dismissed EB-1A Case: Announcing / Acting

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
WashinglOn, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: Off ice: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
IN RE: 
DEC 1 5 2014 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administ rative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
bjffl 
fl RO! w:�berg 
Chief, Administ rative Appeals Offi ce 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner, an announcer and actor, seeks classification as an employment-based immigrant 
pursuant to section 203( b)(l)( A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the A ct), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 11 53(b )(1 )(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in the arts.1 The director determined that the 
petitioner had not met the requisite criteria for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The 
director also determined that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that he will continu e to work 
in his area of expertise in the United States. 
For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one­
time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3) or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner 
has not demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in the field of 
endeavor, and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.P . R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. In the brief, the petitioner contests the director's findings 
that he did not meet the categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5 (h)(3)(i), (iii), and (viii). In 
addition, the petitioner argues that the director failed to assess whether the submitted evidence 
qualifies under the remaining categories of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner s tates : 
The [Act] and 8 CFR 204 .5(h)(3) list ten evidentiary criteria that the government must 
consider in determining whether an alien has satisfied his burden to prove that he is an 
individual of extraordinary ability. In the Service's denial, it merely analyzed the Petitioner's 
evidence against the three above-referenced categories. In a footnote in its denial notice, the 
Service notes that it did not consider other categories because the Petitioner did not allege 
that his evidence qualifies under other categories. See USCIS Denial at page 3, FN 2. This is 
inaccurate. The Petitioner did not submit any statement in either his 1-140 petition or his RFE 
response alleging that his evidence should be considered in particular categories. Counsel did 
submit cover letters noting particular evidentiary categories, but this should be irrelevant. 
The Service is required to conduct its own independent analysis of ALL 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) 
categories. SeeAFM [Adjudicators Field Manual] Chapter 22. 2(i)(l)(A). See also Matter of 
Skirball, ID 3752, 25 I&N Dec. 799, at 805-06 (AAO 2012 ) (holding that documents 
submitted by a petitioner that meets evidentiary requirements cannot be ignored by the 
Service absent a reasoned explanation as to why the evidence is either not credible or doesn't 
meet regulatory requirements). 
Despite counsel's assertion to the contrary, paragraph (l)(A) of Chapter 22.2 (i) of the AFM does not 
state that "[t]he Service is required to conduct its own independent analysis of ALL 8 CFR 
1 According to information on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner was last 
admitted to the United States on June 29, 1997 as a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
204.5(h)(3) categories." Rather, the AFM cautions adjudicators that they cannot conclude that if an 
individual claims to be extraordinary, specific types of evidence must be presented. Additionally, the 
petitioner's reliance on Matter ofSkirball Cultural Center, 25 I&N Dec. 799 (AAO 2012) is misplaced. 
Matter of Skirball Cultural Center involved a regulation in an unrelated nonimmigrant visa 
classification that expressly requires the submission of affidavits from experts. The AAO discussed the 
weight to be afforded to expert opinions, and held that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) may not reject the factual conclusions of experts if they are reliable, relevant and 
probative. The present matter relates to whether USCIS has an affirmative responsibility to evaluate 
evidence presented by a petitioner when that petitioner has not made a claim that the evidence meets a 
specific regulatory category of evidence. 
At the time of the filing of the petition and in response to the director's request for evidence (RFE), the 
petitioner only claimed eligibility for the categories of evidence at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), and 
(viii). Counsel argues that his previous "cover letters noting particular evidentiary categories" 
should be disregarded as "irrelevant." The burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). It is not the director's responsibility to infer or second-guess the intended 
criteria. US CIS will consider all of the petitioner's evidence for any regulatory criteria under which 
he specifically claims eligibility, but it is not required to consider all ten categories of evidence if no 
arguments or relevant evidence was submitted for the remaining categories. 
On appeal, the petitioner contends that he also meets the regulatory criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), but does not claim eligibility for any remaining categories of evidence. In addition, 
the petitioner argues that he will continue to work in his areas of expertise as an actor and 
announcer. 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will 
substant ially benefit prospectively the United States. 
USCIS 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 qbility. See H.R. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1 990); 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.P.R. § 204 .5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.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, internationally recognized award) 
or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten categories of evidence 
listed at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5 (h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria does not, in and of itself, establish 
eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCI S, 596 F.3d 111 5 (9th Cir. 2010 ) (discussing a 
two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of 
criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination). See also Rijal v. USCIS, 772 
F.Supp.2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of Kazarian), aff'd, 683 
F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 20 12 ); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 12 6, 13 1-32 (D.D.C. 20 13) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that USCIS examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The director determined that the petitioner established eligibility for this criterion. For the reasons 
outlined below, a review of the record of proceeding does not reflect that the petitioner submitted 
sufficient documentary evidence establishing that he meets the plain language of this criterion and 
the director's determination on this issue will be withdrawn. The AAO conducts appellate review on 
a de novo basis. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) . 
2 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria 
the petitioner claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative 
evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The petitioner 's initial evidence for this regulatory criterion included letters, articles, and certificates 
in the Nepali language that were not certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 
8 e.F.R. § 103. 2(b)(3). This regulation requires that any document containing foreign language 
submitted to USeiS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation that the translator 
has certified as complete and accurate, and by the transla tor's certification that he or she is 
competent to translate from the foreign language into English. /d. The director's August 21, 2013 
request for evidence (RFE) specifically instructed the petitioner to submit certified English language 
translations for all non-English language documents. Despite the director's RFE, the petitioner failed 
to submit properly certified English language translations of the documents in the Nepali language. 
Instead, the petitioner submitted multiple copies of an October 22, 2013 "Translator Certification" 
from stating: "I hereby certify that I am fluent in the Nepali and English 
languages and that the attached are accurate translations of all letters and articles submitted 
herewith." The record contains multiple photocopies of the preceding translator certification 
document, none of which specify the documents to which they pertain. The submission of multiple 
copies of the same translation certification that does not specifically identify the do cument or 
documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements of the regulation at S C.F.R. 
§ 103 .2(b)(3), which requires that any document containing foreign language submitted to users 
shall be accompanied by a certified English language translation. Without properly certified English 
language translations specifying each Nepali language document to which they relate, we cannot 
determine if the translator has actually reviewed the document in question. Thus we cannot assign any 
weight to the petitioner's documents in the Nepali language. 
The petitioner submitted an August 2, 1991 "Letter of Appreciation" from 
stating that he was "awarded as a best actor for his role at 
" In addition, the petitioner submitted a December 30, 
"Letter of Honor" from for his "outstanding lead role in the movie 
'" The petitioner also submitted a" " certificate ( from the 
'--::::=-- stating that he was "a Best Actor for his outstanding perfonnance in [the] 
feature film ' . "' The petitioner states that he received these awards from the 
and that they are the equivalent of the which is awarded by the 
The petitioner, however, submitted no evidence from the 
confirming his receipt of these awards and no evidence that the awards are the equivalent 
of the . award. 
The petitioner's documentation also included a certificate from the "-
' for "his creditable contribution as an Announcer." The petitioner also subm itted a 
certificate from stating that he was "awarded as an Actor of the Decade for his 
outstanding perf ormance in various " As previously explained, the English 
language translations accompanying the aforementioned documents do not meet the requirements of 
the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103. 2(b )(3). Furthermore, there is no supporting documentary evidence 
demonstrating that the preceding honors were nationally or internationally recognized awards for 
excellence in the fields of acting or announcing. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted a November 14, 1997 letter from Director of the 
Department of Drama, assert ing that the petitioner received an "excellent 
award in for theatre," but the petitioner did not submit a copy of the award. According to the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2( b)(2)(i), only where the petitioner demonstrates that primary evidence 
does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary evidence and only where 
secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the petitioner rely on affidavits. Moreover, 
if testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner 
to submit corroborative evidence. Ma tter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). The petitioner 
also submitted an August article in mentioning his "Best Actor of 
award from the but the article was not certified by the translator as required 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b)(3 ). In addition, there are no objective circulation figures 
showing that news in is indicative of national or international recognition. In 
this instance, the petitioner has not shown that primary and secondary evidence of his award from 
the 
_ 
_ is not available or nonexistent. Furthermore, there is no documentary 
evidence showing that the award is a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in 
the field. 
The aforementioned August article in _ also mentioned the petition er ' s 
"Excellent of the Year" award from In addition, the petitioner submitted a 
December article in mentioning that he received an Excellent Announcer 
Award I ) for the weekly radio program " and Best TV Actor 
Awards for " ) and " ). The petitioner also submitted a July 
article in · mentioning that he received an Excellent Announcer Award from 
_ for his weekly program. Again, the English language translati ons accompanying the 
aforementioned articles do not meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). In 
addition, the petitioner submitted a September article in stating: 
"[The petitioner] was rewarded time by time as the ' ' by 
.] for his ' ' and 'Best Actor' for his feature film ' ' in the ' 
by ." There are no objective circulation figures 
showing, however, that news m 
is commensurate with national or international recognition. 
The petitioner submitted a December 1, letter from , First Secretary, 
1, and 
, Washington, D.C. stating: "Among the major awards [the petitioner] has won 
include Best Actor of for his role in TV serial 
, Excellent Radio Announcer of Best Actor of for his role in the drama tilted [sic] 
and Best actor of for his role in the TV Serial ' 
' " 
mentions that the petitioner received the preceding "major awards," but his s tatem ent is not 
sufficient to establish that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards 
for excellence in the field. USCIS need not rely on unsub stantiated claims. See 1756, Inc. v. U.S. 
Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory 
assertions in immigration benefits adjudications); see also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp .3d at 134-35 
(upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in 
the field). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Appreciation from the _ in the 
, Maryland for contributing "his talent as a Master of Ceremony in 
." The petitioner also submitted a Re cognition 
Letter from the 1 expr essm g 
appreciation to the petitioner for his assistance, dedication, and service as a moderator of programs. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a 2009 article posted on the website of the . 
mentioning that the prese nted him 
with a "Letter of Appreciation" for "his outstanding contributions to the and abroad." The 
_ 
article was not properly certified by the translator as required by the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(3). Furthermore, there is no objective documentary evidence specifying the 
number of online visitors to demonstrate that the. website 's news is indicative of national 
or international recognition. The petitioner also submitted an 
==� Distinguished Service A ward for " 
" 
Additionally, the petitioner submitted a June 25, 2013 letter from President of 
the , stating that the petitioner has been a member of the society's Board of Directors and acts 
as a Master of Ceremony at events. With regard to the Certificate of Appreciation from the 
the Recognition Letter and Letter of Appreciation from the 
, and the Distinguished Service Award, these honors 
constitute institutional recognition from organizations that the 
petitioner has served rather than nationally or internatio nally recognized prizes or awards for 
excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a " Community Award" 1 
that he received at a 
from the 
:. In 
addition, the petitioner submitted a press release about the meeting and online articles mentioning 
his award posted on the websites of the l , and 
" 
. In addition, the petitioner submitted a webpage displaying a letter he wrote about his 
Community Award" that was posted on the " ' online forum at 
. There is no objective documentary evidence specifying the 
number of visitors to the preceding websites to demonstrate that their news is indicative of national or 
international recognition. Furthermore, the press release was sent to multiple editors and publishers in 
order to encourage them to develop articles on the 
_ _ 
As such, the press 
release was not indicative of independent media reportage or the petitioner's Community 
Award or evidence of its national or international recognition. 
With regard to the preceding awards for acting and announcing, the petitioner did not submit 
evidence demonstrating their national or international recognition. The plain language of the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(3)(i) specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is his burden to establish every element of this 
criterion. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner 's awards were 
recognized at a level commensurate with nationally or internationa lly recognized acclaim for 
excellence in the field. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 materia� and any necessary 
translation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. 
The petitioner submitted a September 6, 20 11 "Certification of Accurate Translation " from 
stating that he was "competent and efficient in the Nepali and English language, and that 
the attached articles are true and correct translations that were translated by [him] from Nepa li to 
English to the best of [his] ability." In addition, the petitioner submitted multiple photocopies of the 
October 22, 2013 "Translator Certification" from stating: "I hereby certify th at l 
am fluent in the Nepali and English languages and that the attached are accurate tra�sl ation s of all 
letters and articles submitted herewith ." Although the record contains the preceding blanket 
translation certifications, they do not specify the documents to which they pertain. Agai n , the 
submission of a single translation certification that does not specifically identify the document or 
documents it purportedly accompanies does not meet the requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2( b)(3). Without properly certified English language translations specifying each Nepali 
language document to which they relate, we cannot assign any weight to the petitioner's articles in the 
Nepali language. 
In addition to the improperly certified English language translations, we note other deficiencies in 
the submitted published material . 
The petitioner submitted articles about him in � entitled " 
(March 7, 1992) and " ·" (October 17, 1992), but the author of the articles was not 
identified as required by the plain language of this regulatory criterion. In addition, the petiti one r failed 
to submit evidence such as objective circulation figures to show that is a form 
of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an interview of him in (1997), but the title of the article 
and its author were not identified. The petitioner also submitted an article about him in 
_ 
. (2003) entitled " " In addition, 
the petitioner submitted information about. from its Facebook page stating that 
the publication is "the second most read newspaper in ' USCIS, however, need not rely on self-
promotional material. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 51 05 SJO, aff'd 31 7 Fed. Appx. 680 (C.A.9) 
(concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a m ag azine as 
to the magazine's status as major media). There is no objective documentary evidence showing that 
· an d are major media. 
The petitioner submitted a December article about him in entitled " -
:." The petitioner also submitted information from 
stating that "is the oldest national newspaper from " but the 
petitioner failed to submit evidence such as objective circulation figures to show that the newspaper is 
a form of major media. In addition, the petitioner submitted the Wikipedia entry for 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
stating that the publication is "the oldest national daily newspaper of 
" 
With reg ard to 
information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the reliability of the conten t from this 
open, user-edited internet site? See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (81h Cir. 
2008). According ly, we will not assign weight to information for which Wikipedia is the source. In 
response to the director 's RFE, the petitioner submitted an editorial discussing the history of 
� that was posted on the newspaper's website at Again , USCIS 
need not rely on self-promotional material. There is no circulation evidence showing the distribution 
of relative to other publications to demonstrate that the submitted article was 
published in a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article about him and his spouse in. '), but the title of the 
article and its author were not identified. The petitioner also submitted information posted at 
stating: 
Newspaper Information 
The is a weekly tabloid published in . It generally 
publishes opmwns and sensational breaking "news" that is followed by other national 
dailies.lt's background is tilted to the left but known for exposing the irregularities of the 
Left Movement as well has the largest circulation among the weeklies allo ve r 
[sic] the country & it leads 80 percent of the print media of _ this has been certified by 
government's Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC),its editor also 
represents the editors in Press Council � ,which is an active member of the v,rorld 
association of press councils(W APC).He had been jailed for twice during the autocratic 
panchayat regime struggling for the democracy. [The petitioner] has been working in media 
sector since last 24 years whereas has the history of Seventeen and Half years. 
The two misspellings of 
preceding paragraph diminish the 
and multiple instances of inco rrect punctuatio n in the 
reliability of the online content at 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitio ner 's pr oof 
may, of course, lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the rem aining evidence 
offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that ·s a form of major media. 
3 Online content from Wikip edia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individ uals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an 
Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily 
been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or 
reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found het·e. 
The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone 
whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields . 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on September 26, 20J 4, cory 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The petitioner submitted a June 15, 2011 article about him in entitled" 
," but he failed to submit objective circulation figures for 
demonstrate that it is a form of major media. 
to 
The petitioner submitted articles about him in�==·=================-. 
and,- -
, but the title of the articles and their author were not identified. In addi ti on , there is no 
documentary evidence showing that the preceding publications are major media. 
The petitioner submitted a February 1997 article in , an April 1997 article in 
, and a June 1997 article in but the title of the articles and their 
author were not identified. In addition, the articles are about the feature film ' ., rather than the 
petitioner. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "published material about the 
alien." Articles that are not about the petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-00820 at *1 , *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that 
articles about a show are not about the actor). The petitioner also submitted information about 
_ and the . media group from the comp an y ' s own website, but 
users need not rely on self-promotional material. 
The petitioner submitt ed an " :" of him posted at but the date and author of 
the material were not identified. In addition, the petitioner did not submit objective documentary 
evidence specifying the number of visitors to the website to demon strate that it qualifies 
as a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article about him in entitled " 
-
-
,"but the date of the article was not identified. In addition, there is 
no evidence showing that 1 is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a February 7, 2003 article in entitled" 
" In addition, the petitioner submitted information from the website of 
publisher, stating the publication is a "a national 
bimonthly feature magazine" and that the company's five periodicals have a "com bined circulation 
and readership" makin g "the media group the most influential in the ethnic Indian market." Again, 
USCIS need not rely on self-promotional material. The petitioner did not submit evidence such as 
objective circulation figures showing that is a form of major media in the United 
States or any other country. 
The petitioner submitted articles in the _ entitled " 
" (July 14, 20 1 1), " .," and " 
. " The date of the latter two articles was not identified. In ad diti on, the 
three articles are not about the petitioner and his work as an actor or announcer. 
Instead, the articles are about the growing population of ; living in the ; and 
services available to them from the community group 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
The petitioner submitted a November 2011 article in entitled ' 
," but the author of the article was not identified. In 
addition, the art ic le was about the '' 
Moreover, there is no evidence showing that 
t cultural program rather than the peri tioner. 
is a form of m ajor media. 
The petitioner submitted a June 2011 article about him in entitled ' 
" but there is no evidence demons trating that is a form of major 
media. 
The petitioner submitted a July 2012 article about him in the " " section of 
, but the author of the article was not identified. In addition, the petitioner 
submitted information about from its website and from a January 3, 2012 
article in . The January 3, 2012 article mentions that the 
, launched on December 17, 2011, but the article says nothing about the 
publication or its circulation. There is no evidence such as objective circulation figures 
showing that _ is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a January 2013 article in 1 entitled " 
" The petitioner also submitted an 
August 24, 2013 article about him in entitled •· 
The preceding articles, however, were published subsequent to the filing of the Form I-140 petition on 
August 2, 2012. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'! 
Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, we cannot consider the January 2013 and August 2013 artic les as 
evidence to establish the petitioner's eligibility at the time of filin g. 
The petitioner submitted a May 2011 article in entitled ' 
" and an article he wrote for the 
program entitled ' ." The 2013 article post-dates the filing of the 
Form I-140 petition and therefore does not establish the petit ioner's eligibility at the time of filing. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Furthermore, the 
article and the article constitute commentaries authored by the petitioner, 
not published material about him. Therefore, the material does not meet the plain language 
requirements of this regulatory criterion. The regulations include a separate criterion for authorship of 
scholarly articles at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5( h)(3)(vi).4 Furthermore, the petitioner has not established that 
.J and the 
program are major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
4 The petitioner, however, does not claim to meet the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Even 
if the petitioner made such a claim, which he did not, the ' '' and "" · 
" articles are not "scholarly" articles and were not published in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The petitioner did not specifically claim eligibility for this regulatory criterion initially o r in response 
to the director's RFE. Therefore, the director did not make a determination as to whether the 
petitioner meets this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts for the first time in these proceedings that "he has made original 
contributions of major significance to his field." The petitioner states: 
As discussed in the letters from the [p ]etitioner produces and hosts his own 
television show on , which is the first 24-hour TV network in the U.S. 
for and his program is among the most popular on the network, earning it a prime­
time slot as well as broadcast distribution internationally (note: his program is one of only a 
couple programs broadcast abroad). In his program, as described in letter, the 
Petitioner helps educate his viewers by covering and discussing U.S. political issues, 
immigration matters, affairs, and other important matters. His program is therefore 
original in that it is among the first of its kind produced for viewers on the first 24-
hour network in the U.S., and it is certainly significant because it helps educate viewers, 
makes them more aware and in-tuned to affairs in . encourages them to become more 
involved in political and affairs, etc. 
The plain language of this criterion requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, 
artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field." Here, the 
evidence must be reviewed to see whether it rises to the level of original artistic contributions "of 
majo r significance in the field." The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous a nd, thus, it has 
some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) 
quoted in APWU v. Potter, 343 F. 3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
New York, stating: 
, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), 
I write in regards to [the petitioner], who hosts one of the most popular weekly prog rams on 
our network, . [The petitioner] has a well-esta blished background m 
announcing and acting and is among the leading national figures in his field in the 
community. 
* * * 
is the first 24 hour television station outside of . Our station 
was launched in December 2011 and is aired throughout the U.S. and Canada via cable 
. worldwide via (a satellite station), and in "r='===""""' 
estimate our viewershi p at over half a million and growing. 
[W]e 
[The petitioner] was invited by to host his own weekly talk sho w . He was 
selected as a candidate because of his reputation as one of the _ community's Leading 
national public figures and because of his strong experience as an announcer, em c ee and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC�ION 
Page 13 
actor. His selection was made by our producer who is a former executive at 
and who helped launch our network. 
[The petitioner] is now host of the weekly talk show, " ," which in English means 
' 
." In his show, [the petitioner] provides his interpretation on news and 
topics in North America that are relevant to the _ community. [The petitioner] is 
100% responsible for the content of his show, in other words, he selects and develops all 
content for his program. This show has become one of our most popular programs. In fact, it 
has become so popular that we have selected this and one other program among our lineup to 
air internationally and to No other programs of ours are broadcast 
abroad. This is a testament to the popularity of his program. With this internat ional 
syndication, [the petitioner's] program is aired throughout the U.S., in and other 
expatriate markets such as India, Canada, Australia, European Un ion , Malaysia, 
Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia For his 
services, [the petitioner] is currently paid $600 per week, but as our network grows, we wil l 
increase his salary. 
Mr. states that the petitioner is the host of " " and that the show is "one of the 
most popular weekly programs on our network, " Although Mr. estima tes 
that the network has a "viewership at over half a million and growing," he does not 
provide specific viewership figures for the petitioner 's " " program from a televi sion 
ratings measurement company such as Nielson. · There is no evidence showing that petitioner 's 
program has affected the field of television announcing in a major way, has earned high ratings among 
U.S. or audiences for a substantial period of time, or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance in the field. Mr. also mentions that the petitioner 's 
program has international syndication, but there is no documentary evidence showing that hi s work 
is of major significance in the field of television announcing. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a letter from 
stating: 
Managing Director, 
[The petitioner] has his own TV program that is broadcast nationally, throughout the U.S., 
and to as well. He researches and develops all the content for the program, lik e a 
producer, but he also appears on TV and broadcasts the content, like a news an c hor or 
announcer. He is able to produce his own content because of his breadth of kn owledg e of 
issues important to the community and because of his extensive n etwork of contacts 
he has built in the community over the years. This allows him to easily secure 
interviews with leading figures in our communi ty. Only very well-connected professi on a ls 
can produce programs like [the petitioner] . 
* * * 
' is the first 24 hour station outside Therefore, our role in 
the spectrum of TV networks is very important 
_ 
essenti ally rely on us 
for their news, for commentary on social and cultural issues, and for entertainme nt. Alth ough 
our audience is primarily of descent, I strongly feel that our program ben efi ts US 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
interests immensel y. Firstly, we help educate _ to better understand 
political, legal, economic and other important issues. This helps them become better ci tizen s 
and more active members of society in general . Therefore all of American society benefits 
from this. Also, our program helps to strengthen the community, he lpi n g them 
become better connected around issues important to our communities across the U.S. This 
cultural development aspect to our program is important to U.S. interests as well. 
Ms. notes that the petitioner produces and hosts a television show that focuses on issue s 
important to the community in the United States, but fails to provide specific exam p les of 
how the petitioner's original work was of major significance in the field. It is not enough to be a 
talented television producer and announcer and to have others attest to that talent. An ind ivi dual 
must have demonstra bly impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. There is no 
documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's program has affected the broadcast industry, has 
influenced the work of other television announcers or program hosts, or otherwise constitutes original 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted a January 3, 2012 article in 
stating: 
28, and 
December. 
26, are two of the young faces of the fledgling station that debuted in 
is geared in part to growmg communi ties of 
* * * 
Its goals are twofold: to educate residents of _ about life in the United States and to 
inform imm igrants about what's happening in their homeland. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5( h)(3)(v) requires that the petitioner's 
contributions be "of majo r significance in the field" rather than limited primarily to 
communities of New York. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134 (upholding a finding that a 
ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
The petitioner submitted an additional letter from Mr. stating: 
[The petitioner] has hosted the program on our network. We originally in vit ed 
[the petitioner] to host this show because he is one of the most involved and recognized c iv il 
rights advocates and figureheads in the _ community. The idea behind cre ati ng this 
show was to educate and connect members of communities across the country by 
engaging them in politics, encouraging them to be active members of their commun iti es, 
keeping them aware of news relevant to them, etc. In fact, means '·to 
communicate or 'to assimilate" and the show's motto is "community empowerment through 
media." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
[The petitioner] has done an outstanding job. He produces this show completely on his own, 
developing ideas for topics, developing story lines and content, arranging interviews, etc. The 
show has become one of our most popular and is viewed all over the country, and in fact is 
one of only a few programs that is also broadcast internationally. Through this program, [the 
petitioner] has greatly impacted our l communities across the country. To expl ain, I 
provide a few examples to illustrate this impact. [The petitioner] recently produced a 
program on immigration reform. He educated viewers on the issues at stake and abou t the 
impacts to our communities. He also encouraged viewers to contact Congress to express their 
views, and through feedback we have been informed that many of our viewers took action. 
[The petitioner] also has produced several shows about worker rights. . . . [The petiti oner ] 
produced programs on and encouraged his viewers to participate in and support the min im um 
wage rallies in Albany, the May Day rallies on immigration, paid sick day rallies, etc. In 
addition to such call to action type programs, [the petitioner] also produces many programs 
that seek to educate his viewers about _ culture, politics, etc. For example, he 
interviews many celebrities and experts from Also, on January 12th, 20 13, [the 
petitioner filmed an episode featuring a roundtable of journalists and media personnel called ' " in which he discussed many issues that affect and should be 
important to These and similar programs aim to educate our vi ewer s and 
make a more educated and thus empowered community in the U.S. 
In his second letter, Mr. • l mentions that the petitioner produced shows on immigratio n reform, 
worker rights, and culture and politics, but fails to provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's shows have affected the field at a level commensurate with artistic contribu tions of 
major significance. In this matter, the petitioner seeks immigration classification as an al ien .· of 
extraordinary ability as an actor and announcer rather than as a television producer. Specifically , on 
the Form I- 140, in Part 5, the petitioner listed his "Occ upation" as "Actor/Announcer." In addition, 
under Part 6, "Basic information about the proposed employment," the petitioner listed his "Job 
Title" as "Actor/ Announcer" and the "Nontechnical Description of Job" as "Serve as ann ouncer and 
master of ceremonies at events for various cultural, social and political organizations." The stat ute 
and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in the 
United States. See section 203(b)(l )(A)(ii) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l )(A)(ii); 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204 .5(h)(5). See also Lee v. l.N.S ., 237 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (ho lding that "[ i]t is 
reasonable to interpret continuing to work in one's 'area of extraordinary ability' as working in the 
s ame profession in which one has extraordinary ability, not necessarily in any profession in that 
field.") Additionally, Mr. comments on the petitioner 's proj ects (such as the January 12, 
2013 episode entitled " ") that post-date the filing of the Form I-140 petition on 
August 2, 2012. Again, the petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2 (b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingl y, television prog ramming 
that was broadcasted after August 2, 2012 cannot be considered as evidence to es tablis h the 
petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. 
The opinions of the references from are not without weight and hav e been 
considered above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements su bmitted as 
expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Co mm'r. 19 88). 
However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alie n's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is 
not presump tive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letter s as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; 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 evide nce as to 
"fact"). Thus, the content of the references' statements and how they became aware of the pet it ioner' s 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters sol ici ted 
by an alien in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, ind epen de n t 
evidence that one would expect of a television host or announcer who has made or iginal 
contributions of major significance in the field. Without additional, specific evidence showing that 
the petitioner's work has been unusually influential, substantially impacted the field, or has 
otherwise risen to the level of original contributions of major significance, the petitioner has not 
established that he meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has perform ed in a leading or critical role for or ganizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and fou nd that the 
petitioner failed to establish his eligibility. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he performed in a leading or critical role as host of 
-' for as an announcer for events, as mast er of 
ceremonies and moderator for the in 20 13, and as an 
announcer of the weekly entertainment program " . In 
general, a leading role is demonstrated by evidence of where the petitioner fits within the hi erarchy and 
duties of an organization or establishment, while a critical role is demons trated by evid en ce of th e 
petitioner's contributions to the organization or establishment. 
With regard to his role as host of ' _ -J" the petitioner did not submit sufficien t evidence 
showing that his role was leading or critical for Mr. asser ts that the 
petitioner "hosts one of the most popular weekly programs" on the network, but 
Mr. letter and the two letters from Mr . do not explain how the petiti oner ' s ro le 
differentiated him from the other hosts and producers who run popular programming for the network, 
let alone executive managers. The submitted documentation does not 
differentiate the petitioner from the network's other announcers and managers so as to demonstrate his 
leading role, and fails establish that he contributed to in a way that was signif icant to its 
success or standing in the television industry. Furthermore, there is no do cumen ta ry evid enc e 
showing that has a distinguished reputation relative to other television 
networks. For example, the January 3, 2012 article in refers to 
as a "fledgling station that debuted in December 20 11. " Additionally, while the 
petitioner submitted information from media kit, the self-promotional 
material is not sufficient to demonstrate that the network has a distinguished reputation. 
Regarding his role for the _ the petitioner submitted a June 25, 20 13 letter from 
President of the , stating that the petitioner has been a member of the so c iety' s 
Board of Director 's aqd acts as a Master of Ceremony at events. In addition, the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
points to the Distinguished Service Award that he received from the . As a member of 
the Board of Di rectors and as a Master of Ceremony at events, we agree with the 
petitioner that he has performed in a leading role for the society. The petitioner, however, did not 
submit documentary evidence showing that the has earned a distinguished reputa tio n . 
In regard to his serving as master of ceremonies and moderator for the 
___ , the petitioner's roles post-date the filing of the Form I-140 petition and therefore 
do not establish his eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(1), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
With respect to his role as an announcer of the weekly entertainment program ' 
for . _ , the petitioner submitted a November 7, 2013 letter from 
Deputy Director, Program Division, stating: 
is the one and only state owned radio station in and 
broadcasts program on Short Wave, Medium Wave and FM frequenc ies. is the 
most reliable and popular means of communication in despite the recent outreach of 
many TV stations because of rural demographic and general people 's accessibility. On top of 
that FM programs were initially started in the premises of at 
It is my great pleasure to officially certify that [the petitioner] one of the renowned and award 
wmnmg program announcer of popular music and film base[d) weekly radio program ' " used to be affiliated at the smce to 
The program ' " grabbed the year 
Audience Choice Award and used to be aired every Saturday at 11:00 am which is been 
considered a prime time spot. 
[The petitioner's] proclaimed radio program was the undoubtedly one of the best show 
among two dozen similar and various radio programs and he used to work with popula r 
female radio announcers and 
As previously discussed, the petitioner submitted improperly certified English language tran slations 
of articles stating that he received an Excellent Announcer Award in for his weekly program on 
For example, the petitioner submitted an August 1995 article in 
that mentioned the petitioner's "Excellent Announcer of the Year" award from In 
addition, the petitioner submitted a December 1997 article in , ' menti oning that he 
received an Excellent Announcer Award ( for the weekly radio program ' 
" Furthermore, the petitioner submitted a July 1994 article in 
mentioning that he received an Excellent Announcer Award from fo r his weekly 
program. Again, without properly certified English language translations specifying each 
language document to which they relate, we cannot assign any weight to the petitioner's arti cl es in the 
language. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
Although the letter from shows that the petitioner performed in a leading role for the 
_ " radio program, the improperly certified English la nguage 
translations of the preceding articles have no probative value in demonstrating that the radio program 
has a distinguished reputation. Moreover, there is no documentary evidence show ing that the 
petitioner's work as an announcer for that program translates to a leading or critical role for 
. The petitioner did not provide an organizational chart or other similar evidence to esta bl ish 
where his role as announcer for ' ' fit within the overall hierarchy of 
The submitted documentation does not differentiate the petitioner's role from the other 
announcers and staff so as to demonstrate his leading role, and fails estab lish that he 
contributed to the station in a way that was significant to its success or standing in the br oadcast 
industry. Furthermore, while the petitioner submitted information about from its 
website, that self-promotional material is not sufficient to demonstrate that it has a disti ng uished 
reputation relative to other radio stations that were operating in in the latter half of the 19 90s . 
In light of the above, the petitioner has established that he meets this regul ator y criter io n. 
B. Summary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not su bm itted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONTINUING WORK IN THE AREA OF EXPERTI SE IN THE UNITED STATES 
The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in his area of exper t ise 
in the United States. See section 203(b) (l)( A)(ii) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. § 11 53( b)(1)(A)(ii); 8 C. F. R. 
§ 20 4.5( h)(5). Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evid enc e of 
prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the petitioner detailing plans on 
how he intends to continue his work in the United States. !d. 
The etitioner submitted a January 6, 20 12 letter from CEO of 
, statin g: "We are very humble and pleased to offe r you an emp loyment as an 
Anchor at our _ television channel, . [W]e will be able to pay you [] six 
hundred U.S. dollars [] per week as a [sic] compensation of your contributions at this ph ase .'' In 
addition to the jo b offer letter, the petitioner submitted a letter from Mr. expla in ing that the 
petitioner hosts a weekly program on The director determined tha t "[t]he 
petitioner did not submit evidence of his intent to continue to work in his field of extra ordinary 
ability as an actor/announcer ." As a television host and anchor is equiv alent to working as an 
announcer, and the job offer letter from the CEO of . is amon g the 
types of evidence specified in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5( h)(5), we withdraw the directo r's 
determination on this issue. 5 Accordingly, the petitioner has established that he seeks to continue to 
work in his area of expertise in the United States. 
5 According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupa tional Outlook Handbook, 2014- 15 Edition, 
"Announcers present music, news, and sports and may provide commentary or interview guests about these 
topics or other important events. Some act as masters of ceremonies (emcees) or disc jockeys (DJs) at 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categorie s, m 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrat ed: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or intemati on al 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise ." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 11 19-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory require ment of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F .R § 204 .5( h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 11 22. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate su pport s a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the cla ss ification 
sought.6 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an in dependent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner 's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1361; 
Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORD ER: The appeal is dismissed. 
weddings, parties, or clubs." See http://www.bls .gov/ooh/meclia-and-communic!:!tifJD/anJ:!l!�IIJ>:;(,:f�,IHrrJ, 
accessed on December 2, 2014, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
6 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of.Justice, 
381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final 
merits determination as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii); see 
also INA §§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150. 1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C .P.R. § 103 .l (i)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Au relio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdi ction to decide visa petitions).