dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 2 3 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA 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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 tile a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), which makes 
visas available to aliens who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. The director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence 
requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time 
achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement with new documentary evidence. For the reasons 
discussed below, we agree that 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.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h) (2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
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 
(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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
seeking immigrant visas as aliens of extraordinary ability. See H.R. 723 101 51 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) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate the alien's sustained acclaim and the recognition of the alien's achievements in the field 
through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this evidence, then a petitioner must submit sufficient qualifying evidence 
that meets 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, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (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. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that 
USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 201 0) (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. Translations 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) states: "Any document containing foreign language submitted 
to USCIS shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified 
as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate 
from the foreign language into English." 
While not addressed by the director in his decision, the petitioner submitted translations that do not 
comply with the regulation. Instead, the translations are accompanied by a single April 4, 2014 blanket 
certification from that does not identify any specific document. A blanket certification 
that does not identify the translations it is certifying is not probative evidence that the certification 
relates to all of the translations in this record of proceeding. In fact, Mr. does not appear to have 
completed all of the translations in the record because the translation of the article that appeared in 
lists a different translator, who did not certify his translation. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established which translations Mr. completed and is 
certifying. Because these translations do not comply with 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3), they have 
significantly diminished probative value. Even if the translations satisfied the regulation, the director 
correctly concluded that the petitioner's evidence does not establish eligibility. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
B. Previously Approved 0-1 Petition 
While USCI S has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, 
the prior approval does not preclude USCI S from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a 
different, if similarly phrased, standard. First, 8 C.P.R. § 214.2 (o)(3)(iv), relating to nonimmigrant 
aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts, provides for entirely different criteria than those for the 
immigrant classification discussed below. Thus, the beneficiary could meet the nonimmigrant criteria 
and not the ones necessary for immigrant classification. The regulatory requirements for an immigrant 
and non-immigrant alien of extraordinary ability in the arts are dramatically different. 
8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii) defines extraordinary ability in the arts (including the performing arts) as 
simply "distinction," which is further defined as follows: 
Distinction means a high level of achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree 
of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered to the extent that 
a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well-known in the field of arts. 
The regulation relating to the immigrant classification, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), however, defines 
extraordinary ability in any field as "a level of expertise indicating that the individual is on of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." While the ten immigrant criteria set 
forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) appear in the nonimmigrant regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2( o)(3)(iii), they 
refer only to aliens who seek extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or 
athletics. Rather, separate criteria for nonimmigrant aliens of extraordinary ability in the arts are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv). The distinction between these fields and the arts, 
which appears in 8 C.P.R. § 214(o) does not appear in 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h). As such, the petitioner's 
approval for a non-immigrant visa under the lesser standard of "distinction" is not evidence of his 
eligibility for the similarly titled immigrant visa. 
C. Evidentiary Criteria1 
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 multiple 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 he seeks classification as an immigrant. The published material must also appear 
m professional or major trade publications or other major media. Professional or major trade 
1 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 
PageS 
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 director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion. The 
petitioner asserts that his evidence submitted before the director sufficiently meets this criterion's 
requirements and revisits the previously submitted evidence. The petitioner also offers additional 
evidence on appeal. 
Some of the petitioner's evidence to demonstrate that the published material is a form of major media 
derives from Wikipedia. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no assurances about the 
reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.Z See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael 
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). Therefore, this documentary evidence carries no evidentiary 
weight within the present proceedings. Other evidence relating to this issue derives from 
answers.com. With regard to information from answers.com, this website offers a disclaimer similar to 
that of Wikipedia regarding the unreliability of the information contained on its website.3 
Cf id. Therefore, this documentary evidence also carries no evidentiary weight within the present 
proceedings. 
2 Online content from Wikipedia 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 individuals 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 
here. 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:Uen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gencral disclaimer, accessed on February 5, 2015, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
3 Online content from answers.com is subject to the following genera] disclaimer, ''No Guarantee of 
Validity[:) The contents of all material available on Answers.com®, WikiAnswersTM and AnswerTipsTM and 
other related services (collectively, the "Services") of Answers Corporation ("Answers") are intended to provide 
useful information for its users. While Answers makes every effort to present accurate and reliable information in 
its Services, Answers does not endorse, approve, or certify such information, nor does it guarantee the accuracy, 
completeness, efficacy, timeliness, or correct sequencing of such information. Information in the Services may or 
may not be current as of the date of your access, and Answers has no duty to update and maintain the information, 
reports, or statements on the Services. . . . Answers allows ANYONE at any time to write and edit content in this 
service." See http://wiki.answers.com/about/disclaimer.html, accessed on February 5, 2015, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner provided an article posted on the website for . The published 
material is about the petitioner and relates to his work. Regarding the posting of articles on the Internet, 
in today's world, many news entities, including local ones, post at least some of their stories on the 
Internet. International accessibility by itself is not a realistic indicator of whether a given publication is 
"major media." The petitioner has not established that the website of this local television station 
qualifies as major media because the record lacks evidence that the site routinely attracts national or 
international readership beyond the audience of the local television station. The supporting evidence 
the petitioner provides is about itself being a joint venture between 
and rather than the website for 
supporting evidence does not demonstrate the website for 
As such, this 
constitutes major media. 
The evidence from the is about the petitioner and relates to his work in the field. 
Supporting evidence for the submitted in response to the RFE reflects that it is a local 
publication, stating that it offers "the best local report available." The evidence further states: "' 
has I:Jrospered in County .. . Home delivery covers all of County, a portion of 
County and County." Publications with only a local reach are not 
generally considered to be major media and the petitioner has not established that this publication is a 
professional or major trade publication as required by the regulation. 
The petitioner provided evidence relating to the Internet-based publication, 
. The initial evidence establishes that the article titled ' 
'i s about the petitioner and relates to his work in the field. However, the supporting initial 
evidence derives from Wikipedia, which, as stated above, is not probative. In response to the RFE, the 
petitioner provides additional evidence relating to This evidence from 
the parent company of indicates the publication has occupied a 
prominent place in the newspaper landsca e in the neighboring cities of and 
municipality since its foundation in the year . While this evidence states the publication has "the 
high regard of a wide readership," the evidence also reflects that it is a local or regional publication 
along with its local editions from several locales. On appeal, the petitioner provided information from 
answers.com relating to the publisher. However, as discussed above, that information deriving from 
answers.com is not probative within the present proceedings. Regardless, the materials reflect that 
publishes several publications and "dominates the local newspaper market, publishing all the 
city's [sic] major newspapers," including This information does not reflect that 
has a significant national distribution. The petitioner has not established the 
circulation data of _ to compare with the circulation statistics of other German 
newspapers, and he has consequently not established that is a form of major media. 
See Noroozi v. Napolitano, 905 F.Supp.2d 535, 545 (S .D.N.Y. 2012). While the article appears on 
_ 
website, as discussed above, international accessibility by itself is not a realistic 
indicator of whether a given publication is "major media." Similar to the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that the reach of is significantly greater than the 
readership of the print version. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The article from that the petitioner provided at the time he filed the petition is about him 
and relates to his work in the field for which classification is sought. However, this evidence does not 
reflect that the publication is distributed outside of the and County, Florida area. 
Evidence the petitioner submitted in response to the RFE from the magazine's website reflects that this 
magazine is a regional publication. On appeal, the petitioner provides additional evidence pertaining to 
the magazine, which also reflects this publication is limited to a particular region of Florida. As noted 
above, publications with only a regional reach are not generally considered to be major media and the 
petitioner has not established that this publication is a professional or major trade journal as required by 
the regulation. 
Further, with respect to the February 12, 2014 material that appears on the website 
which is the website for a Florida, publication, the 
submitted Wikipedia material about the formerly the 
until October 15, 2013 according to the material. The petitioner has not explained the 
relevance of materials about this international publication whose previous name was similar to the 
Florida publication that featured an article about the petitioner. 
Within the petitioner's appellate statement he asserts that the regional nature of a media outlet does not 
mean that it is not a professional publication, or a major trade publication. 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)). The petitioner points to 
evidence relating to each publication's reputation and circulation statistics as support. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(2) provides the following definition of a professional: 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
A professional publication is, therefore, one that is related to occupations that are listed in section 
101(a)(32) of the Act, or those that require a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent 
is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. The petitioner has not submitted evidence to 
establish that his occupation as an actor meets this definition. A trade publication is also known as a 
specialized, industry-specific, or special interest periodical. Even assuming that some of the petitioner's 
evidence could qualify as a trade publication, he did not submit evidence demonstrating that any 
publication constitutes a major trade publication. 
The remaining evidence on record is either (1) not about the petitioner, relating to his work in the field 
of acting; (2) supported by documents derive from Wikipedia or or (3) in a foreign language 
and not accompanied by a certified translation in accordance with the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(3). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
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 busines s-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 his field. These contributions 
must have already been realized rather than being potential, future contributions. The petitioner must 
also demonstrate that his 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. Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major 
significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or 
customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 2d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a b�llroom dancer had not 
met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). The petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Throughout the proceedings, the petitioner relies on comparable evidence under this criterion. 
Specifically, the petitioner asserts that his contributions as an actor, script writer and host are of major 
significance to the U.S. economy. The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the 
requirements of this criterion. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows an alien to submit comparable evidence if the petitioner 
is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his 
occupation. When evaluating comparable evidence, we consider whether the criteria listed at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) are readily applicable to the claimed occupation and, if not, whether the evidence 
provided is comparable to the criteria listed in that regulation. General assertions that the ten objective 
criteria described in 8 ·C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) do not readily apply to the alien's occupation are not 
probative. It is the petitioner's burden to explain why the regulatory criteria are not readily applicable to 
his occupation and how the evidence submitted is "comparable" to the objective evidence required at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) specifically recognizes artistic 
contributions. As the petitioner has only stated that the regulatory criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
does not readily apply to his occupation, and he has not provided any evidence or discussion to support 
his statement, the petitioner may not rely on comparable evidence to qualify for this immigrant 
classification. As stated above, 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. at 190). 
Moreover, even if this criterion were not applicable to the petitioner's occupation and assuming a 
contribution of major significance to the economy is comparable to a contribution of major significance 
to a specific field, the petitioner has not established his individual impact on the economy. While the 
petitioner submits evidence discussing an increase in tourism from Germany that coincides with the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
petitioner's promotional work in this area, the petitioner has not demonstrated that this increase is due to 
the petitioner's original contributions to tourism promotion. First, the May 11, 2014 article pertaining 
to an increase of German speaking tourists in 2013 to Florida, does not identify the 
petitioner's promotions as the cause. Rather, in addition to , the article notes that the local 
Convention and Visitors Bureau has a marketing manager in Germany. Moreover, the February 5, 2014 
article on the website indicates the petitioner filmed promos for County 
in 2014, after the 2013 increase in German tourists. Second, while website cites an 
study for the results of promotions in eight markets, the material relates to an 
increase in tourism in general in these markets, not just German speaking countries. Moreover, the 
materials do not look specifically at in-language content program, the one in which the 
petitioner is involved. Third, , Account Director for Miles Marketing 
Destinations, the company that manages in-language content program, asserts that the 
petitioner has been working on the German language program since its inception and is her company's 
most valuable host. While this letter establishes that the petitioner is a valuable asset to his employer, 
an issue relevant to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), it does not establish the petitioner's 
individual original contributions of major significance to the national economy. Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not established that it is the petitioner's original contribution to tourism promotion 
responsible for the increase rather than methodology and overall efforts promoting 
tourism in multiple markets. 
The petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies this criterion's requirements. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy through the submission 
of evidence. The first is that the petitioner is an author of scholarly articles in his field. Scholarly 
articles generally report on original research or experimentation, involve scholarly investigations, 
contain substantial footnotes or bibliographies, and are peer reviewed. Additionally, while not required, 
scholarly articles are oftentimes intended for and written for learned persons in the field who possess a 
profound knowledge of the field. The second element is that the scholarly articles appear in one of the 
following: a professional publication, a major trade publication, or in a form of major media. The 
petitioner must submit evidence satisfying each of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
The director determined that the petitioner did not meet the requirements of this criterion, specifically 
focusing on the fact that the petitioner did not submit evidence that his general interest tourism articles 
were "scholarly articles" as required by the regulation. On appeal, the petitioner does not address this 
aspect of the director's decision, and does not discuss the scholarly nature of any of his authored 
material. Instead, he restates his opinion that the previously provided evidence was sufficient to meet 
this criterion's requirements. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
As the appeal includes only a passing reference to this criterion without addressing the issue of whether 
the general interest articles are "scholarly," the petitioner has abandoned his claims under this 
criterion. Desravines v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 343 F. App'x 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009) (a passing reference in 
the arguments section of a brief without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on 
appeal). Regardless, the record supports the director's determination that the petitioner's general 
interest articles are not scholarly. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The director determined the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, to include his work for as a voice-over 
actor, as well as his work as the starring lead in award winning international films, to establish that 
he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
The director determin ed the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion . The petitioner has 
submitted sufficient evidence, to include letters and pay stubs demonstrating his remuneration is 
high in relation to others in the field, to establish that he meets this criterion. 
D. Summ ary 
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Director that the petitioner has not submitted the 
requisite initial evidence, in this case, evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
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 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 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 field of endeavor," 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.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F. 3d at 1119-20. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement 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 1122. Nevertheless, although we need not provide the type of final 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence in the aggregate supports a 
finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated the level of expertise required for the classification 
sought.4 
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, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 
F.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.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA 
§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now 
users, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).