dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

. Identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
iDvasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: 
JUl 232012 
Ollice: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit)' 
u.s. Cili:lcnship anu Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (i\!\O) 
20 Mas~achusc[ts Ave., N.W., MS 2()90 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
US. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Abilitv Pursuant to Section 
203(h)(I)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § I 153(b)( Il(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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 ollice. 
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 Of a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form 1-29013, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fcc of $630. The 
specific requirements [or 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)(1)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
\\<ww.uscis.gov 
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)(l)(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.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 October 21, 2010. On November 
4, 2010, the director served the petitioner with a notice of intent to deny (NOlO). After receiving the 
petitioner's response to the NOlO, the director issued his decision on December 20, 20lO. On appeal, 
the petitioner submits a brief with no 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. 
l. 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 
arc 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 
Page 3 
(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 Wist 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. lei.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(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. USClS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2(10). 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.! 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 "Iinal merits determination." Id. 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)." ld. 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. ld. 
I Specifically, the court stated that the AAO had unilaterally imposed novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements beyond those set forth in the regulations at 8 CF.R. § 204,5(h)(3)(iv) and 8 CF,R. 
§ 204,5(h)(3)(vi). 
Page 4 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Standard of Proof and Totality of the Evidence 
Counsel's appellate brief indicated that the submitted evidence demonstrated that it was more likely 
than not that the petitioner qualified for the instant classification. The record does not support counsel's 
assertion that the director held the petitioner's evidence to an elevated standard beyond that which is 
required by most administrative immigration cases, the preponderance of the evidence standard of 
proof. This standard is outlined in Matter of Chawathe, 25I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010), which 
indicated that in evaluating evidence. USClS must "examine each piece of evidence f()r 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." USC IS determines the truth not by the 
quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Matter of Chaw at he, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 citing Malter of 
E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989). The Chawathe decision also stated: 
[T]he "preponderance of the evidence" standard does not relieve the petItIoner or 
applicant from satisfying the basic evidentiary requirements set by regulation. There are 
no regulations relating to a corporation's eligibility as an "American firm or 
corporation" under section 316(b) of the Act. Had the regulations required specific 
evidence, the applicant would have been required to submit that evidence. Cf il C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3) (2006) (requiring that specific objective evidence be submitted to 
demonstrate eligibility as an alien of extraordinary ability). 
Matter of Chaw at he, 25 I&N Dec. at 375 n.7. Using this standard, the AAO concurs with the director's 
ultimate conclusion that the evidence does not establish the petitioner's eligibility. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Documentation oJ the alien's receipt oJ lesser nationally or internationally recoxnized prizes or 
awards for excellence ill the field of endeavor. 
This criterion contains several evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. According to the plain 
language of the regulation at il C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the evidence must establish that the alien be 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 evidence that each prize or award is one for excellence in the field of endeavor rather than 
simply for participating in or contributing to the event. The petitioner must satisfy all of these elements 
to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
2 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the regulatory categories of evidence not 
discussed in this decision. 
The petitioner provided an Internet printout from his own website of a photograph purportedly of the 
petitioner containing a caption that indicated the petitioner received the journalist of the year award, a 
second Internet from his own website listing three awards the petitioner allegedly received, a 
letter indicated the of the year award, a 
De(:errlber 12, 2008, a letter and a letter from_ 
_ The director determined the petitioner met the this criterion. The AAO 
departs from the director's eligibility detennination related to this criterion for the reasons outlined 
below. 
First, the petitioner has not established how an award for journalism is an award for excellence in the 
petitioner's current field of endeavor, screenwriting and producing. Moreover, the captioned 
photograph and list of awards originating from the petitioner's own website constitute self-promotional 
material. This evidence is not accompanied by any additional corroborating evidence. USCIS need not 
rely on the self-promotional material of the petitioner. See Braga v. POlllos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (c. 
D. CA July 6, 2007) ajj'd 2009 WL 604888 (9
th 
Cir. 2009) (concluding that the AAO did not have to 
rely on self-serving assertions on the cover of a as to the magazine's status as major media). 
Rp.,p"rriin,(1 the undated letter from indicated that the received the _ 
for However, the petitioner 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2) provides: 
Suhmitting secondary evidence and affidavits. (i) General. The non-existence or other 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. If a required 
document, such as a birth or marriage certificate, does not exist or cannot be obtained, 
an applicant or petitioner must demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as 
church or school records, pertinent to the facts at issue. If secondary evidence also does 
not exist or cannot be obtained, the applicant or petitioner must demonstrate the 
unavailability of both the required document and relevant secondary evidence, and 
submit two or more affidavits, sworn to or affirmed by persons who are not parties to the 
petition who have direct personal knowledge of the event and circumstances. Secondary 
evidence must overcome the unavailability of primary evidence, and affidavits must 
overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence. 
Where the regulations require specific, objective evidence of achievements, such as awards, the primary 
evidence of such awards would be copies of the awards themselves. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i) provides that the non-existence or unavailability of required evidence creates a 
presumption of ineligibility. According to the same regulation, only where the petitioner demonstrates 
that primary evidence does not exist or cannot be obtained may the petitioner rely on secondary 
evidence and only where secondary evidence is demonstrated to be unavailable may the npllititlnp 
on affidavits. There is no primary evidence demonstrating the petitioner received 
In this case, while the petitioner submitted a letter from a colleague confinning the 
receipt of the award, the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence demonstrating that 
primary evidence and secondary evidence do not exist or cannot be obtained. 
Page 6 
Regardless, the verification letter that the petitioner provides is not an affidavit as it was not sworn to or 
affinned by the declarant before an officer authorized to administer oaths or affirmations who has, 
having confinned the declarant's identity, administered the requisite oath or affinnation. See Black's 
Law Dictionary 58 (9th Ed., West 2(09). Nor, in lieu of having been signed before an officer 
authorized to administer oaths or affirmations, do they contain the requisite statement, permitted by 
Federal law, that the signers, in signing the statements, certify the truth of the statements, under penalty 
of perjury. 28 U.s.c. § 1746. The petitioner has not demonstrated that the required evidence is 
unavailable or cannot be obtained, and therefore the petitioner is presumed ineligible pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2). As such, the AAO will not consider the above listed evidence regarding the 
petitioner's awards as it does not confonn to the regulatory requirements. 
2008, certificate indicated that the petitioner "was honored with--" 
for being the author of the script and for being the Gener~ 
staging more than three hundred functions." (Capitalization in the original.) 
This certificate failed to indicate the name of the award that the petitioner received. Additionally, the 
petitioner failed to provide evidence this . national or international recognition. The 
March 13, the petitioner for his work on a 
m which purportedly won the as the mini-series of the year. 
The petitioner failed to provide primary evidence of this award, and pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(2), 
this evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that th~the plain language requirements of 
this criterion. Regarding the July 2010 letter fro~ the letter's author did not indicate 
any award that the petitioner may have received. The letter merely indicated that the author has known 
the petitioner for 25 years and that the petitioner has been the author of soap operas and that he has also 
left his mark on literature. 
Based on the foregoing, the AAO departs from the director's favorable detennination as it relates to this 
criterion. As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements 
of this criterion. 
Documentation 0/ the alien's memhership in associations in the .field for which classificalion is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their member;; asjudged by reawnized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings lor this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. As the petitioner does not contest the director's findings relating 
to this criterion on appeal, the AAO concurs with the director's findings. 
Page 7 
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 primarily 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 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.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 petitioner provided numerous articles in both the English and a foreign language. The director 
determined that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion. Within counsel's 
appellate brief, she indicated that detailed information was submitted for each form of evidence 
submitted under this criterion. 
While the petitioner did provide more evidence in response to the NOID, most of the evidence 
submitted lacked corroborating evidence to demonstrate that the published material appeared in a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. Without such required evidence, the 
petitioner cannot demonstrate that he has satisfied this criterion's . The 
evidence in to the director's NOID relates to 
Regarding the evidence relating t~ the subject of the article is a soap opera rather than the 
article being about the petitioner and relating to his work in the field. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(h)(3)(iii) requires that the published material be "about the alien." See, 
e.g, Negro-Plump" v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2(08) (upholding a finding 
that articles about a show are not about the actor). Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(i)(3)(i)(C) (requiring 
evidence about the alien's work). Additionally, the petitioner provided self-promotional material from 
elnuevodia.com reflecting the circulation data of the paper. This evidence cited to and indicated that the 
circulation data was obtained by what appears to be an auditing report, but the petitioner failed to 
provide independent evidence from the source of this auditing report to demonstrate the independent 
nature of the data. USClS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. Sec 
Braga v. POll los, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) aff'd 2009 WL 604888 (91h Cir. 20(9) 
(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). Furthermore, while the petitioner provided less than 
sufficient evidence of this publication's circulation data, he has also f~e the circulation 
data of similar newspapers to compare with the circulation statistics of~ The petitioner 
Page 8 
also provided no information related to the distribution data to establish this published 
material has a national rather than a regional reach. Publications with only a regional reach are not 
considered to be major media. Consequently, the petitioner has failed to establish is a 
form of major media. As such, the petitioner has failed to document that this evidence meets all the 
requirements of this criterion. 
Regarding the evidence relating to_ and to the petitioner provided evidence 
originating from Wikipedia. With regard to information there arc no assurances about 
the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site? See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael 
Mllkasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8
th 
Cir. 2(08). As such, the petitioner may not rely upon this evidence to assist 
in satisfying the regulatory requirements under this criterion. 
Regarding the evidence relating to the petitioner provided self-promotional material 
from the publication that provided the nature and history of the paper. USCIS need not rely on 
the self-promotional of the publisher. See Braga, No. CY 06 5105 SJO. Furthermore, in 
reference to the being a form of major media, the petitioner failed to establish the 
circulation data The petitioner also provided no information related to the 
distribution data of the to establish the published material has a national rather than a 
regional reach within country. Publications with only a regional reach are not considered to be major 
media and the petitioner has not established this publication is a professional or major trade publication 
as required by the regulation. 
Based on the aforementioned deficient evidence, the petitioner has not established that he has met the 
plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence olthe alien's participation. either individually or on a panel. as a judge of (he work 0/ 
others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is sOllght. 
This criterion requires not only that the petitioner was selected to serve as a judge, but also that the 
petitioner is able to produce evidence that he actually participated as a judge, rather than merely being 
selected to serve as a jUdge. The phrase "a judge" implies a formal designation in a judging capacity, 
either on a panel or individually as specified at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Additionally, these duties 
must have been directly judging the work of others in the same or an allied field in which the petitioner 
J 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 worlting to develop a common resource of human knowledge. 
The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please he advised that 
nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with 
complete, accurate or reliable ini()rmation. . .. Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the ini(lrmation i()und 
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 
h!lp:jjell,\vikiI'Clli",t)rg!\VikiiWikiPedi,,:(JCJI~mL<!i;;claimer, [accessed on July 10, 2012, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding.] 
Page 9 
seeks an immigrant classification within the present petition. The petitioner must submit evidence 
satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
from. 
and a joint letter from both The 
director determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The AAO departs the 
director's eligibility detennination related to this criterion for the reasons outlined below. 
~a document 
__ regarding the 1999 
"You have been assigned as a 
The document also provided other infonnation related to the upcoming Emmy event. 
undated, but the language contained within the document makes it apparent that it is 
merely notification of the petitioner's selection as a juror for the event instead of evidence 
demonstrating that he actually served as a juror or as a judge for the event. Selection as a judge is 
insufficient to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, which requires evidence of actual 
service as a judge. The petitioner's 1999 selection as a judge will, however be considered within the 
final merits determination. 
petitioner had been to serve as a in the preliminary event. 
letter lacked any indication that the petitioner had perfonned in a judging role for her organization. This 
letter did indicate that the petitioner's name would appear in the awards publication, the Almanac; 
however, the petitioner failed to provide such evidence. As the mere selection as a judge is insufficient 
to meet the plain language requirements of this criterion, letter is insufIicient to 
demonstrate that the petitioner has satisfied the regulatory requirements at 8 .R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
letter will however, be considered within the final merits detennination. 
The document titled 
replied 
the [,U''''''Jl 
" also merely provided infonnation relating to the date 
and contained a separate portion under which it appeared that the petitioner 
indicating that he would attend the event. While this evidence contributed to 
was selected to serve as a judge for the Emmy event, it does not 
demonstrate that he actually served as a judge. 
~ also provided a letter 
_ dated June 23, 2010. Counsel 
how he has sought [the petitioner's] expert judgment," and counsel quoted a 
letter. However, while _ indicated that he has known the petitioner for close 
letter contained no attestation regarding the petitioner performing as a judge. As such, 
letter will not assist in the petitioner's efforts to demonstrate that he has satisfied the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
The final form of evidence the 
dated June 30, 2010. 
to the judging criterion is a letter 
was the President and CEO 
ilinnPf serving as a judge. letter will not contribute to the 
petitioner meeting the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
As none of the submitted evidence shows that the petitioner has actually performed as a judge, the AAO 
departs from the director's favorable determination as it relates to this criterion. As such, the petitioner 
has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly. artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contrihutions 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 
has some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3'd Cir. 1995) 
quoted in AI'WU v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619, 626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2(03). Contributions of major 
significance connotes that the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field. The petitioner 
must submit evidence satisfying all of these elements to meet the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
The petitioner provided several expert letters as evidence under this criterion. The director determined 
that the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion by stating: "[Y]ou have submitted 
letters of recommendation. However, none of them can define exactly what original artistic 
contribution of major significance you have made, and how you have impacted your field of endeavor." 
On appeal, counsel merely points to three of the previously submitted expert letters. 
dUI.lIlJICU the first two letters noted on appeal. Counsel's appellate 
delm~,nstrate the petitioner's crileri,nn "in the form of 
emphasis in the original.) 
indicated that he 
and he has known the petitioner for 25 of those described the petitioner's skills and 
uU'U""~" but he failed to specifically identify the impact the petitioner has had on the industry as a 
an actress, broadcaster, and spokesperson, also spoke of the petitioner's abilities as 
nrClnll"pr and writer, but she too failed to identify an influence wherein the petitioner has 
affected the field in a manner which is considered to be a contribution of 
authored the final letter noted in the appellate brief. 
spokesperson, noted some of the petitioner's accomplishments and his abilities, but 
did not explain how the petitioner has impacted his field as a whole 
accomplishments. 
• actor and 
, letter 
It is not enough to be skillful and knowledgeable and to have others attest to those talents. An alien 
must have demonstrably impacted his field in order to meet this regulatory criterion. The reference 
letters submitted by the petitioner briefly discuss his artistic skills, but they do not provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner's work has significantly impacted the field at large or otherwise 
constitutes original contributions of major significance. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BlA) has 
held 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 cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only 
encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where 
available." Id. 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 J030, 1036 (9
th 
Cir. 2(09) a/I'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, 
191&N Dec. 791. 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USClS is ultimately responsible for making the tinal 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from 
experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Malter 
of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be 
evidence as to "laet"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in 
accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of SojJici, 
22I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Thus, the 
content of the writers' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's reputation are 
important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited by an alien in 
support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexisting, independent evidence of original 
contributions of major significance. 
As a result, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion. 
Evidence of/he alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field in professional or major trade 
publicatiollS or other major media. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this criterion and found that the petitioner failed to 
establish his eligibility, On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings for this 
criterion or offer additional arguments. As the petitioner does not contest the director's findings relating 
to this criterion on appeal, the AAO concurs with the director's findings. 
Evidence of the di.lplay ojthe alien's work in thefield at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
This criterion contains multiple evidentiary elements the petitioner must satisfy. The plain language 
requirements of this criterion requires that the work in the field is directly attributable to the alien. The 
alien's work also must have been displayed at an artistic exhibitions or showcases (in the plural). While 
neither the regulation nor existing precedent speak to what constitutes an exhibition or a showcase, 
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines exhibition as, "a public showing (as of works of art).,,4 
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary also defines showcase as, "a setting, occasion, or medium for 
exhibiting something or someone especially in an attractive or favorable aspect.'" Dictionaries are not 
of themselves evidence, but they may be referred to as aids to the memory and understanding of the 
court. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U,S. 304, 306 (1893). Therefore, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate 
that the display of his work in the field claimed under this criterion occurred at artistic exhibitions or at 
artistic showcases. The petitioner must satisfy all of these elements to meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
Counsel claims on appeal that "each DVD of television productions by [the petitioner] that were aired 
Nationally and Internationally and were presented within the underlying 1-140 package should have 
been considered as evidence of [the petitioner's] work having been on display at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases because they are definitely 'showings' to viewers by definition." Counsel's interpretation is 
contrary to the plain language of the criterion, which requires that the exhibitions be artistic. USCIS 
may not utilize novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5. 
Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1221, citing Love Korean Church v. Chertojf, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir.20(8). 
Not every television show is an artistic exhibition or showcase as defined above. 
As the petitioner's field is not within the realm of visual artists and he has not created tangible pieces of 
art that were on display at artistic exhibitions or artistic showcases, he cannot submit qualifying 
evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high remulleratioll for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
4 See hllp:f.Lwww.merriaIll:.\v,!Jsler.comJdictionarv/cxhibition, [accessed on June 19,2012, a copy ofwhich is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding, 1 
.I See htl!2;i!\V\V\V,I.ll_cLriai.P.:YC.I<h,leL,jJJl]jj,ljqi,V1ary/showcase, [accessed on June 19, 2012, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding.] 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.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." 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 perfonning 
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 a/so Crimson v. 
INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); MUlli v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL 
defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
The petitioner failed to provide evidence related to this criterion at the time he filed the petition. In 
response to the NOm the petitioner provided a certificate signed by Development 
Manager dated August 10, 2005, and a salary scale, both in a The director 
determined that the petitioner met the requirements of this criterion. The director stated: "[YJou 
submitted a notarized certificate of employment dated 10, 2005 showing you earned a monthly 
salary of $4,951.00. You also submitted a copy of the that shows the basic average 
monthly salary of $1 ,092.34." The AAO departs from determination related to 
this criterion for the reasons outlined below. 
The letter from-'certified that the petitioner was employed as a program producer from June 
14, 2005, through the date of the letter, August 10, 2005, and was compensated at a monthly ratc of 
4,951 local currency dollars. The translation does not include the name of the company, which is listed 
on the bottom of the letterhead as The translation is also defective because 
while the foreign language document company paid the petitioner "$4.951,00.- (Pesos 
cuatro mil novecientos cincuenta y uno con 00/1(0)," the translation states that the company paid the 
petitioner "$4,951.00 (Dollars four thousand nine hundred fifty-one and 00/100)." (Emphasis added to 
both quotes.) The AAO does not have to be competent in Spanish to know that the foreign language 
document is referencing Pesos while the translation is referencing Dollars.' 
scale is accompanied by a translation into English titled, 
The regulation requires that: "Any document 
"While the AAO acknowledges that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note thai in Racine v. 
INS. 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (ND. III. Feb. 16, 1995), the court stated, "[T]he plain reading ofthe statule suggests 
that the appropriate ficJd of comparison is not a comparison of Racine's ability with that of al1 the hockey players 
at al1 levels of play; but rather. Racine's ability as a professional hockey player within the NHL. This 
interpretation is consistent with ... the definition of the term 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), and the discussion set forth 
in the preamble at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99." 
7 The symbol for the is the same as for the U.S. dol1ar. "$," See ,,\~\V,xc,c()m!CUrll;ncy!ars, 
argentine,],c,,) (accessed July3. 2012). 
Page 14 
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." (Emphasis added.) 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). As a 
result, extract and summary translations are not considered to be full translations and are insufficient to 
meet the requirements of the regulation. Consequently, this document is not probative and will not be 
accorded any evidentiary weight in this proceeding. Even if the AAO were to accept this extract 
translation, the evidence would remain insufficient to demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility under this 
criterion as the "basic average monthly salary" (noted in the director's decision) and the "Basic Monthly 
Salary Rate" (contained in the extract translation) are not appropriate measures to compare against the 
petitioner's salary. The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.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 basic salary information is not a proper basis for comparison to 
the petitioner's total compensation. The petitioner must submit documentary evidence of what 
constitutes a high salary or significantly high other remuneration among those in his occupation 
performing similar work. R The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that 
he has earned a "high salary" or "signiticantly 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 Crimson v. 
INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHI. 
enforcers); Mllni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) (comparing salary of NHL 
defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
Consequently, the AAO departs from the director's favorable determination as it relates to this criterion. 
Therefore, the petitioner has not submitted evidence 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. 
This criterion anticipates a petitioner will establish eligibility through volume of sales or box office 
receipts as a measure of the petitioner's commercial success in the performing arts. 
The petitioner provided photos of a book signing, documentation from seminars given by the petitioner, 
and excerpts from expert letters as evidence under this criterion. The director determined that the 
petitioner failed to meet the requirements of this criterion as he failed to provide sales data related to the 
performing arts. 
S While the AAO acknowledges that a district court's decision is not binding precedent, we note that in Racine v. 
INS, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (N.D. 111. 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 delinition of the term [extraordinary ability at] 8 C.F.R. * 204.5(h)(2), and 
the discussion set forth in the preamhle at 56 Fed. Reg. 60898-99." 
Page 15 
On appeal. counsel asserted that the petitioner's evidence should have been considered as comparable 
evidence. However, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) only allows an alien to submit comparable 
evidence if the alien is able to demonstrate that the standards at 8 c.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) are not 
readily applicable to the alien's occupation. 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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Where an alien is simply unable to 
meet or submit documentary evidence of at least three of these criteria, the plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) does not allow for the submission of comparable evidence. As the 
petitioner has not even attempted to demonstrate that the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x) are not readily applicable to his occupation, the petitioner may not rely on comparable evidence to 
qualify for this immigrant classification. As such, no evidence that the petitioner submitted will be 
considered as comparable evidence. 
As such, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets the plain language requirements of this 
criterion and he has not attempted to explain why the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) 
are not readily applicable to his occupation. 
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 director performed this analysis and the AAO concurs with the 
director's determination. In accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step is 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 ofthe[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.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). See Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
Where the evidence of awards is only contained on the petitioner's own website, through letters from 
collaborators, and through certificates lacking the title of the award that the petitioner received, it is not 
demonstrative that this evidence is indicative of or consistent with sustained national acclaim or a level 
of expertise indicating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of his field. Moreover, a 1978 award as a journalist is not evidence of sustained acclaim as a 
screenwriter or producer in October 2010 when the petitioner filed the petition. 
With regard to the documentation submitted under the published material criterion, all of the 
petitioner's submissions were deficient in that they lacked any indication that the publications in which 
the published material appeared were publications whose scope or reach was at least at the national 
level. Without such a broad reach, none of the publications constitute a form of major media. Acclaim 
in this diminished fonn is not representative of national or international acclaim nor does it 
demonstrate the petitioner enjoys the status as one of that small percentage who have risen to the very 
top of their field of endeavor. Also, the published material spans two decades but suddenly ceases with 
a three-year gap between the final piece of published material and the petitioner's priority date. Such 
evidence is not demonstrative of sustained acclaim. 
The petitioner established two instances of 
Most notable was his selection at the 
of others in his field. 
assume that the petitioner actually served as a judge, the petitioner has not established that 
performing judging duties in a preliminary round, while notable, is commensurate with achieving a 
level of expertise indicating that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very 
~ field, especially in October 2010 when the petitioner filed the petition. Furthermore, Ms. 
_ indicated in her letter that a "blue ribbon" panel would judge the contestants in a round 
subsequent to the round in which the petitioner allegedly participated. Thus, the petitioner's reputation 
merely warranted an invitation to judge an opening round of the competition instead of a much more 
substantial final round. This evidence too falls short of showing that the petitioner enjoys the status as 
one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. 
The petitioner's claim to have made contributions of major significance rests entirely on 
recommendation letters. The letters submitted on behalf of the petitioner focus on his skills, and 
abilities to develop characters within his productions. These letters also failed to reflect any original 
contributions of major significance made by the petitioner and their simple repetition of the statutory 
and regulatory requirements is insufficient to establish his national or international acclaim. See 
Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc., 
1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Without demonstrating some measurable impact on the 
petitioner's entire field, he cannot be considered to have achieved a level of expertise demonstrating 
that the petitioner is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of his field. 
The petitioner presented deficient evidence of receiving a high salary when compared to others in his 
field. Merely eaming an above-average salary cannot demonstrate a level of expertise indicating that he 
is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of their field of endeavor. The record is 
absent evidence ret1ecting the highest salaries in the petitioner's tield. 
While the petitioner has served as screenwriter and producer of television programs that have aired, 
it is inherent to the occupation to write and produce episodes for broadcast. The petitioner's ability 
to make a living in his occupation, even a competitive one, does not place him at the top of his field. 
As stated above, pursuant to the plain reading of the statute, the appropriate comparison is with those 
successfully working in the petitioner's field. Racine, 1995 WL 153319 at *4 (concluding that the 
appropriate field of comparison for a hockey player is not all hockey players at all levels of play, but 
professional hockey players within the National Hockey League), See also Matter of Price, 20 I&N 
Dec. 953, 955 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (rejecting a blanket rule for all athletes playing in the major 
leagues). 
In this matter, the petitioner has not established that his achievements at the time of filing were 
commensurate with sustained national or international acclaim as a musician in the arts, or being among 
that small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. The submitted evidence is not indicative 
ora "career ofacdaimed work in the tield" as contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723,59 
(Sept. 19, 1990). The conclusion the AAO reaches by considering the evidence to meet each category 
of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) separately is consistent with a review of the evidence in the 
aggregate. Ultimately, the evidence in the aggregate does not distinguish the petitioner as one of the 
small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). While 
the petitioner need not demonstrate that there is no one more accomplished than himself to qualify for 
the classification sought, it appears that the very top of his field of endeavor is far above the level he has 
attained. 
Ill. 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. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as a 
writer and a producer in the arts 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. The 
evidence indicates that the petitioner shows talent in his field, but is not persuasive that the petitioner's 
achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the petitioner has not 
established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition may not be approved. 
An application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of the law may be denied 
by the AAO even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, fnc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043, affd, 345 F.3d at 683; 
see a/so So/tane v. DO'!, 381 F.3d at 145 (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo 
basis). 
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. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of 
Brantigan, II 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.