dismissed EB-1A Case: Anthropology

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 2 41013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative 
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, 
t:F3&-
~ Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (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, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A).1 The petitioner's field is 
anthropology. The director determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or 
international acclaim necessary to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
Congress set a very high benchmark for aliens of extraordinary ability by requiring through the statute 
that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's "sustained national or international acclaim" and present 
"extensive documentation" of the alien's achievements. See section 203(b)(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 such an award, the regulation 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 establish 
the basic eligibility requirements. 
The petitioner's priority date established by the petition filing date is November 15, 2011. On February 
6, 2012, the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on May 23, 2012. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a statement with no new documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below, 
the AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established her 
eligibility for the classification 
sought. 
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--
1 
The Form I-140, which the petitioner filed as a self-petitioner, reflected the petitioner was filing as an alien of 
extraordinary ability at section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act, yet the initial filing statement indicated that the petitioner 
was filing under the outstanding professor and researcher classification pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(B) of the 
Act. Only an employer may file a petition under section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(l). The 
director's RFE considered the filing to be pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act as the petitioner indicated 
on the Form I-140. The petitioner responded to the RFE with discussion and evidence claiming her eligibility 
under section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
(b)(6)
Page3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. -
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 ability. See H.R. 723 lOlst Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.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, international 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). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) reviewed the denial of a petition 
filed under this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court 
upheld the AAO's decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with the AAO's evaluation of 
evidence submitted to meet a given evidentiary criterion.2 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 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." !d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and 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)." !d. at 1122 (citing to 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
2 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
Thus, Kazarian sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered 
in the context of a final merits determination. In this matter, the AAO will review the evidence under 
the plain language requirements of each criterion claimed. As the petitioner did not submit qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
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. 
This criterion contains three evidentiary requirements the petitioner must satisfy. First, the published 
material must be about the petitioner and the contents must relate to the petitioner's work in the field 
under which she seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also appear in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media (in the plural). Professional or major 
trade publications are intended for experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the 
publication should have significant national or international distribution and be published in a 
predominant national language. The final requirement is that the petitioner provide each published 
item's title, date, and author and if the published item is in a foreign language, the petitioner must 
provide a translation that complies with the requirements found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3). The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
The published piece itself must be about the person and relating to his or her work in the field for which 
classification is sought. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii): see Noroozi v. Napolitano, 11 CIV. 8333 P AE, 
2012 WL 5510934 *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2012); see also generally Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-
820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about 
the actor). The director identified the following evidence: (1) : dissertation; (2) Scopus 
and Google Scholar printouts reflecting citations to the petitioner's work; (3) a review article from 
(4) and Internet printouts reflecting cited works. The director 
subsequently determined that the petitioner's evidence did not satisfy the requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner identified reviews of her book that she had submitted in response to the RFE 
and questioned whether the director fully considered these reviews. 
With respect to the citations, it is insufficient that the citing authors mentioned the petitioner within the 
published material appearing in a qualifying publication. Thus, the citations do not satisfy this criterion. 
3 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
In addition to the citations, the petitioner relies on book reviews in 
The reviews are of the petitioner's book, 
The book reviews are about the 
petitioner's book rather than published material about the petitioner and relating to her work. 
Specifically, the authors did not discuss the petitioner; instead the authors critique the petitioner's book. 
Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(i)(3)(i)(C) relating to outstanding researchers or professors pursuant to 
section 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act, which only requires published material about the alien's work. Thus, 
the petitioner has not established that the book reviews constitute published material about her, relating 
to her work. 
On appeal, the petitioner provided a website address relating to that did not 
lead to a webpage containing any relevant information about this publication. The petitioner asserts this 
publication is present in several South Asian countries. 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 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Regarding 
the petitioner provided another website address that led to a "Page not found" result. 
The petitioner asserts that this journal is "the most significant journal in the study of the [sic] 
anthropology in India." Again, the petitioner's assertions without corroborating evidence are 
insufficient to meet her burden of proof. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Regarding 
the evidence the petitioner provided relating to this publication demonstrates that it is a 
professional publication. Although the petitioner did not provide the actual article, she did provide the 
publication's table of contents, which establishes that this publication provided a review of her book, 
' As such, while the petitioner 
established that this review appeared in a professional publication, she did not provide the actual 
review. Thus, she has not established that the review is about her, relating to her work. Even if the 
petitioner had established that the review in is a qualifying article about her, 
the plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) requires evidence of published 
material in "professional or major trade publications or other major media" in the plural, consistent with 
the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. The 
article in is only a single professional publication. 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
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 specification for which classification is sought. 
This criterion requires not only that the petitioner was selected to serve as a judge, but also that the 
petitioner is able to produce evidence that she actually participated as a judge. The phrase "a judge" 
implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, either on a panel or individually as specified at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties must have been directly judging the work of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page b 
others in the same or an allied field in which the petitioner seeks an immigrant classification within the 
present petition. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided evidence relating to various conferences where she was selected to participate 
as a panel member, contributor, or chair. The director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the 
requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner states: "As the submitted conference program 
shows, I was the co-organizer of a two-part panel on Kashmir at the 401h Annual Conference on South 
Asia held at the . . 
. This constitutes evidence of selection by the 
Conference organizers to judge and present the work of other scholars." 
The evidence establishes that the petitioner was named to the following positions: (1) presenter at the 
Society for Cultural Anthropology conference; (2) chair of a session at the 401h Annual Conference on 
South Asia; and (3) participation on three conference panels. The petitioner, however, did not submit 
any evidence that described the duties in which she engaged while serving in any of the positions. 
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. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190). As the petitioner has not submitted corroborating evidence 
explaining the duties of her positions, she has not established that her positions as a "chair" and panelist 
involved participating as a judge of the work of others. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
The plain language of this regulatory criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements that the petitioner 
must satisfy. The first is evidence of the petitioner's contributions (in the plural) in her field. These 
contributions must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The 
petitioner must also demonstrate that her contributions are original. The evidence must establish that 
the contributions are scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related in nature. The final 
requirement is that the contributions rise to the level of major significance in the field as a whole, rather 
than to a project or to an organization. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, 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 (2"d Cir. Sep 15, 2003). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner initially provided expert letters. In response to the RFE, the petitioner referenced her 
published work and its impact within her field. The director determined that the petitioner failed to 
meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal the petitioner claims that she is providing an updated 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
citations list; however the record does not contain any such updated list. Regardless, the petitioner must 
establish eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 
I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Cornm'r 1971). Citations postdating the filing of the petition are not probative 
evidence of the impact of her work as of that date. The petitioner also asserts that the previously 
submitted expert letters demonstrate her eligibility under this criterion. 
Regarding the petitioner's claim that the citations of her published works demonstrate her impact in the 
field, the petitioner provided examples of her published works that garnered a minimal level of 
citations, rather than being "widely cited and quoted" as the petitioner claims on appeal. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that her citation record is indicative of an impact in the field consistent 
with contributions of major significance. 
The director's decision noted that the expert letters cannot form the cornerstone of the petitioner's 
eligibility claim under this criterion; rather, she must provide objective evidence of her original 
contributions in her field. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's interpretation: "errs in 
neglecting the significance of the six letters of support submitted with the petition. These are from 
leading scholars in the field, acknowledging the significance and innovative nature of my work. These 
letters are highly detailed and refer to specific aspects of my work." 
A review of the letters reveals that although some letters assert that her contributions have impacted the 
field, none provide specifics of what these impacts are or the manner in which her work has had such an 
impact. Most of the letters speak of the importance of her ethnographic research in Kashmir, but none 
identify how her work has impacted the field other than to assert generally that her work has raised the 
public's awareness of the subtleties involved in the Kashmir region. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BlA) has stated that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
Matter of M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (BIA 1998); Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998); Matter 
of Dass, 20 I&N Dec. 120 (BIA 1989); see also Matter of Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211, 218 (BIA 1985)). 
The Board clarified, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative 
testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. at 1332. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to 
submit corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. at 1136. 
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. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9
1
h Cir. 2009) aff'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" was insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 
F.3d at 1122. The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 
above. While such letters can provide important details about the petitioner's skills, they cannot form 
the cornerstone of a successful extraordinary ability claim. users may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
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 evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See 
id. at 795; see also Matt er 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 "fact" but rather is admissible only if it will assist the 
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue). US CIS 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 ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft 
of California , 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Thus, the content of the writers' statements and how they became 
aware of the petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Additionally, the authors · explain that 
they drafted their letters to support the petitioner's efforts in attaining permanent resident status in the 
United States. While letters authored in support of the petition have probative value, they are most 
persuasive when supported by evidence that already existed independently in the public sphere. Such 
independent evidence might include but is not limited to letters from independent experts with firsthand 
knowledge of the petitioner's impact in the field, media coverage, and citations to the petitioner's work. 
The petitioner has not demonstrated that her contributions are of major significance in the field. She 
therefore has not submitted evidence that satisfies the regulatory requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
The petitioner provided five articles. The director determined that the petitioner met the requirements 
of this criterion. The petitioner has submitted sufficient evidence to establish that she meets this 
criterion. 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. 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 have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
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 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" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
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 1119-20. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
final merits determination. 4 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 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. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 P.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains 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)(1)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.P.R. § 2.1 
(2003); 8 C.P.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that 
legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).