentioned above. . ... . " .
In response to, the director's, request for additIonal evidence, the p~titioner submitted evidence that he , .
reviewed promotion 'applications for professors. , While evaluating promotion candidates within one's
own department is not indicative of any notoriety beyond one's employer, the petitioner was also
requestedJo evaluate the promotion-application bf a professor at the National University of Singapore .
. The request, however, postdates'the filing of the petition. The petitioner's duties after the date of filing
ar~ not evidence of-his eligibility as of that date, See SC.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14
I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). Nevertheless,they demonstrate 'that the petitioner continues to
enjoy acclaim in his field.
The director concluded that the aboveresponsibiliti~s, ~ere'all iriher~t to the occupation ofprofessor ,
f or editor. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's ,employer is the University ofHong Kong, not
the journals for which he serves on editorial'boards. Counsel concludes ,that the director renders this
criterion meaningless by e<>ricludingthat the petitIoner's judging responsibilities are routine.
'. I" ':. '. • :
We con~ur with~ounsel that the petitioner's ,editorial responsibilities as of the date of filing are beyond
the normal evaluatiop of ~tudents or'even marlUscriptpt)er-reviewthat is routine in academia., As we
are satisfied that these duties set the petitioner apart from others in the field and are consistent with
national or,international aCylaim,we find that the petitioner meets this criterion.. ,,..'
·''Evidence that· the alien 'has performed ,In ,'~'leading or critical role for organizations or
establishmentsthat h(lveadistinguished reputqtior:/8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)) .
, Some of the, petitioner's: references assert that'he founded the Chinese Management Centre at the
University ofHong~ollg.,. The record contains no'Confirmation of this ass~ion from those with first­
. hand knowledge of his posit~onthere: .The ieCof9 do~s, however, confirm that he is 'the director of the
. center, inaugurated in December 1998, but contains-little information regarding the·national reputation
of the center. In response to the director's request' for, additional evidence, the petitioner submitted
letters regarding his roles for theAsia Academy of Management and the Chin~ Marketing Institute.
. Dr. . Presid~htofthe t and Chaiqnan of the Department
'of Management at the University of Hong Kong,· discusses the petitioner's role for the academy. The
petitioner was the founding vice-president and director.oftl1e Asia Academy of Management, a global
J~ ".
.. "
'. WAc:: OS 180 :S28~5
PageS'.,"'''"
, . organization and iritemati'onal affiliate of the U.S.-b~ed Academy of~anagerrient that publishes its
.?wn journal and hosts J?i-annualconferenCesdrawirigparticipants worldwide.' .
•••••••••. ,e Associate Dean at th explains
that the China Marketing Institute is composed of Peking University, Fudan University and Hong Kong.
University. The' petitioner, Mr.and a professor at Peking Uni~ersity co-founded the institute. The
.'institute provides annual :;lcademicmarketing forums attended by professionals from China, Australia,
Canada and the Uirited Sta:tes.Through the institute, the petitioner also collaborated with a professor'
from I>eking University to publish a research reference book entitled "Seminal Papers in China
Marketing' through the China Marketing Institute.~' . Dr. marketing professor at the
'Business School, Nankai University, confirms using this text in his teaching.
The director conCluded:
, .
In that the etitioner a~ted as either a'founder'~r co-founder:of the ~
and" therefore exercised considerable
contro over management It IS not,a Slgru can achievement for the petitioner to have
assumed the role 'of vice-president and/or director. ,Sin;1plyestablishirighis role within
these entities cannot satisfy the petitioner's burden of proofhere.
.. Clearly, an alien-cannot simply form an entity with no established reputation and appoint.himself to a
" leading. or critical role to meet this criterion., ' That. said, there are two factors fo~ 'this roterion.
,- Specifically;:at ;ssue for this criterion are the reputation of the entity for which the petitioner plays a
, role and the nature of the role itself. The director does not question the national reputation of the Asia '
. . Academy of Management or the, China Marketing Institute, and, we are satisfied that they enjoy a
. distinguished reputa~ion' nationally. The director does not appear to consider' founding either
organization to be a leading or critical role and extrapolates that the petitioner's subsequent roles for
these.orgartizations simply derives from his founding position. We conclude, however" that the very act
of founding the qrganizationsois a leading or critical role, especially[or the .
.' . which was founded by only three individuals. ,Moreover, 60 academics'foun e Sla, ca emy 0
". Management. Despite this large·number, the petitioner was selected to serve as the academy's vice
president and director. We are satisfied that this evidence as a whole serves to meet this criterion. .
,., , . ..'. : . .
, .. ., I
In review, while p.ot all of the petitioner's evidence catries the weight imputed to' it by counsel, the
petitioner has established that he has. been recogriized as an alien of extraordinary ability who has
.achieved sustained national acclaim and whose achi~vements have b~nrecognized in his field of
expertise. The petitioner has established that he 'seeks to· continue working in the same field in the '
'. United States. Therefore, the petitioner has established eligibility for the benefits sought under section
. 203 of the Act. . , .
ne burden6f proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely withtIie petitioner. Section 291 of
, theAct, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has sustained that burden.
'I,· .•.
.. .
WAC 05 ,18052865 '
Page 6
I,
ORDER:'
'", -,
. "I' .
The decision of the director is'~ithdrawn.The appeal is sustained and the petition is
approved. '
.", .
....
; "'.
.: . -
". '
," 'I
.~.; .
, • I,"'