dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

(b)(6)
DATE: JUN 2 1 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
MDR-etdnrlv 
C 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
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 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.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.P.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.P.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 February 15, 2012. On June 9, 
2012, the director served the petitioner with a request for evidence (RFE). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the RFE, the director issued his decision on October 22, 2012. On appeal, the 
petitioner submits a statement with new documentary evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the 
AAO upholds the director's ultimate determination that 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 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Page3 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
U.S. Citizenship and hnmigration Services (USCIS) and legacy hnmigration 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. /d.; 
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 USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns 
about the significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have 
been raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." /d. at 1121-22. 
The court stated that the AAO's evaluation rested on an improper understanding of the regulations. 
Instead of parsing the significance of evidence as part of the initial inquiry, the court stated that "the 
proper procedure is to count the types of evidence provided (which the AAO did)," and if the petitioner 
failed to submit sufficientevidence, "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 
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. 
1 Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
(b)(6)
Page4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Translated Evidence 
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 
comport with the regulation. Instead, the translations are accompanied by a single, blanket certification 
that does not identifY any specific document or documents to which it pertains. The petitioner also 
submitted translations that are not accompanied by any translator's certification. Because these 
translations do not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), they have no probative value. Even if the 
translations satisfied the regulation, the director correctly concluded that the petitioner's evidence does 
not establish eligibility. 
B. Evidentiary Criterii 
Documentation of the alien ·s receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
mvards 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. 
In his decision, the director discussed the five awards claimed by the petitioner and determined that the 
petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner contests the 
director's determination relating to only two of those awards. As the petitioner appears to have 
abandoned his claims regarding the remaining awards, only those awards addressed by the petitioner on 
appeal will be discussed. 
The first award, the claimed 
from the issuing entity's founder, 
is supported with a letter 
--------- _) a website printout from 
2 
On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet and/or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of 
evidence not discussed in this decision. Therefore, the AAO does not make any determination regarding whether 
the petitioner meets the remaining categories of evidence. 
(b)(6)
PageS 
and an unsigned letter dated August 14, 2012, on letterhead. 
Regarding the letter from although written by an individual in a position with 
knowledge of the award, the letter (as well as the unsigned letter) is not primary evidence that the award 
is recognized nationally or internationally beyond the awarding entity. Such recognition can be 
demonstrated, for instance, through national or international media coverage. A national or 
international organization may issue lesser awards that merely receive local or regional recognition, 
which do not meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. Although the petitioner has 
submitted a printout from the petitioner failed to establish the significance of the 
publication and therefore that a reference on its website is indicative of national or international 
recognition. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "This award is being awarded nationally and since 1997 to nationally or 
internationally renowned literary figures of _ literature field. Therefore, this award is [a] 
nationally recognized award for excellence in the field." Merely repeating the language of the statute or 
regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 
1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 
WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, 
Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). The final 
determination of · whether evidence meets the plain language requirements of a regulation lies with 
US CIS. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. at 795. 
The second award the petitioner discusses on appeal is the . The 
petitioner claimed this award in response to the director's RFE and provided evidence that is in a 
foreign language. This foreign language document is accompanied by the deficient blanket translation 
discussed above. In addition, the director noted a discrepancy regarding the date the petitioner actually 
received this award. The petitioner asserts that no discrepancy exists and claims that he was given the 
award in 2008 and subsequently received the certificate for this award in 2011. The petitioner submits 
no primary documentation to support his claim and to establish his receipt of this award in 2008. Going 
on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings . Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). It is 
incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the record by independent objective 
evidence. Any attempt to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies will not suffice unless the 
petitioner submits competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
Even if the issue regarding the discrepant dates had been resolved, which it has not, the regulation 
requires that each prize or award be nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field 
of endeavor. The petitioner has failed to provide evidence of the national or international recognition of 
this award. 
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page6 
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 for 
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). 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. Professional or major trade publications are intended for 
experts in the field or in the industry. To qualify as major media, the publication should have 
significant national or intemational distribution and be published in a predominant national language. 
The petitioner _IJrovided several articles at the time he filed the petition, three of which were published in 
and the others on Intemet sites. such as _ Each of the foreign 
language articles is accompanied by the aforementioned blanket translation, and as such, are of no 
evidentiary value. The petitioner also submitted English language articles, but failed to support these 
articles with evidence such as circulation or distribution statistics relating to the publishing entities so as 
to establish they are major publications or media. In response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted a 
letter from indicating the petitioner is a well-known writer and that he has written 
several articles for The director determined that although the articles were about the 
petitioner and his work, the record lacked sufficient evidence to demonstrate the material appeared in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
The petitioner submits evidence on appeal relating to but not to any of the Intemet 
sites. The letter from the Chief Editor of states that this paper is the "one and only 
newspaper that is widely circulated in US." The petitioner offers no primary documentary 
evidence to support the claims contained in this letter. USCIS need not accept self-serving assertions of 
circulation data. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) a.ff' d 317 F. App'x 
680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to rely on self-serving assertions on the 
cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). · 
Therefore, 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. 
The director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The AAO affirms the 
director's favorable determination as it relates to this criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page7 
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 the plural) in his field in 
which he intends to engage once admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. 
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 petitioner provided three books of poems. The director determined the record contained 
insufficient evidence and served an RFE asserting: (1) the petitioner's work was not scholarly; (2) he 
did not establish which regulatory required publication type his works constituted; and (3) it appeared 
that the petitioner had published the books himself. The petitioner responded to the RFE mainly 
focusing on whether his work was scholarly. The petitioner also submitted a conclusory statement that 
his evidence met the requirement that the articles appear in professional or major trade publications or 
other major media. It is not clear from the RFE response statement under which publication type or 
major media that the petitioner asserted the evidence should be classified. The director determined that 
the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. 
On appeal, the petitioner provides new evidence in the form of a December 10, 2012, letter from 
Proprietor of which is the publisher of the petitioner's book of 
poems. The letter's author claims that is one of the most popular book publishing 
companies in and explains that the government restricts the number of books published to 
1,000. The petitioner offers no primary documentary evidence to support the claims made in this letter. 
USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material ofthepublisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 
5105 SJO. 
Consequently, the petitioner has failed to establish that he meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
C. Continuing to work in the area of expertise in the United States 
The statute and regulations require that the petitioner seeks to continue work in his area of expertise in 
the United States. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A)(ii); 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). Such evidence may include letter(s) from prospective employer(s), evidence of 
prearranged commitments such as contracts, or a statement from the petitioner detailing plans on how 
he intends to continue his work in the United States. /d. The petitioner initially submitted a letter 
(b)(6)
PageS 
indicating his decision "to initiate some media venture like publication of a print media and possible 
online broadcast radio" and submits lists of potential sponsors, advertisers and subscribers. 
The director determined that the petitioner's letter regarding "his plan to launch a national level 
newspaper in the United States" and to begin a radio program was insufficient and the petitioner failed 
to demonstrate "that [his] plan is likely to come to fruition:." The director noted that the petitioner's 
work experience was in areas other than the literary journalism. 
Although the director's concerns regarding the petitioner's work in the United States are 
understandable, this work history is not incompatible with the finding that the petitioner has been and 
will continue to work in his area of expertise. The record contains numerous letters and documents that 
reflect the petitioner has continued to work in his field. The petitioner's statement regarding his plans 
and the additional documents and letters in the record from those with whom the petitioner has worked 
and will continue to work satisfy the regulatory requirements. Accordingly, the 
AAO withdraws the director's adverse determination as it relates to this statutory and regulatory 
provision. 
D. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
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. While the AAO concludes that the 
evidence is not indicative of a level of expertise consistent with the small percentage at the very top of 
the field or sustained national or international acclaim, the AAO need not explain that conclusion in a 
(b)(6)
Page9 
final merits determination. 3 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the 
antecedent regulatory requirement of three types of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361; Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. at 766 (citing Matter of Brantigan, 11 I&N Dec. 
493 (BIA 1966)). Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal will be 
dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 
The AAO maintains de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d 
Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination 
as the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). See also section 103(a)(1) of 
the Act; section 204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.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 USCIS, is the sole authority with the jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).