dismissed EB-1A Case: Animal Intuitive

I. 
I 
identi~ing data deleted to 
, prevent clearly unw~ted 
. invasion of personal pnvac) 
PUBLIC COllY 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW., MS 2090 
Washington; DC 20529-2090 
U. S~ Citiienship . 
and Immigration 
Services 
RASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: FEB 1,6 2011 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality· Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(1 )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additio~al 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or' 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconside~ or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
r· \. 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals O,ffice (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. . 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(A) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1 )(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 internatiomil. acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation". of the .alien's achievements. &e section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act and 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.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 suchan award, the ~egulation outlines 
ten categories of.specific objective evidence. 8 C.F.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 
establisli the basic eligibility requirements. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's ultimate 
determination that the petitioner has not established her eligibility for the classification sought. In fact, 
we withdraw the director's conclusion that the petitioner has authored published scholarly articles as the 
record does not establish that the petitioner's work can be classified as "scholarly." Moreover, the 
petitioner has never indicated which of the five statutory fields, sciences, arts, 'education, business or 
athletics, includes her occupation, "animal intuitive." For the-reasons discussed below, we fmd that the 
petitioner's occupation, which includes distance healing, crystal healing and animal communication 
through telepathy, does not fall under any of those statutory fields. In fact, the inability to fit the 
petitioner's occupation within any of the statutory fields raises concerns as to whether her entry into the 
United States would "substantially benefit prospectively the -United States." (Emphasis added.) 
Section 203(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Act. 
/ 
\------
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be 
denied by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the 
initial decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. 
Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 
2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
I. Law 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
J, 
\ 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available .- .. to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any bfthe following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if --
/ 
(i) the alien has extraordiriary 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 abiUty, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (UscrS) and legacy Immigration and Naturalization 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 1015t Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). Counsel asserts on appeal that petitioner need 
only demonstrate acclaim, .~d not that she is within the small percentage who has risen to the very top 
of her field contradicts the regulations. The tenn "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals 
in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. Id; 8C.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 
acclaiin and the recogni~ion 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 following ten categories of 
evidence. 
(i) Documentation of the alien's.receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor; 
(ii) Documentation of the alien's membership. in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields; 
(iii) Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is 
sought. Such evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any 
necessary translation; . 
) 
t ' 
Page 4 
(iv) Evidence of the alien'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; 
(v) Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, I athletic, or business-
related contributions of major significance in the field; " ' 
(vi) Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media; 
(vii) Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases; 
(viii) Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation; 
(ix) Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary ,or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the field; or 
'(x) Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
On appeal, counsel cites an unpublished, undated decision apparently issued by the AAO and federal 
district court decisions. While 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are 
binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not 
similarly binding. Moreover, in contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a 
United States circuit court, the AAO is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States 
district court in cases arising within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 
1993). The reasoning underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it 
is properly before-the AAO; however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. 
Id. at 719. 
I 
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 PJd 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.l With respect to the criteria at 8 c.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 5 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised ~n a subsequent "fmal merits determination." Id. 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 if the 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)." Id. at 1122 (citing to 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3». The court also explained the "final merits determination" as the corollary to this 
procedure: 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evide!lce, USCIS determines whether the 
evidence demonstrates both 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 "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Only aliens whose achievements have garnered "sustained 
national or international acclaim" are eligible for an "extraordinary ability" visa. 
8 US.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A)(i). 
!d. at 1119-20: 
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 reviewing. Service Center decisions, the AAO will 
apply the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a 
new analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the 
two-step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F:R. 103.3(a)(1)(iv); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 
F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp.2d 10:?5, 1043 
(E.D. Cal. 2001), affd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
II. Analysis 
A. Alien's Field 
As stated above, section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) provides that the alien must demonstrate extraordinary ability 
in the "sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics." Statutory interpretation begins with the 
lariguage of the statute itself. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. ,Davenport, 495 US. 
552 (1990). Statutory language must be given conclusive weight unless the legislature expresses an 
intention to the contrary. Int'l. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 474, AFL-CIO v. 
NLRB, 814 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1987). We must presume that the inclusion of five sp~cific fields is 
not superfluous and, thus, has some meaning. Hibbs v. Winn, 542 US. 88, 101 (2004) citing N. Singer, 
Statutes and Statutory Construction § 46.06, pp. 181-186 (rev. 6th ed. 2000); Exxon Corp. v. Hunt, 
I 
/ 
475 U.S. 355, 374 (1986). In other words, Congress could have merely stated that the classification 
was open to all aliens of extraordinary ability regardless of field, but did not. Instead, Congress 
expressly limited the fields that could qualify under this classification. While the fields are broad and 
general, Congress clearly did not intend this classification to apply to every individual with a popular 
following regardless of the occupation. 
On the Form 1-140'petition, the petitioner lists her proposed employment as "animal intuitive." The 
petitioner listed the occupational title code for animal trainers. The Department of Labor's 
Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) lists the following duties for animal trainers: 
Animal trainers train animals for riding, security, performance, obedience, or assisting 
people with disabilities. Animal trainers do this by accustoming the animal to the 
human voice and human contact and teaching the animal to respond to commands. 
The three most commonly trained animals are dogs, horses, and marine mammals, 
including dolphins and sea lions. Trainers use several techniques to help them train 
animals. One technique, known as a bridge, is a stimulus that a trainer uses to 
communicate the precise moment an animal does something correctly. When the 
animal responds correctly, the trainer gives positive reinforcement in a variety of 
ways: offering food, toys, play, and rubdowns or speaking the word "good." Animal 
training takes place in small steps and often takes months a.qd even years of repetition. 
During the teaching process, trainers provide animals with mental stimulation, 
physical exercise, and husbandry. A relatively new form of training teaches animals to 
cooperate with workers giving medical care: animals learn "veterinary" behaviors, 
such as allowing for the collection of blood samples; physical, x-ray, ultrasonic, and 
dental exams; physical therapy; and the administration of medicines and replacement 
fluids. . 
The record, however, does not support a fmding that the petitioner performs the above services listed '. 
for animal trainers. 
The record contains information from the petitioner's website, www.animalenergy.com. On her 
website, she indicates that she engages in distance healing by accessing an animal's "soul or spirit 
level," seeking the permission of the animal's "Higher Self' and carrying out question and answer 
sessions with,the animal. The petitioner's introd~ction in the program of a conference where she spoke 
indicates that she utilizes flower essences and engages in crystal healing and color therapy. She defmes 
flower essences as follows: "Vibrational frequencies of flowers captured in spring water and usually 
preserved with grain alcohol" and states that they are "actually the energy imprint of the petals of the 
flower." She also stated in these materials that her work "does not involve diagnosis and it is never a 
substitute for good Veterinary care." He±-, "biography" at the end of these materials indicates that she 
also utilizes "dowsing." Webster's IT New College Dictionary 349 (3rd ed. 2008) defmes dowsing as the 
use of "a divining rod to fmd underground water or minerals." The petitioner's articles on color therapy 
Page 7 
end with the following disclaimer: "Please Note: Color therapy is never a replacement for good 
veterinary care." 
The petitioner does not simply claim to empathize with animals as a trainer or to use 'complementary 
medicine as a trainer. Rather;r she expressly claims paranormal abilities. For example, promotional 
material for one of the petitioner's seminars indi.cates ~ will practice "interspecies 
telepathic communication." An article about the petition~r ~ indicates that the~ 
also claims to communicate with clients' deceas~d pets. A book submitted to the record, __ 
_ includes the petitioner's tips for communication with deceased pets. 
The petitioner has certificates for Psycho spiritual Practitioner Training, Spiritual Psychotherapy 
Training, Discovering the Total Self in Personal and Spiritual Development, Essential Oils, Brain 
Orgkzation Profile, Basic Educational Kinesiology, Healing with Crystals - Level I, Equine Touch, 
Raw Food, Dowsing and Color Therapy. The petitioner attended these courses at the Transformational 
Arts Centre, an Educational Kinesiology Foundation event, an Essential Oils Integrated Aromatic 
Conference, the Crystal Alchemy Academy, the Equine Touch Foundation, the Canadian Society of 
Dowsing and the Colour Institute of Canada. While kinesiology is the legitimate study of muscles, the 
petitioner has not defmed "educational kinesiology.,,2 
While the petitioner claims to heal animals, which would normally fall under the medical sciences, she 
has never explicitly claimed that she enjoys national or international acclaim in the sciences. As 
discussed above, the petitioner's conference introduction and articles include disclaimers stating that her 
work does not substitute for proper veterinary care. These disclaimers reveal that she does not diagnose 
and treat animals through scientifically tested methods. The scientific method does not rely ·on 
anecdotal testimonials.3 The.petitioner has not documented that any regionally accredited U.S. college 
or university includes a department of animal The 
documented in her occupation, 
does not appear to be a , the inside cover indicates that the 
journal "provides a forum and network to share experiences, helpful hints, insights, humor; and the joy 
of deep understanding and heightened awareness with all beings." The lack of a peer reviewed 
2 According to the Educational Kinesiology Foundation's website, www.braingym.orglfaq (accessed February 
10, 2011 and incorporated into the record of proceeding), educational kinesiology "is the study of drawing 
out innate intelligence thro~gh natural movement experiences." 
3 Clinical trials, research studies in which the safety and efficacy of treatments and therapies are tested in 
, people, are essential for determining which treatments work, which do not, and why. See 
http://nccam.nih.gov/researchlciinicaltrials/factsheet/, accessed February 10, 2011 and incorporated into. the 
record of proceedings. In 2000, the director of the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative 
Medicine (NCCAM) stated before a House Appropriations Subcommittee that credible, not anecdotal, data 
must be provided to the public. See http://nccam.nih.gov/about/offices/odldirectortestimony/030200.htm, 
accessed February 10, 2011 and incorporated into the record of proceedings. Thus, this expert did not equate 
anecdotes to credible data. 
Page 8 
publication covering the petitioner's occupation is not consistent with a conclusion that the petitioner 
works in the sciences. 
We acknowledge that the petitioner offers courses by telephone. That the petitioner designed a course 
and found willing students does not create a presumption that she works in the education field. Rather, 
the petitioner must demonstrate that she works within the general accredited education framework: The 
petitioner did not provide evidence that the entities that issued her certificates are accredited academic 
institutions. As the record does not include any evidence that any regionally accredited institution in 
the United States offers ~al telepathy as a major or as a significant part of a major in veterinary 
medicine or other department, we are not persuaded that the petitioner's occupation falls within the field 
of education. 
We acknowledge, that the petitioner runs her own website, composes a newsletter and offers telephone 
classes. While these activities arguably constitute a business, the petitioner does not claim to be 
acclaimed for her business ac4ievements. ' 
The petitioner is also not an athlete and does not coach or train athletes. Thus, her occupation does not 
appear to fit within athletics. 
Finally, we note that the petitioner submitted promotional material for 
_ The materials contain the following disclaimer: "The program was created for entertainment 
purposes and is not intended to convey medical advice or other factual information." Thus, the 
oc~u?ation of the host of that ~how,_ ar~bly ~alls within the performing arts. ,The 
petltIOner, however, has not claJlI)ed ~ormmg artISt. 
Even if we were to use the Department of Labor's definition of "science or art" relevant to Schedule A 
Group II petitions, the regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.5(b)(1) defines "science or art" as "any field '!of 
knowledge anc:Ilor skill with respect to which colleges and universities commonly offer specialized 
courses leading to a degree in that knowledge and/or skill." The record contains no evidence that 
colleges and university comrhonlY offer courses leading to a degree in the petitioner's knowledge or 
skill set. 
It is the petitioner's burden to establish that her occupation fits within one of the statutory fields and she 
has not attempted to do so. Conspicuously, Gounsel continually references all of the statutory fields 
throughout the proceeding, never specifying the relevant field .. Because the petitioner's field of 
endeavor is not within-one of the statutory fields, the petition may not be approved. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 4 
4 The petitioner does not claim to m~et or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence 
not discussed in this decision. 
Page 9 
. Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. , 
The petitioner submitted articles that briefly quote or mention her in 
and in her book 
"Afterword" section discussing the petitioner's! steps for communication with deceased pets. The 
petitioner also submitted articles that she has authored. Articles that briefly mention or quote the 
petitioner. or that she has \authored are not "about" the petitioner relating d cannot meet 
the plain language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). published her 
book after the date of filing. Thus, we cannot consider this evidence. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), 
(12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). Regardless, without evidence of 
book sales, the petitioner cannot establish that book constitutes a professional or major 
trade publication or other major media. 
The petitioner lists several television and radio appearances on her self-serving website. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). In support of these claims, the 
petitioner submitted several letters. productions, 
asserts.that he taped interviews of individuals claiming to engage in the paranormal and that the footage 
"will be used in a based documentary special that we anticipate will be sold to a TV or cable 
network." letter is dated in 2004. The record contains no evidence that a TV or cable 
network purchased and aired the documentary. Moreover, the record does. not establish that the 
documentary was "about" the petitioner rather than about several individuals claiming paranormal 
abilities. 
Channel 18's "Animal Tails: All About Animals," asserts that the 
petitioner appeared on his show in 2004. The record does not reflect that this program is nationally 
broadcast. 
asserts that in 2002, _ 
. ves of people who own, train and 
confirms that the doc;umentary aired on the Life Network in 
not mdicate how much of an episode or the documentary as a whole 
promotional materials indicate that the show covered those who work with 
dogs "from beauticians tohardcore handlers." Thus, we cannot determine whether this documentary 
constitutes published material "about" the petitioner. . 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a page from www.blogtalkradio.com listing a call-in number for th~ 
petitioner's show. The record contains no evidence that this program is anything other than a self-
Page 10 
premetienal web-based "radio." shew with airwave broadcast.s The page lists five listeners. In 
aO(lltlelllU evidence the petitiener submitted a 4, 2009 email 
and thanking the 
petitiener fer appearing en the "internatienally-heard radio. shew, 'Beyend Werlds.'" This evidence 
pestdates the filing efthe petitien and cannet be censidered. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec; 45, 49 (Reg'!. Cemm'r. 1971). Regardless, we,need net accept the 
prometienal materials of a media eutlet as to. whether it censtitutes aprofessienal er majer trade jeurnal 
er ether majer media.6 Accessibility en the Internet says nething abeut the shew's actual listener base 
and, thus, is insufficient. 
The petitiener submitted an August 2007 article abeut her an undated article abeut her 
in Victoria News, a 2002 article that discusses the petitiener and her ,Werk at length 
_ The banner fer proclaims that the newslettyr is "Torente's Faveurite 
1reWSPaper." As stated we net accept prometienal materials ef a media eutlet as to. 
whether it censtitutes a professienal or majer trade jeurnal er ether majer media. The recerd dees net 
centain the circulatien data fer er ether evidence that the publicatien ceuld be 
censidered a professienal er majer trade jeurnal er ether majer media. Rather, it appears to. be a lecal 
Teronte publicatien . 
. Finally, the petitiener submitted the results fer a search en www.geegle.cem. Net every reference to. 
the petitiener en the Internet can be censidered published material abeut the petitiener in professienal 
er majer trade jeurnals er ether majer media. The petitiener must decument material that is primarily 
abeut her and the significance ef the publicatien, including Internet sites. We will net presume that 
every Internet site is a prefessienal er majer trade jeurnal or ether majer media. Rather, the petitiener 
must provide infermatien abeut the individual site. 
The directer accepted that the article in the Toronto Star was "abeut" the petitiener and appeared ,in 
majer meqia but cencluded that this single article was' net evidence ef "sus~ed" acclaim. Ceunsel 
does not challenge this conclusion on app~al. 
We are net persuaded that the article in The Teronte Star is "abeut" the petitiener. Regardless; we 
cencur with the directer that a single qualifying article cannet serve to. meet the plain language 
requirements ef the regulatien at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which requires published material in 
qualifying publicatiens in the plural. . . 
5 According the website www.blogtalkradio.com/whatis/aspx (accessed February 10, 2011 and incorporated 
into the record of proceedings), the website "allows anyone, anywhere the ability to host a live, Internet Talk 
Radio show, simply by using a telephone and a computer." The website does not suggest that the operators 
vet and select potential hosts. 
6 See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) affd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) 
(concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the 
magazine's status as major media). 
Page 11 
The use of the plural in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is consistent with the statutory requirement for 
extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are worded in the plural. Specifically, the regulations at8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(ix) only require service on a single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion 
wishes to include the singular within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of experience must be in the form of "letter(s)." Thus, we can infer 
that the plural in the remaining regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts 
have upheld uscrs' ability to interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a 
regulation. 7 
In summary, the maJonty of the material is not "about" the petitioner. The petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the remaining material appeared in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. For these reasons, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the 
plain language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not impacted the practice of animal communication or 
that she has set a standard to which-others aspire. On appeal, cOUIlsel focuses on the word "original" 
and asserts that the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(c)(v) does not require 
evidence that the petitioner's work has been "copied or held up as an industry standard." 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significanc·e. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" is not 
superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. Moreover, the contribution must be to a field as a 
whole. Work that is "original" in that it does not duplicate the work of others but that has had no 
influence in the field cannot be considered a contribution of major significance to the field. 
Also according to the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the petitioner must 
demonstrate original contributions of major significance that are "scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic 
or business related." As discussed at length above, neither counsel nor the petitioner has ever explained 
which of these fields,includes her occupation. Similarly, in discussing this criterion, counsel never 
specified whether the petitioner's contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic or business 
related. 
For the reasons discussed below, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not demonstrated 
her impact in the occupation of animal psychic. That said, defining the petitioner's field so narrowly 
7 See Maramjaya v. USCIS, Civ. Act. No. 06-2158 (RCL) at 12 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); SnalJnam~s.com 
Inc. V. Chertoff, 2006 WL 3491005 at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the 
regulatory requirement for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8C.F.R, § 204.5(1)(2) 
requires a single degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). ' 
r 
Page 12 
is problematic. Specifically, the petitioner cannot avoid having to demonstrate the type offield-wide 
impact required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3):Cv) by narrowing her "field" to a niche occupation with 
relatively few practitioners. As discussed abfwe, the petitioner's activities do not appear to fit within 
the SOC code occupation the petitioner listed on the petition, animal trainers. Nevertheless, it is the 
only field the petitioner has ever claimed. 
for the publisher of Animal 
Wellness, Feline Wellness and Equine Wellness, states that the magazines have a readership of over 
one million. At issue for consideration under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), however, is whether these 
articles have ultimately impacted the field. TIie petitioner has not submitted citations or other evidence 
of the impact her articles have had in the field of animal telepathy once disseminated. 8 
The petitioner lists several speaking engagements on her self-serving websit~ .. As stated above, going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient fOF purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, I&N Dec. at 190). The petitioner submitted evidence that she has lectured at the 
Ontario Association of Veterinary Technic~ans (OAVT) 25th Annual Conference in 2003. A 
handwritten note on a single evaluation of :her lecture indicates that her lecture "sold out." The 
petitioner submitted an unsigned lett5r purPortedly from Bobbi Hoffman, Comerence Secretariat, 
asserting that 1,000 delegates attended the cdnference. An unsigned letter has no evidentiary value. 
Regardless, this letter does not suggest all 1,000 delegates attended the petitioner's lecture. In fact, a 
registration form for the event in the record reflects the petitioner's lecture was limited to 30 
participants. Also in 2003, the petitioner alsd gave a seminar presented by Speaking of Dogs. _ 
where the petitioner 
now lives asserts that the petitioner spoke at the bookstore in 2006 and confirms that 
the petitioner drew "above average crowds" for each talk. An email from "Kris & Joe Neri" confirms 
that the petitioner also spoke at another bookstpre in Arizona in 2007. 
As stated above, the petitioner also submitte'd ~ page from www.blogtalkradio.com listing a call-in 
number for the petitioner's web-based "radio" 'show.' The page lists five listeners. The record contains 
no evidence that was broadcast by airwaves such that anyone not connected through the Internet could 
have listened. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner has taught "thousands" of people worldwide through her ','teleclasses" 
and in person workshops. Counsel has also asserted that the petitioner's compact disc has sold well. 
8 Publication and presentations are not sufficient evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence 
that they were of "major significance." Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) affd in part 
596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, the Kaza.rian court reaffirmed its holding that the AAO did not abuse 
its discretion in finding that the alien had not detnonstrated contributions of major significance. 596 F.3d at 
1122. 
: .: 
Page 13 
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIAI983); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506(BIA 1980). The petitioner submitted compact discs for several 
courses she sells and pages from her website that advertise her courses. Species Link: The Journal of 
Interspecies Telepathic Communication reviewed the petitioner's compact disc. We note that Penelope 
Smith, with whom the petitioner trained, is the editor of this journal. The petitioner's self-serving 
website also includes several testimonials from former students. This evidence does not establish the 
number of compact discs,the petitioner has sold or the number of students who have taken her courses. 
As discussed above, the record contains references to the petitioner in various publications, articles 
about the petitioner in publications with an undocumented distribution and circulation and evidence 
that the petitioner appeared in a documentary entitled "Going to the Dogs" that appeared on the Life 
Network in Canada. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner 
submitted email requests to interview the petitioner. The record does not establish whether interviews 
other than those discussed above actually took place. 
The petitioner also submitted her 123-page manuscript, 
The document bears no ll".ll~J.a 
Finally, the petitioner submits testimonials. Officials at two veterinary hospitals attest to the petitioner's 
positive impact on their work. . A nurse and a minister provide,general praise of the petitioner's abilities. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from a licensed psychologist who claims no 
training ,in physics but also claims to have conducted research using "the work of 
\ including the work of " to "substantiate that everything is energy, that energy not 
die and that love is praises the petitioner's abilities and asserts that she refers 
clients who request an animal communicator to the petitioner. 
a Training and Mentor coach and a professor of psychiatry at Baylor College of 
Medicine, praises the petitioner's abilities as a "professional coach." The-peti!iqner, however, does not 
seek to enter the United States to work as a professional coach, but as an animal intuitive. 
asserts that the website chose the petitioner to write a 
. on and her remarkable abilities." While 
asserts that the website would not want to lose the petitioner's contributions if the 
remain in the United States; we note that the petitioner contributes to the website from a different state 
and couid presumably do so from .her home country.. Regardless, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires contributions to the field as a whole, not one website. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board)' has held that testimony should not be disr:egarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g, Matter of S-A -, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
Page 14 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where av~ilable." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or 
provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. 9 The 
opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, 
in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of 
Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However; USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. ,See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "f<:lct"). 
\ 
USCIS may even, give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord, with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N'Dec. 190 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1972». 
The letters considered above primarily contain vague claims of paranormal abilities without 
specifically identifying contributions and providing specific examples of how those contributions are 
scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic or business related or rise to a level consistent with major 
significance in any identified field. Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does 
not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.l~ The petitioner also failed to submit sufficient 
corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could have 
bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
; 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she has made scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic or business related contributions of major significance to an identified field as required under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). Thus, she has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements of that regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
9Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009) aJj'd in part 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). In 2010, 
the Kazarian court reiterated that the AAO's conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the 
alien's] contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. 
10 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aJj'd,'905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 
1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not 
accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General o/the United States, 745 F. Supp. 
9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 15 , 
the previously claimed that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
oetltloner has authored articles in 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). We withdraw that conclusion. The petitioner's articles appear to be autobiographical 
rather than scholarly treatises. The petitioner includes disclflllners in some of her articles. More 
specifically, her articles state conclusions (such as the healing properties of various colors) based on her 
personal experiences, contain no footnoted references to other scholarly works and have not appeared 
in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Even if we were to consider the reception of these articles in the 
scholarly community, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner's articles have attracted 
scholarly attention. \ . 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted 'qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation' at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). . 
\ 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
Counsel has asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion through her media coverage, radio and other 
media appearances, lectures and articles. While neither counsel nor the petitioner expressly requested 
that this evidence be considered "comparable" evidence under this criterion pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), the director concluded that the evidence was not comparable to the public 
appreciation nature of an artistic exhibit. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred by 
examining the nature of the showcase, which is not a requirement set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
By its plain language, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) applies solely to the arts. The 
petitioner has never claimed that her occupation falls within the arts. Thus, this criterion is inapplicable 
to the petitioner. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) permits the submission of comparable evidence where the 
standards set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are not readily applicable to the petitioner's occupation. 
We agree that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is not readily applicable. Thus, at issue is 
whether the evidence is "comparable." 
The articles mentioning the petitioner and the articles about her in publications that are not professional 
or major trade journals or other major media directly relate to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and have been considered in that context. We also considered the television and radio 
. appearances under that criterion. We note that the petitioner was not performing as the host of these 
programs but the subject of the host's investigative inquiry, which is more akin to published material 
,than a showcase or exhibition. We will consider the petitioner's web ... based "radio" show below. We 
are not persuaded that evidence that falls short of meeting that criterion must be considered 
"comparable" to a separate, inapplicable criterion. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the 
Page 16 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence and the regulatory requirement that any published material 
be about the petitioner and appear in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
Similarly, the petitioner's articles relate to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Once again, the fact that they do 
not fulfill that criterion because they are not "scholarly" does not create a presumption that they must be 
considered comparable evidence under a separate, inapplicable criterion. To hold otherwise would 
render meaningless the· regulatory requirement for published scholarly articles and the statutory 
requirement fo~ extensive evidence. Moreover, we are not persuaded that a magazine is a showcase or 
exhibition. 
Further, the petitioner's lectures do not appear ~omparable to artistic showcases and exhibitions. We 
concur with the director that artistic showcases and exhibitions are designed for public appreciation 
rather than teaching self-help techniques or providing\ therapy. Counsel concludes that because artists 
showcase their work at exhibitions, individuals in other occupations "showcase" their work whenever 
they appear in public. For example, counsel asserts that motivational speakers "showcase" their work 
at industry forums. Counsel's comparison is not persuasive. We will not remove the public 
appreciation aspect from this criterion, even when considering claims of "comparable" evidence. To 
hold otherwise would be to conclude that every member of an occupation that nonnally interacts With 
the public would inherently meet this criterion. For example, not every teacher is "displaying" her work 
at a showcase or exhibition every time she teaches a course that is open to the public. 
Unlike an artistic exhibition or showcase, the record contains no evidence that the founders of 
www.blogtalkradio.com select the hosts for "display" in exhibitions or workshops. The petitioner's 
2008 web~based radio show is akin to a lecture and appears to be promotional rather than evidence that 
the organizer of an exhibition or showcase selected her work for display. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) and has not satisfactorily demonstrated why 
evidence insufficient to meet other applicable criteria should be considered "comparable" under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner "has worked extensively with some of the top networks and 
companies in the film and television industry both in Europe and the United States." In response to the 
director's request for evidence to support this claim, counsel asserted that the petitioner has perfonned 
in a leading or critical role for Penelope Smith, whose website lists the petitioner as a referral. Counsel 
repeats her initial as~ertion and references emails from media outlets inquiring about one-time 
appearances on various programs. As stated above, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner 
actually appeared on many of these programs. On appeal, counsel reiterates the ass~rtion that the 
petitioner's role for _ meets this criterion and notes letters from the producers of 
Page 17 
As stated above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Matter of 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. 
Counsel has never expressly challenged the director's implication in the request for additional evidence / 
that one-time appearances on a radio show or television network is not a leading or critical role for that 
radio station or television network. We find that such limited roles are not leading or.critical for an 
organization or establishment as a whole. \ 
asserts ihat the petitioner plays a critical role for the website Animalinks.com. While 1 
asserts that the petitioner is "the most popular draw for return viewers," the record 
contains no evidence regarding the number of viewers for this site or data suggesting that viewership 
increased when the petitioner began writing for the site. 
"-
In a separate letter dated after the petitioner filed that the petitioner 
has a leading role in "the national television series Animalinks." indicates the 
show is in "preproduction." The record contains no evidence that was a distinguished 
organization or establishment as of the date of filing, the date as of which the petitioner must establish 
her eligibility. See 8 c.P.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
asserts that the petitioner trained with _ in 2000, that~onsiders the 
petitioner "a gifted and unique Animal Communicat~at Ms. Smith chose the petitioner to list 
"on my own website for referrals and' " While _has published three books, the 
record contains no evidence that is· individually a distinguished organization or 
establishment. Even if we accepted that is an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation, we are not persuaded that the listing of the petitioner's name 
website demonstrates that the petitioner plays a leading or critical role A leading role 
should be apparent from the petitioner's title, how the role fits within the organization's hierarchy and 
duties. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's impact on the organization. The record -, 
contains no such evidence. I 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
( 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
r 
Neither the petitioner nor counsel has claimed that the petitioner meets this criterion. While we 
acknowledge counsel's assertion that the petitioner has sold a large number of compact discs, the record 
lacks evidence of actual disc sales. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted the initial evidence required 
under 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
Page 18 
Summary 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite evidence under at least three of the 
evidentiary categories for which evidence must be submitted to meet the minimum eligibility 
requirements necessary to qualify as an alien of extraordinary ability. Nevertheless, we will review the 
evidence in the aggregate as part of our final merits determination. 
B. Final Merits Determination 
In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, we must next conduct a fmal 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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
The evidence of record in the aggregate is not persuasive that the petitioner enjoys national or 
international acclaim. The petitioner's lectures were limited to a regional conference fqr Ontario­
based veterInary technicians and, most recently, at local libraries. The published material that 
appears in .the most significan,t publications are not primarily about the petitioner and the most 
persuasive article, appearing in the Toronto Star, predates the petition by several years and, thus, is 
not evidence of sustained acclaim in 2008 when the petitioner filed the petition. Occasional radio 
appearances cannot demonstrate sustained acclaim. The petitioner has not documented the nature of 
her television performances.' The, claim that she will appear in a leading role for what is' only 
anticipated to be a nationally televised program appears highly speculative. The petitioner's articles 
are not scholarly and the petitioner has not demonstrated the impact of these articles, some of which 
contain disclaimers. We acknowledge that the petitioner has clients beyond her locality. 
Successfully attracting clients from more than one state is not evidence of national or international 
acclaim. 
-Even in the petitioner's limited field of animal intuitives, the ·tioner does not appear to be among 
the small percentage at the top of her field. hosts a nationally televised show on 
Animal Planet that has a large fan base and has authored a book. has published three 
books. / ' 
III. Substantial Prospective Benefit to the United States 
Section 203(b)(1)(A)(iii) requires a showing that the alien's entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. We acknowledge that there are no regulatory 
evidentiary requirements for this provision. In many cases, the alien's substantial prospective benefit is 
readily apparent from the alien's sustained acclaim in one of the fields specified by Congress. That 
Page 19 
said, it is the petitioner's burden to meet every statutory requiremenf. Moreover, as discussed above, 
the petitioner has not established that her field falls within one of the statutory fields. 
The petitioner conducts both her classes and her animal communications by telephone. As such, it is 
not clear why the petitioner's presence in the United States would provide any benefit. Moreover, 
paranormal abilities are inherently untestable. The petitioner includes disclaimers on her website and 
some of her articles. Without judging the petitioner's claims of paranormal abilities, accepting that 
inherently untestable abilities could substantially benefit the United States prospectively opens the door 
to claims of expertise in highly questionable areas. 
IV. Conclusion 
The documentation !.submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that thealie~ has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished herself as an 
animal trainer or intuitive to suchan extent that she may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within. the small percentage at the very top of her field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner has a limited following as an animal intuitive, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set her significantly above almost all others in a specified field. Therefore, 
the petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof ill visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.