dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

(b)(6)
DATE: 
AUG 0 2 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homelaod Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Admini strative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., 
N.W., MS 2090 
Washing ton, DC 20529-20 90 
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 mus£ 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, 
;;P~ 
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" in the arts, pursuant to section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). The initial filing 
statement characterized the petitioner's proposed employment as "Director/Producer/Writer/Instructor." 
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 6, 2012. On November 
14, 2012, the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). Mter receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on January 7, 2013. On appeal, the 
petitioner, through counsel, submits a brief with new and additional documentary evidence. Counsel's 
overall concern is that the director abused his "discretion by failing to articulate the specific deficiencies 
in the petition and why the evidence submitted was not sufficient at the time of issuing the Request for 
Evidence." Insofar as the director raised deficiencies in the final decision not raised in the RFE, the 
AAO will consider new evidence submitted to overcome those deficiencies on appeal. Cf Matter of 
Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 1988). The 
AAO will address counsel's more specific assertions below. For the reasons discussed below, the 
petitioner has not established his 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--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized m 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 101st 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. Id.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
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.F.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.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), the court concluded that while users 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." I 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)). 
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 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
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. Given that technical deficiencies with the 
translations undermine the probative value of much of the evidence, the AAO will also review the 
evidence irrespective of this concern in the context of a final merits determination. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Translations 
The regulation at 8 C.P.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
1
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 comport with the regulation. Instead 
these translations are either accompanied by a single blanket certification that does not identify any 
specific document being translated or a photocopy of the same certification used for multiple 
translations. Other translations are uncertified. Finally, some of the translations are summary 
translations rather than representing the whole foreign language document, or clearly omit sentences or 
passages from the foreign language document. Because these translations do not comply with 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(3), they have significantly diminished probative value. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the alien is the 
recipient of the prizes or the awards (in the plural). The clear regulatory language requires that the 
prizes or the awards are nationally or internationally recognized. The plain language of the regulation 
also requires the petitioner to submit evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field 
of endeavor rather than simply for participating in or contributing to an event or to a group. The 
petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided evidence of his receipt of several awards between 1976 and 1992. The 
evidence relating to after 1992 consists of a , a 
, and secondary evidence of a (for which it appears he 
was also · · but not a copy of the award itself. According to the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(2), the petitioner may only rely on secondary evidence after establishing that primary 
evidence is either non-existent or unavailable. The petitioner did not establish that primary evidence of 
his 2010 career award is either non-existent or unavailable. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
Counsel asserts that the director misunderstood the law as it relates to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Counsel relies on to two district court cases: Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1995) andBuletini 
v. INS, 860 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994). Regarding the Muni case, counsel states that "courts have 
found that users must take into account the meaning of the award prior to discounting their 
relevance." Counsel also cited to the Muni case for the proposition that a petitioner need not document 
the requirements to qualify for the awards or the significance of the awards in order to establish that the 
awards were for excellence in the field. The respondent in the Muni case, however, was a member of 
the National Hockey League (NHL), the premier organization for this sport in the United States, whose 
team had played for and won the league championship in three consecutive years while he played for 
the team. Moreover, the court noted that the respondent's awards were reported in the official NHL 
magazine and the largest hockey magazine. The petitioner has not demonstrated that he is part of such a 
premier organization, nor, with the exception of the , that notable media reported any 
of his awards. 
Regarding the Buletini case, counsel references the court's statement: "[T]he award need not have 
significance outside of one country. National recognition of the award is sufficient." Buletini, 
860 F. Supp. at 1231. The director did not contest that national recognition is sufficient and the AAO 
acknowledges that the petitioner need not document receipt of internationally recognized awards or 
prizes. 
National and international recognition results, not from the individual who signed the prize or the 
award, but through the awareness of the accolade in the eyes of the field nationally or internationally. 
Even a national or international level entity may issue lesser awards that are not nationally or 
internationally recognized for excellence. For example, the President of the United States signs letters 
of appreciation for retiring civil service workers.5 
For most of the awards, the petitioner relies on the award terminology and letters or material from the 
issuing organization. USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional claims of the issuing organizations. 
Cf Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (91h Cir. 
2009) (USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher in determining whether or 
not the publication is a professional or major trade journal or other major media). 
For example, the letter from Oscar Flores, President of the Fundacion Civil Premia Nacional, indicated 
that receipt of the Orinoco De Oro 1992 was "recognition of the National Prize." That Mr. Flores, or 
the organization that he represents, viewed this award as a national award is not sufficient to establish 
this award is a nationally recognized prize or award in the field beyond the issuing entity. 
5 See https://glarng.armv.pentagon.mii/Programs/RPLOA/Pages/default.a<>p~, accessed on April30, 2013, a copy 
of which is incorporated into the record of proceeding. Similarly, the presidential physical fitness award is not a 
nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence in athletics. Rather, it represents students reaching 
the 85th percentile in certain physical activities. See https://www.presidentschallenge.org/~elebra~physical­
fitness.shtml. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
On appeal, counsel characterizes a letter from President of the 
____., as relevant to this criterion. With respect to the petitioner's 
. letter states: "This is the most important award in Venezuela in an international level. Since the 
creation 50 years ago, more than two thousand important figures have been merited the most prestigious 
award ... The criteria for the selection of the nominees of the prize winners is based on the association 
of reporters of the spectacle." also discussed the petitioner's 
· stating: "[The organizations] recognize the best in different categories and offering promotional 
services and artistic representation. The criteria for the selection of the nominees is based on the 
association of reporters of the spectacle." In support of this letter, the petitioner submits self-
promotional material from website. The website indicates 
that the organization is responsible for both the and and that is the 
creator of the and the Executive President of the . Once 
again, this self-promotional evidence does not establish any recognition of the awards beyond the 
issuing organization. 
asserts that the petitioner's awards "were granted to the best authors, designers and 
coordinators of different aspects of the theatrical activities, whose work met high quality in the merits 
and excellence, as decided by a judges panel [sic] filled with people of specialized knowledge arts and 
theater, resulting in the awardees being the best in the field." The translator failed to transcribe 
closing sentence to his letter. Aside from the translating issues, general assertions 
about unnamed awards are not sufficient to meet the petitioner's burden of proof within these 
proceedings. 
The most significant evidence relates to the petitioner's although the 
petitioner only submitted secondary evidence of the The translator failed to transcribe the 
title and the final sentence of the letter from a recipient of the 
and one of the judges who selected the petitioner to receive this 1s m a 
position to speak authoritatively about this award and stated that this award: "has been created to honor 
the best and most prominent professionals of that have shown during the year an 
extraordinary work in their respective fields of work in theater." Significantly, the petitioner also 
submitted evidence that reported the While probative, 
without translations that comply with 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(3) and a copy the itself, these 
awards cannot satisfy this criterion, which requires qualifying awards in the plural. 
Based on the deficient translations and the lack of primary evidence for the and 
the petitioner has not satisfied this criterion's requirements. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director's RFE did not address whether the petitioner's evidence met this criterion's requirements. 
Within the RFE response, the petitioner reasserted that his membership in the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
and the serves to meet this criterion. The director 
determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner 
submits the same evidence before the director and asserts that the director failed to consider the 
evidence submitted in response to the RFE. The AAO will consider all related evidence. 
The petitioner demonstrated that he is a member of more than one association in his field. He 
established membership in all of the above listed associations except for the As evidence of his 
membership in the petitioner only provided what appears to be the registration of one of his 
plays with this association. This registration is insufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner is a 
member of 
Regarding the remaining associations, the petitioner failed to provide the membership requirements as 
listed in bylaws or similar official documents, or evidence demonstrating that the associations utilize 
recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields to render the determination of 
whether a prospective member's achievements are outstanding. Documenting the general reputation of 
a given association does not establish that the association requires outstanding achievements of its 
members, as the association's reputation may derive from its size, the number of symposiums it hosts or 
other factors. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
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 he 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 generally have a 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.F.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 failed to meet the requirements of this criterion, noting the 
partial translations and the failure to submit evidence relating to circulation of the publications. On 
appeal, the petitioner only contests the director's determination relating to 11 articles and provided 
circulation and distribution statistics relating to four different publications. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
On api.Jeal, counsel focuses on the following publications: (1) (2) (3) 
: 
and (4) .6 Of these publications, the petitioner only submitted evidence 
that demonstrates that and qualify as a major media. 
The petitioner submitted multiple articles published in , none of which bear the author's 
name. Therefore, these articles cannot comply with the plain language requirements of this criterion as 
set forth at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Additionally, with the exception of the translation the petitioner 
submitted on appeal, the translations are not compliant with 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). None of the 11 
articles on which counsel focuses on appeal that bear the name of the publication appeared in 
The translations of the articles appearing in that publication that the petitioner submitted 
previously are incomplete and deficient. 
The articles published in are either undated or appeared in November 1987. The 
record contains materials from The incomplete translation 
accompanied by a photocopied certification indicates that this publication "became the most recognized 
city capital newspaper and in many cases at a national level, during the 80s. . 
. . After change of 
shareholders stopped circulation as press [sic] newspaper. .... On May 2"d 2012, 
now under the conduction of and the direction of the 
returns with its original master line of digital press critique in consideration with politics, 
economy, social and culture.''7 This vague information contained within an incomplete translation does 
not establish that was nationally circulated in November 1987. 
The petitioner provided evidence of circulation statistics, which are only between 10,000 
and 12,000, but failed to document that it is distributed on at least a national level. Publications with 
only a regional reach generally are not considered to be major media and the petitioner has not 
established this publication is a professional or major trade journal as required by the regulation. 
Consequently, 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 evidence of invitations to serve as a judge, but also evidence that the 
petitioner is able to produce evidence that he 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties must have been directly judging the work of 
others in the same or an allied field in which the petitioner seeks an immigrant classification within the 
6 The record also contains articles from , but the petitioner did not establish that this publication is one 
and the same as or enjoys a similar circulation. 
7 
The ellipses represent omitted text from the foreign language original in the translation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page9 
present petition. The petitioner must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain 
language requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner provided letters from several individuals in support of his claims relating to this criterion, 
as well as evidence relating to courses and seminars that he taught. The director determined that the 
petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The record does not support this determination. 
The petitioner submitted letters authored by the following individuals as evidence under this criterion: 
(1) , Executive Director of the 
(2) Subdirector 1 
(3) Director of 
the 
Coordinator of Strategic Projects, 
Mater · and (8) 
" 
: (4) 
; (5) 
(6) 
., 
President of 
General 
of Alma (7) 
8 The petitioner also submitted an article titled 
"' in an unidentified publication. 
The letters from the following authors were each accompanied by a blanket translation at the time the 
petitioner filed the petition, and on appeal are accompanied by a photocopied certification dated 
February 5, 2013: (1) .; (2) (3) (4) and 
(5) . Even if the translations were sufficient, the letters from the following authors 
merely indicate that the authors or their organizations invited the petitioner to serve as a judge rather 
than confirniing that he actually served as required by the plain language of the regulation: (1) 
(2) .; (3) (4) 
(5) and (6) 
In his November 10 1997 letter, indicated that the petitioner had served as a 
judge in the letter, however, did not establish that the petitioner 
participated as a judge of "the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought" as required by the plain language requirements of the regulation. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, both translations are deficient. The translation submitted at the time 
the petitioner filed the petition is accompanied by a blanket certification that does not list the 
translations it purports to certify and, thus, does not meet the regulatory requirements for foreign 
language documents. The translation submitted on appeal is accompanied by a photocopied 
certification dated February 15, 2013, which is also not acceptable as probative evidence. 
The translations of letter contain clear errors as they omit a large portion of the page's 
header and the handwritten place and date of"Caracas 22 de abril de 2010." The translator also erred in 
the date contained in the body of the letter, which is 2010 in the original, but is translated as 2012 on 
both translated versions. Moreover, the content of this letter is ambiguous. states: "I direct 
8 While 
on 
employer is not included in the translation, the original foreign language document is 
~ tterhead. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
myself to you to present you two (2) literary writings and content of the 
prize municipal bases of literature of the year 2012 [sic] with your studies in mind." While the 
translation also includes the word "Judge," the word appears alone, without any context. Thus, this 
letter does not establish that the petitioner participated as a judge of the work of others in his field. 
Both the initial translation for " '" submitted before the 
director and the translation submitted on appeal failed to comply with the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). The article is three sentences, including a lengthy second sentence while the 
translations include only two short sentences. Furthermore, the content of each translation of the 
same article is different. The initial translation stated: ' ' in its diverse 
specialties. • was granted by [the petitioner]." The translation submitted on appeal states: 
' ' in its diverse specialties. was composed of 
[the petitioner] and ." Within the initial translation, it appears that the petitioner 
"granted" while within the second translation it appears that The petitioner 
failed to provide a full English translation of the article as the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3) 
requires. As such, this evidence bears little if any evidentiary value. Based on these shortcomings, 
this evidence will not satisfy the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Initially, counsel also asserted the petitioner's eligibility under this criterion based on courses and 
seminars that he taught. In support of this claim, the petitioner provided evidence of courses he taught 
and the letter from but failed to document that this activity constituted judging the work 
of others in the same or an allied field per the regulation. Serving as a professor where part of one's job 
duties includes evaluating students does not equate to participation as a judge of the work of others in 
the field. As stated above, the phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, 
either on a panel or individually as specified pursuant to the regulation at 
8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv). The regulation cannot be read to include every informal instance of 
evaluating students as their professor. As such, the petitioner has not established that his position as a 
university professor serves to meet this criterion. 
Based on the discussion above, the AAO withdraws the director's favorable determination as it relates 
to 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 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. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rct Cir. 1995) 
quoted in APWU v. Potter , 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd 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 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 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); Matt er 
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 doctm1entary 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. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Vague, solicited letters from local colleagues that do not specifically identify contributions or provide 
specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient. Kazarian v. USCIS, 
580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th 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. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International , 
19 I&N Dec. at 795. However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not prestm1ptive 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 Matter of V-K-, 
24 l&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). 
The petitioner initially claimed multiple contributions in his field. The director' s RFE indicated that the 
petitioner did not provide any evidence in support of his claims under this criterion. After the petitioner 
responded to the RFE, the director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this 
criterion primarily. On appeal, counsel focuses on the petitioner's creation of" 
," and his play, '' " 
Regarding _ _ the letter from President of 
states: " ~ style I J and story line has been not only considered 
innovative but also as one of the three biggest Venezuelan theater contributions to world-wide theatre." 
states in reference to the petitioner 's play: "The spectacles have caused extraordinary cultural 
fame and overpassed the records of representations and ticket sales in the theatrical field for these 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
countries and source of work of more than 100 actors and more than 50 technicians and designers, all of 
high professional quality." A separate regulatory criterion exists regarding ticket sales, which will be 
considered under the commercial successes criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), and the petitioner did 
not provide evidence demonstrating that his ticket sales constitutes an original contribution of major 
significance in his field. 
Regarding the letter from the translator omitted 
title displayed on the foreign language document as " " translated at 
translate.google.com as states: "The theatrical play ' 
' ... of [the petitioner], within the , [which was] created by him ... 
became one of the biggest contributions of Latin American theatre to worldwide Theatre." 
Some of the published material is also relevant to this criterion as support for the above letters. The 
article titled, '' " published in 
provides concepts of the milieu _ ~ has created and that "through this concept, the evolution 
between the stage and audience area comes together thru [sic] the characters, situations and general area 
as it forms into one in a clean transition." 
The record also contains an , article titled, " 
"dated October 6, 2011, that references" " This foreign language article is 
accompanied by a photocopied translator's certification that is not sufficient to meet the requirements 
for translated evidence. Furthermore, the translator failed to document the name of the article's author 
on the translation into English. Therefore, the translation is not a full English language translation, 
which is a requirement of as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 
On appeal, the IJetitioner also offers an article from dated January 2009 titled, ' 
" The translation of this article is accompanied by a photocopied 
certification. This article states: " L was a experiment that began this 
mode at least in America, because there are no previous references therein." The author also states: 
"According to is [sic] one of the three contributions from Latin American 
theater to the performing arts world." 
Finally, the appellate submission includes a letter from The translation of this 
letter is accompanied by a photocopy of a translator's certification. The translator also failed to 
transcribe the professor's, title that is contained in the original. The letter is an invitation for the 
petitioner to moderate a conference on based on his "dominion and experience in this 
topic, as well as, being the creator of this modality in Venezuela." 
Given the translation deficiencies, the petitioner has not submitted probative evidence establishing that 
he meets this criterion. Notwithstanding the deficient translations, the petitioner's innovation with 
hyperrealism constitutes one contribution. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires evidence of "contributions of major significance" in the plural, which is 
consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(l)(A)(i). Significantly, not all of the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) are worded in 
the plural. Specifically, the regulations at 8 C.P.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (ix) only require service on a 
single judging panel or a single high salary. When a regulatory criterion wishes to include the singular 
within the plural, it expressly does so as when it states at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) that evidence of 
experience must be in the form of"letter(s)." Thus, the AAO can infer that the plural in the remaining 
regulatory criteria has meaning. In a different context, federal courts have upheld users' ability to 
interpret significance from whether the singular or plural is used in a regulation. See Maramjaya v. 
USCIS, 2008 WL 9398947 (D.C. Cir. March 26, 2008); Snapnames.com Inc. v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 
3491005 at *1, *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2006) (upholding an interpretation that the regulatory requirement 
for "a" bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(1)(2) requires a single 
degree rather than a combination of academic credentials). 
Accordingly, the petitioner failed to establish that he has satisfied the 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 initially submitted an editorial contract for a play, a contract for a book entitled" 
." evidence of his authorship of two books about and an internet listing for his 
book entitled ,. ." In response to the director's RFE, which advised that the petitioner had not 
submitted any evidence under this criterion, the petitioner resubmitted the initial evidence. The director 
determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner 
relies on his authorship of four books. The petitioner further asserts that his participation moderating 
conferences and workshops, and implementing curricula serves to satisfy this criterion. 
Regarding the book entitled ' '' the petitioner provided a contract naming him as 
this book's author. The foreign language contract is accompanied by a photocopy of a translator's 
certification, which is not in accordance with the regulation for foreign language documents. The 
petitioner documented a second book, " ' is with an 
article written about this book, prior to the book's publication. The petitioner 
failed to provide primary 
evidence of either book, a copy of the cover and sufficient pages of the book to document its nature. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(2) requires primary evidence or evidence that primary evidence is 
non-existent or unavailable. As evidence of the third book, '' 
,"the petitioner submitted a picture of the book's cover. As the sole evidence on record 
relating to these books includes a contract, an article and a picture of the book cover, the petitioner has 
failed to provide any evidence to establish that these books are scholarly in nature. 
The final book claimed on appeal is " ." While the petitioner submitted evidence of the book on 
appeal, and provided a translation of the foreign.language portions of this evidence in response to the 
RFE, this translation is not accompanied by any translator's certification. Therefore, this translation 
will carry significantly diminished evidentiary weight in these proceedings. As the uncertified 
translation has no probative value, the petitioner did not provide any probative evidence to demonstrate 
that this book is scholarly in nature. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
With respect to all four books, the petitioner also failed to provide evidence to establish that the book 
constitutes a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Finally, the petitioner also relies on conferences and workshops he moderated at learning institutions 
and curricula he implemented at learning institutions. The petitioner however, failed to submit evidence 
that his participation in these conferences appeared as published articles in the proceedings of the 
conferences or describe how either of these claims otherwise constitute published scholarly articles in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. As such, this evidence does not meet the 
plain language requirements of the regulation. 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that satisfies this criterion's requirements. 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
The director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. As the director relied 
on deficient translations; the record does not support the director's determination. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
A leading role should be apparent by its position in the overall organizational hierarchy and that it be 
accompanied by the role's matching duties. A critical role should be apparent from the petitioner's 
impact on the organization or the establishment's activities. The petitioner's performance in this role 
should establish whether the role was critical for an organization or establishment as a whole. The 
petitioner must demonstrate that the organizations or establishments (in the plural) have a distinguished 
reputation. 
The petitioner has claimed his eligibility based on his employment at the following organizations: 
and, for the first time on appeal, 
failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
__ . The director determined that the petitioner 
The evidence the petitioner submitted relating to consisted of a December 9, 2003, letter 
from a February 8, 1985, news article that appeared in and 
website printouts. The letter from thanked the petitioner for his work as part of the crew but 
does not explain how the petitioner performed in a leading or a critical role with this organization. In 
addition, the translation into English is not a complete full translation as required under 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(3) as the foreign language version contains the year 2004 within the message, yet the 
translation does not include this number. The 1985 article titled, ' ' 
indicates that the petitioner was the director of theater and television and woulo take charge of new soap 
operas and Venevision's miniseries. Merely documenting the petitioner's job title is insufficient. The 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
submitted evidence fails to describe how the petitioner contributed to 
not explain how his role fit within the overall hierarchy of the company. 
as a whole and does 
The evidence the petitioner submitted relating to consisted of a June 
11, 2007, letter from ~ an 
April 16, 2006, news article that appeared in foreign language printouts from 
that are not accompanied by certified translations into English; and evidence originating 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.10 See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 
540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). The letter and the news article demonstrate that the petitioner worked as a 
director 
for While the petitioner established his job title, the submitted evidence fails to 
describe how the petitioner contributed to as a whole or how his position fits within the overall 
hierarchy. The documentation in a foreign language originating from is of no evidentiary value 
as the petitioner failed to comply with the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), which requires the 
petitioner to ensure that any foreign language document was "accompanied by a full English language 
translation." 
The evidence before the director relating to included documentation about 
the organization. The petitioner failed to document his positions held within this organization. On 
appeal, the petitioner provides a portion of a contract signed on January 1, 1981, by both the petitioner 
and President of The contract demonstrates the 
petitioner worked for this organization, but continues to fall short of documenting any positions the 
petitioner occupied within The petitioner also provides a foreign language 
article on appeal that appeared in on February 8, 1980. The translation of this 
article, " ." is only a summary translation, which does not comply with the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Additionally, the translation is accompanied by a photocopy of a translator's 
certification, which also fails to comply with 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(3). 
The evidence pertaining to included 
letters demonstrating that the petitioner served as an instructor and as a professor for the university. 
While the evidence establishes his job title, the submitted evidence fails to describe the duties the 
petitioner performed for the organization in his various roles or establish how his position fit within the 
10 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 
optmon does not correspond with the state of. knowledge in the relevant fields. See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on April 30, 2013, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
overall hierarchy of the organization. The petitioner also failed to provide any evidence demonstrating 
the university enjoys a distinguished reputation. 
Although the petitioner submitted evidence relating to the various positions he held at the 
and with he failed to provide any 
evidence relating to the reputation of these organizations as required by the plain language of the 
criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits new evidence related to The petitioner provided two 
articles that are both accompanied by summary translations that do not meet the requirements of 
translated evidence pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Additionally, although both deficient 
translations assert that the petitioner directed one show for the evidence fails to 
demonstrate that the petitioner performed in a leading or in a critical role for the organization as a 
whole. 
Consequently, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of 
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 plain language of the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) requires the petitioner. to submit 
evidence of a "high salary or other significantly high remuneration for services, in relation to others in 
the field." Average salary information for those performing work in a related but distinct occupation 
with different responsibilities is not a proper basis for comparison. The petitioner must submit 
documentary evidence of the earnings of those in his occupation performing similar work at the top 
level of the field.11 The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that he has 
earned a "high salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing 
similar work during 
the same time period. See Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 
1994) (considering professional golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Grimson v. 
INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. at 444-45 (comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of 
other NHL defensemen). 
The record contains a contract for a soap opera, for which the petitioner submitted a complete 
translation on appeal, states that the petitioner will receive $10,000 for the creation of a pilot, $50,000 
11 While the AAO acknowledges that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, the AAO notes that in 
Racine v. INS, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated, "[T]he plain reading of the 
statute suggests that the appropriate field of comparison is not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of all the 
hockey players at all levels of play; but rather, Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the 
NHL. This interpretation is consistent with ... the definition of the term 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the 
discussion set forth in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
for the storyline and $5,000 per episode that he completes. According to the foreign language 
document, the producers are affiliated with The contract also stipulates that one 
episode is 45 minutes in duration; however, the company did not place limits on how many hours the 
petitioner was afforded to complete each episode. The contract also did not place a time limit on the 
completion of all 120 episodes agreed upon within the document. 
The petitioner provided two sources of remuneration in the field with which to compare the contract. 
The first is from a private corporation named . and relates to 
television directors, not screenwriters. This organization provided a report in which the salaries or 
wages were calculated based on annual, monthly, weekly, and hourly remuneration figures. The 
contract the petitioner provided does not indicate whether his salary is calculated on an annual, monthly, 
weekly, or hourly basis. As such, the petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence for comparison 
with the per script remuneration of screenwriters. 
The petitioner also provided a website printout from the Foreign Labor Certification (FLC) Data 
Center's Online Wage Library for producers, directors, program directors, talent directors and technical 
directors, but not screenwriters. Once again, these hourly wages for producers and directors do not 
provide a meaningful comparison to the petitioner's documented compensation per script as a 
screenwriter. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted documentation that meets the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown· by box office receipts or record, 
cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
The petitioner provided multiple forms of evidence in support of his claims under this criterion. The 
director determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. As indicated 
above, the petitioner must provide evidence of commercial success, not through awards or accolades, 
but through box office receipts or through sales. The regulation contains a separate criterion to account 
for prizes or awards at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). The petitioner failed to provide any evidence of"box 
office receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales" as required by the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x). 
One of the previously discussed letters from states: "The spectacles [relating to his play" 
I have caused extraordinary cultural fame and overpassed the records of 
representations and ticket sales in the theatrical field for these countries and source of work of more 
than 100 actors and more than 50 technicians and designers, all of high professional quality." The 2009 
article in the indicates that when' 'first opened in 1982, it "remained in 
billboards, with resounding impact in the public for four months in a row. It is one of the biggest hits of 
the Venezuelan Theater." The translation of this article is accompanied by a photocopied certification. 
The letter and article provide only general information rather than the actual ticket sales data of the 
petitioner's show. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 18 
Based on the failure to provide specific box office data and the deficient translations, the petitioner has 
not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy this criterion. 
C. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
D. Final Merits Determination 
Although the petitioner failed to satisfy at least three of the evidentiary criteria and a final merits 
determination is not required, the AAO will perform a final merits determination in order to address 
substantive deficiencies beyond the technical problems with the translations. In accordance with the 
Kazarian opinion, the AAO will conduct 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," 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2); and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international acclaim 
and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not made such a 
showing. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. 
Virtually all of the petitioner's awards for specific works date from the 1970s through the early 1990s. 
Within this span, the petitioner only demonstrated the receipt of one nationally or internationally 
recognized award, the , and submitted secondary evidence of a second 
As evidence of awards in the last two decades, the petitioner documented a municipal 
award and the receipt of a decoration of order of unknown significance. The petitioner also submitted 
secondary evidence of the receipt of one career award. The petitioner submitted no evidence that this 
award, assuming he received it, recognized any recent achievements. The receipt of one nationally 
recognized award more than two decades prior to the petition's priority date is not representative of 
sustained acclaim. The statute and regulations, however, require the petitioner to demonstrate that 
his national or international acclaim has been sustained. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(i), and 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). 
Regarding the documentation submitted under the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's associations require outstanding achievements of their 
members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the petitioner's field. Such lesser 
memberships are not indicative of or consistent with a level of expertise indicating that the petitioner is 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
With regard to the published material criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), numerous articles are 
not dated and of those that do bear a publication date, the majority are from the 1990s or earlier. The 
petitioner provided four articles from a qualifying publication with only one article being published 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
after the 1990s. This is an insufficient showing of sustained acclaim. See section 203(b)(1)(A) of the 
Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
With regard to the petitioner's judging experience, merely evaluating the work of undergraduates falls 
substantially short of demonstrating the petitioner's judging experience is among those in the top of his 
field. Other instances of being selected to serve as a judge, or serving as a judge without specifying 
what type of event he was judging is not representative of one who has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top of his field. 
With regard to the original contributions of major significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
as discussed above, although the petitioner demonstrated one contribution, he has not met the plain 
language requirements of this criterion, which requires contributions, in the plural. See section 
203(b)(1)(A) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. The 
level at which the petitioner's contributions have impacted his field, as a whole, is the determining 
factor as to whether the petitioner is among that small percentage who has risen to the very top of the 
field of endeavor and has sustained national or international acclaim at such an elevated level. See 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The petitioner's innovation with occurred more than three 
decades prior to the petition's filing date, which fails to demonstrate a record of sustained acclaim. 
Although the petitioner's plays are notable, and one play has been revived within the last decade, this is 
not sufficient to show that the petitioner has sustained any acclaim he might have previously enjoyed. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
With regard to the authorship of scholarly articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the 
petitioner has not established that his authorship of four books and moderating workshops at learning 
institutions are evidence of authorship of scholarly articles. More significantly with respect to the final 
merits determination, the petitioner has not documented how well these books have sold. Therefore, 
these examples are also not demonstrative of a publication record that is· consistent with sustained 
national or international acclaim or status among the small percentage at the top of the petitioner's field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of the display of his work pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). Had the petitioner submitted compliant translations of this evidence, it would not 
document his sustained acclaim or status as one of the small percentage at the top of his field. It is 
inherent to the field of playwriting to have one's plays performed. The ability to make a living in one's 
field, even a competitive field, is not evidence that one is among the small percentage at the top of his 
field. Moreover, the petitioner provided little evidence of the display of recent work other than a revival 
of an old play at theaters of undocumented reputation. Thus, the evidence of display fails to 
demonstrate his sustained acclaim. The petitioner's contract to write for a television soap opera for an 
unidentified network is not evidence that he is among the small percentage at the top of his field. 
Regarding the documentation submitted for the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner failed to establish that the duties he performed for various 
organizations and the record lacks evidence relating to the nexus between his performance and the 
organization's success. Thus, the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate ·that the petitioner has 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
achieved a level of expertise indicating that he is among that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field. 
Regarding the petitioner's salary or remuneration being high compared to others in his field, he 
submitted evidence for a different occupation than the one outlined in his contract. Thus, the petitioner 
has not established that the remuneration outlined in the contract is representative of one "of that small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
In reference to the petitioner's commercial success under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(x), 
while it is notable that asserted that one of the petitioner's plays caused extraordinary cultural 
fame and overpassed the records of ticket sales, it is not a substitute for more specific box office data 
which is the measure of such claimed success. Regardless, this evidence appears to relate to the original 
run of" ,"not the recent revival. Thus, this evidence is not probative of sustained 
acclaim at the time the petitioner filed the petition. · 
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 the field of endeavor. 
A review of the evidence in the aggregate, however, does not establish that the petitioner has 
distinguished himself to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. The 
evidence is not persuasive that the petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all 
others in his field at a national or international level. Therefore, the petitioner has not established 
eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(l)(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.