dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

(b)(6)
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
NOV 2 8 2014 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on March 31, 2014. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on May 2, 2014. The appeal will be dismissed. 
According to the petition and the accompanying documents, filed on July 31, 2013, the petitioner 
seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in athletics, as a Pilates educator, pursuant to 
section l03(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A). 
The director determined that the petitioner has not established his 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; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) states that the 
petitioner, as initial evidence, can present evidence of the beneficiary's 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)-(x). The petitioner 
must submit qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten regulatory categories of evidence to 
establish the beneficiary's basic eligibility requirements. ·Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(4), the petitioner may submit comparable evidence to establish his eligibility, if the 
standards under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) do not readily apply to his occupation. 
On appeal, the petitioner files additional supporting documents and asserts that he meets the criteria 
set forth under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (iii), (v), (vi) and (viii). He also asserts 
that he has submitted comparable evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). For the 
reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the exclusive 
classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) or 
comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). The evidence in the record does not establish 
that the petitioner has demonstrated that he is one of the small percentage who are at the very top in 
the field of endeavor, and that he has sustained national or international acclaim. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3). Accordingly, we will dismiss the petitioner's appeal. 
I. THE 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 m this 
subparagraph if-
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, 
education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
United States 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. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must 
be 
established either through initial evidence of a one-time achievement, that is a major, internationally 
recognized award, or through the submission of qualifying evidence under at least three of the ten 
categories of evidence listed under the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of a petition filed under 
this classification. Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 P.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the court upheld 
our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of the evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion.1 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(vi), the court concluded that while USCIS may have raised legitimate concerns about the 
significance of the evidence submitted to meet those two criteria, those concerns should have been 
raised in a subsequent "final merits determination." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1121-22. 
The court stated that our 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)." Kazarian, 596 F.3d 
at 1122 (citing to 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)). 
1 
Specifically, the court stated that we 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 (vi). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. 0-1 Nonimmigrant Visa 
USCIS has approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the beneficiary. 
A prior approval of nonimmigrant visa petition does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant 
visa petition based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. It must be noted that many I-140 
immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g., Q 
Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2003); IKEA US v. United States Dep 't of 
Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers Co. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 
(E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing I-129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-
140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply approved in error. Q Data 
Consulting, Inc., 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M Univ. v. Upchurch, No. 03-
1083299, 99 F. App'x 556, 2004 WL 1240482 at *1 (5th Cir. Jun. 2, 2004) (finding that prior 
approvals do not preclude USCIS from denying an extension of the original visa based on a 
reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
Moreover, we are not required to approve applications or petitions where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Cornm'r 1988). USCIS is not required to treat 
acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex Engg. Ltd. v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 
(6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, our authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between a court 
of appeals and a district court. Even if a service center director had approved the nonimmigrant 
petitions on behalf of the beneficiary, we would not be bound to follow the contradictory decision of 
a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 
15, 2000), aff'd, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 819 (2001). 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of his one-time achievement that is a major, internationally recognized award. In this case, 
the petitioner has not asserted or shown through his evidence that he is the recipient of a major; 
internationally recognized award at a level similar to that of the Nobel Prize. Indeed, on appeal, the 
petitioner "concedes that he has not received a one-time achievement such as a major, 
internationally-recognized award." As such, as initial evidence, the petitioner must present at least 
2 
The petitioner does not claim that he meets the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed in this decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the 
basic eligibility 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 thei~ disciplines or fields. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he is a Continuing Education 
Provider (CEP) for the The petitioner has not shown that he meets 
this criterion. · 
First, the petitioner concedes that general membership in the is not a qualifying membership 
under the criterion. Specifically, page 2 of the bylaws state that membership "is open to any . 
individual who is interested in the study and practice of Pilates, supports the objectives of [the 
, and is willing to contribute to the achievement of the organization's objectives." 
The petitioner asserts that he is a CEP, which is a membership class distinct from s general 
membership. He cites Article III of the bylaws to support his assertion. The bylaws, 
however, do not support the petitioner's assertion that he is in a membership class distinct from 
general membership. According to Article III, "The Board may, in the interests of the 
_ establish classes of membership and related qualifications." The petitioner has submitted no 
evidence showing that the has actually created any class of membership distinct from its 
general membership. Although the etitioner has submitted evidence showing that he provides 
continuing education programs for the the petitioner has not submitted any evidence showing 
that he is in a specific membership class for CEPs. Indeed, in response to the director's 
request for evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted a Member Directory, showing that he is a 
Certified Member, indicative of his general membership. 
Moreover, even if the petitioner's status as a CEP for continuing education program 
constitutes membership in the that is distinct from the general membership, he has not 
established that the requires outstanding achievements from its CEPs. According to 
Executive Director of "There are strict criteria for our continuing education 
providers," including "comprehensive Pilates studies of at least 450 hours, pass the exam with 
high scores, and are currently maintaining their certification." The Continuing 
Education Guidelines provides similar information relating to the qualification of CEPs. According 
to Ms. the petitioner's seminars have been part of the continuing education program 
since the beginning of 2013. Ms. states that "For coursework approval, [the 
expect( s] a university degree with relevance to the field, experience of at least five years as a Pilates 
teacher, as well as at least one year as a teacher of teachers. The presented material needs to be 
highly relevant to expanding the skill-set of Pilates professionals, and individually researched and 
sourced." The petitioner has not shown that these qualification requirements constitute outstanding 
achievements. At best the qualification requirements indicate that a CEP who has completed 
approved coursework and passed the examination is educated in the teaching of Pilates and 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
experienced. Qualification requirements based on education and experience do not constitute 
outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their 
disciplines or fields. Significantly, education and ten years of experience are elements that may help 
demonstrate exceptional ability, a lesser classification. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (B). 
Second, although the petitioner has submitted evidence showing that he is a member of the 
. on appeal, the petitioner does not specifically challenge the 
director's finding that his membership is not a qualifying membership under the criterion. As 
such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda v. 
United States Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the United States District Court 
found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal). The petitioner has 
also not submitted evidence relating to his membership that shows that requires 
outstanding achievements from its members. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented documentation of his 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 petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because and other 
industry media sources have published material about him. The record includes online materials 
from a Community News segment on 
guide to several Pilates Classes in and merely lists the petitioner's class as one of several 
other Pilates classes. The material is not "about" the petitioner. Regarding the remaining materials, 
the petitioner asserts that "it is difficult to obtain circulation materials for many of the industry media 
sources which have published articles about the [petitioner]," and suggest that we "consider the 
published material 
about the [petitioner], even without the circulation information" as comparable 
evidence under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). The petitioner has not shown that he meets 
this criterion. 
3 This document appears on myemail.constantcontact.com. 
4 
This article is one the petitioner wrote, it is not an article about him, relating to his work. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
First, the petitioner has not shown that the online materials that are about him, relating to his work, 
are in professional or major trade publications or other major media. With the exception of 
the petitioner has submitted no evidence relating to the websites showing that they are 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner has submitted a 
document pertaining to that contains the magazine's logo at the top but no signature. 
The document does not have the appearance of an official company brochure or other printed 
promotional material, and does not bear any other indicia of its source, such as a web address. The 
document suggests that is a trade publication, however, the petitioner has not submitted 
sufficient evidence showing that it is a major trade publication, as required under the criterion. The 
document states that is an online magazine created to advocate and enrich a deeper 
knowledge of the Pilates technique. The document further states that within the first three months of 
its founding in February 2013, the magazine "reached a global community of 1,000 readers" and it 
has continued to grow steadily. It has published 30 articles and offers a biweekly newsletter with 
400 subscribers. As the source of this information is not apparent from the face of the document, the 
information has little probative value. 
Even assuming that the document is an official document, USCIS need not rely on the 
self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA 
July 6, 2007), aff'd, 317 F. App'x 680,2009 WL 604888 (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). The petitioner has not shown that the reach of the magazine establishes that it is a 
major trade publication. The petitioner has also not submitted sufficient evidence relating to the 
reach of other trade publications, to which we may compare the reach of to conclude if 
is a major trade publications. The record includes information showing that the 
website has had 6,298 visitors, including 4,371 unique visitors. The petitioner has not 
submitted sufficient evidence relating to the number of visitors or unique visitors has 
had or information relating to how many visitors or unique visitors a website would have if it is a 
major trade publication. 
Second, some of the submitted online materials do not include information on the date or author of 
the materials, as required under the criterion. For example, materials from and 
lack information on the author and date of publishing, and material from 
acks the date of publishing. 
Third, the petitioner has submitted published materials, including materials from and 
. that postdate the filing of his petition in July 2013. It is well established that the 
petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). In other words, 
the petitioner cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation of qualifying materials not yet 
published at the time he filed his petition. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1977); Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(adopting Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that USCIS cannot 
"consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Fourth, as discussed below, the petitioner has not demonstrated the published material that does not 
meet the requirements of this criterion is comparable evidence establishing his eligibility for the 
exclusive classification sought. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted published material about him in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media, relating to his work in the field for which classification is 
sought. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he is the founder of the 
While the evidence in the record shows 
that the petitioner's program constitutes an original contribution of major significance in 
the field, the petitioner has not established that he has made another original contribution of major 
significance in the field. The plain language of the criterion requires evidence of qualifying 
contributions in the plural, consistent with the statutory requirement for extensive documentation. 
See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act. While the petitioner's program constitutes a 
single qualifying contribution under the criterion, the evidence in the record does not establish that 
the petitioner has made another qualifying contribution. 
The evidence shows that the petitioner developed his program, a continuing education 
program designed to bridge modern exercise science with the original teachings of The 
promotional material includes testimonials from Pilates teachers who recommend the petitioner's 
program. The petitioner has submitted reference letters that praise his program. According to Ms. 
the petitioner "is the founder of the education program, which offers high-
quality training for Pilates and movement educators." According to a 
committee chair for . the petitioner's" is well-known for [the petitioner's] 
integrity in respect to the history of the Pilates method, and how he successfully layers current 
scientific insights into the original method to help teachers around the world understand it better." 
According to Director of _ Portugal, the 
petitioner's ' is a household name in the Pilates industry." Mr. states that "By 
improving the level of education and its accessibility for Pilates teachers, [the petitioner's] work 
instantly benefits millions of people around the world who practice the method." According to 
Co-Owner of Sweden, the petitioner's 
program is "a highly regarded continuing education program" and it "stands out and is well-known 
for successfully synthesizing both [exercise repertoire and movement theory] elements." According 
to owner of the petitioner "is well respected as a 
leading expert in his field for the creation of his continuing education program " The 
petitioner has shown through his evidence that his program constitutes an original 
contribution of major significance in the field. ·· 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
The evidence in the record, however, does not show that the petitioner has made another 
contribution of major significance in the field. The petitioner is the founder of 
The petitioner has not shown that the impact of either project rises to the level 
consistent with contributions of major significance in the field. According to 
Director of located in Germany, the petitioner launched 
"a professional networking event that [the petitioner] organized to bring Pilates experts 
together for discussions on the value of the historical information he researched, and to further share 
his knowledge." Mr. states that the symposium "was a very successful event and there 
is a huge anticipation for the upcoming ones." The vague statement that the event was successful is 
insufficient to show that its impact in the field is consistent with a contribution of major significance. 
Moreover, on appeal, the petitioner has not pointed to any independent evidence in the record, such 
as, but not limited to, coverage of the event in major trade publications or nationally circulated 
publications, which might show the impact of the event in the field. 
According to Mr. , in March 2013, the petitioner launched "a 
campaign to raise awareness for Pilates method and to encourage [the petitioner's] followers to 
adopt a daily movement practice." A printout from wordpress.com indicates that as of May 2014, 
ten months after the petitioner filed his petition .in July 2013, the website had 
received 53,330 views and 813 comments. As this printout includes views and comments that 
postdate the filing of the petition, it does not establish what impact had at the time 
the petitioner filed the petition or show that the impact was consistent with a contribution of major 
significance in the field. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; 
Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. at 160; Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175-76. In 
addition, the t printout does not indicate how many people actually viewed or 
commented on the website, as the same person or people can view and post comments on the 
website multiple times. As such, the number of views and comments does not establish the impact 
of the campaign in July 2013, when the petitioner filed the petition. Moreover, the petitioner has 
submitted an article about the campaign that shows the campaign has 
received attention from the field. It does not, however, show the actual impact of the campaign at 
the time the petitioner filed his petition. Indeed, the article concludes with the question, "Will 
achieve its intended goal and drive a brand-new audience to the Pilates work?" 
This question indicates that the impact of the campaign is uncertain. Additionally, the article 
postdates the petitioner's filing of the petition, and does not provide information relating to the 
impact of the campaign at the time the petitioner filed the petition. Further, Mr. states 
that the name ' ' has been "adopted by teachers and studios around the world" and 
that "[t]housands of people have followed these campaigns, including both Pilates practitioners and 
industry professionals." Mr. does not, however, provide specific information on who 
has adopted or followed the campaign, or the basis of his knowledge about the reach of the 
campaign. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). We need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. United 
StatesAtt'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9,17 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) 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 has also held, however, "[w]e not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." /d. 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 colleagues or associates that do not specifically identify contributions or provide specific 
examples of how those contributions influenced the field are insufficient.5 Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 
F.3d, 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115. The opinions of experts in the field 
are not without weight and have been considered. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 
(Comm'r 1988). However, users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may' as this decision has 
done, 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 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion 
testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). users may even give less weight to an 
opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. 
Matter of Caron Int'l, 19 I&N Dec. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)); Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (concluding that our decision to give 
limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field was not arbitrary and 
capricious). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of his original scientific, scholarly, artistic, 
athletic, or business-related contributions of major significance in the field. The petitioner has not 
met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major 
trade publications or other major media. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because his website "is seen as an 
authoritative scholarly resource in the Pilates industry" and materials he posts on his website 
constitute comparable evidence under the regulation at 8 e.F.R. 204.5(h)(4). The petitioner has not 
shown that he meets this criterion. 
The petitioner has presented evidence showing that his writings have been accepted as scholarly 
articles in the field. According to Ms. , the petitioner's article '' 
5 In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to [the alien's] 
contributions in the field" were insufficient was "consistent with the relevant regulatory language." 596 F.3d at 1122. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
"clarifie[ s] the connection between the scientific Pilates method and the artistic dance techniques" 
and is "an important time-piece that was very well-received by the industry." According to Mr. 
the petitioner's "articles are respected for their historical authenticity and scientific 
accuracy, and are often referenced in conversation amongst professionals." According to Mr. 
the petitioner "has made a name for himself by writing expert articles on his website as well as for 
other publications, including . . . . His articles are read and 
discussed amongst Pilates and fitness professionals around the world." According to _ 
Co-Founder of , the petitioner has "written numerous scholarly articles on his own 
website and other publications such as _ 
about the history ofPilates method." Although the petitioner 
has shown his authorship of scholarly articles, he has not established that he meets this criterion. 
The petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence showing that his articles have been published in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media, as required under the plain language 
of the criterion. First, most of the petitioner's articles are posted on his website. The petitioner, 
however, has not shown that his website constitutes a major trade publication. An online printout 
from _ shows that as of July 2013, when the petitioner filed the petition, his website 
had received 171,980 visits total since July 2011, including 7,756 to 13,857 monthly visits and a 
daily average of between 268 to 447 visits between January and July 2013. The printout does not 
indicate how many unique visitors these numbers represent, as the same person or people can view 
the website 
multiple times. Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted sufficient reliable and 
probative evidence showing that the number of views that his website garnered shows that it is a 
major trade rmblication. The record includes some evidence relating to other online sources. For 
example, claims 1,000 readers and 400 subscribers, and had 4,371 unique 
visitors between October 2013 and January 2014. Although the petitioner's website appears to 
attract more visitors than these two online sources, the petitioner has not shown that the number of 
views his website garnered is indicative of its status as a major trade publication. Specifically, the 
petitioner has not provided information on how many visitors or unique visitors a website would 
have if it is a major Pilates trade publication, or shown that his website has achieved the requisite 
number of visitors or unique visitors to qualify as a major Pilates trade publication. Furthermore, 
the petitioner has submitted updated evidence relating to his website that postdates the filing of his 
petition. We will not consider such evidence because the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for 
the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49; Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. at 160; Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 
175-76. 
Second, on appeal, the petitioner has not asserted that the other online sources that have posted his 
articles constitute professional or major trade publications or other major media. As such, the 
petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 
1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. Moreover, the petitioner has submitted insufficient 
evidence relating to these online sources such that we can conclude they are professional 
publications, major trade publications or other major media. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Third, as discussed below, the petitioner has not demonstrated that his authored articles that do not 
appear in professional or major trade publications or other major media are comparable evidence to 
articles that do appear in such media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence of his authorship of scholarly articles in the 
field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media. The petitioner has not met 
this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he is "a continuing education 
provider at the ' and "has an important role as a workshop presenter at the 
' The petitioner has not shown that he meets this criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not established that he performs either a leading or a critical role for the 
. The evidence in the record, including Ms. letter, shows that since the beginning 
of 2013, the has included the petitioner's workshops and seminars as part of its continuing 
education program. Although Ms. praises the guality of the petitioner's seminars and 
workshops, she does not state that they are critical to the . Instead, the evidence shows that 
continuing education program has been in place, with other professionals offering seminars 
and workshops, before the petitioner began to offer his workshops and seminars. Moreover, the 
evidence does not indicate that within a few months - between the beginning of 2013 and July 2013 
when the petitioner filed his petition - his seminars and workshops had become critical to the 
The petitioner has also not submitted any evidence showing that he holds a position within the 
such that he performs a leading role within the 
Second, on appeal, the petitioner submits evidence relating to the 
showing that it is scheduled to take place in November 2014. The promotional evidence shows that 
the petitioner will be one of over 60 presenters at the meeting. A March 2014 email shows that the 
has approved the petitioner's application to present his workshop ' 
at the annual 
meeting. The petitioner has not shown that being one of over 60 presenters is 
indicative of the petitioner performing either a leading or critical role at the conference. Moreover, 
the conference postdates the petitioner's filing of the petition. We will not consider this evidence as 
it does not establish he petitioner's eligibility at the time he filed his petition. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N 
Dec. at 160; Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175-76. 
Third, the petitioner has submitted evidence of his involvement with other organizations, including 
On appeal, however, the petitioner has not asserted that his involvement in these 
organizations meets this criterion. As such, the petitioner has abandoned this issue, as he did not 
timely raise it on appeal. Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2; Hristov, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that the beneficiary has performed m a 
leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. The 
petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
If the above standards do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, the petitioner may 
submit comparable evidence to establish the beneficiary's eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)( 4). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he should be allowed to submit comparable evidence to 
establish that he meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (vi), 
because the field has "so few major publications" and "does not have many literary resources as 
source material or major trade publications either online or in print format." The petitioner, 
however, has not pointed to any evidence in the record that supports his assertions. None of the 
reference letters the petitioner has filed indicate that the field has "so few" major trade publications 
or a limited number of literary resources. Unsupported assertions in an appellate brief do not 
constitute evidence. See Braga, No. CV 06 5105 SJO, at 7; Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 
534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Even assuming arguendo that the petitioner's assertions are correct, that the field has only a few 
major trade publications and literary resources, the petitioner has not shown that the criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (vi) do not readily apply to the petitioner's occupation. Specifically, 
both criteria require publication of either material about the petitioner relating to his work, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), or the petitioner's scholarly articles, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), "in professional or 
major trade publications or other major media." Even if there are only a few major trade 
publications, the petitioner has not shown that the very few major trade publications and/or other 
major media could not publish material about the petitioner relating to his work or publish scholarly 
articles the petitioner has authored. Assuming the petitioner's assertions are true, the petitioner has 
shown that it might be challenging for him to meet these two criteria, not that these two criteria do 
not readily apply to the petitioner's occupation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
Moreover, as relating to the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the petitioner has submitted 
published materials in trade publications and other online sources. The fact that the petitioner has 
not shown that the trade publications and other online sources are "major trade publications or other 
major media," as required under the criterion, does not render the submitted evidence comparable 
evidence that establishes the petitioner's eligibility. Rather, the submitted evidence constitutes 
published materials that do not rise to the level that meets the standard set forth under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). Although the petitioner asserts that "it is difficult to obtain circulation materials 
for many of the industry media sources which have published articles about [him]," the petitioner 
has not pointed to any evidence in the record that supports this conclusory statement As stated 
above, unsupported assertions in an appellate brief do not constitute evidence. See Braga, No. CV 06 
5105 SJO, at 7; Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 
n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. Further, we need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. United States Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. at 17. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
Similarly, as relating to the criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the petitioner has submitted 
evidence of his scholarly articles published in trade publications and other online sources. The fact 
that the petitioner has not submitted sufficient evidence showing that his scholarly articles have been 
published in the few major trade publications does not render the submitted evidence comparable 
evidence that establishes the petitioner's eligibility. Rather, the submitted evidence constitutes the 
petitioner's authorship of scholarly articles that do not rise to the level that meets the standard set 
forth under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Furthermore, other evidence in the record does not establish that the petitioner has established his 
eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. The record includes evidence that the petitioner 
has researched and written about the life and teachings of ~ the petitioner has a social 
media presence and following, and the petitioner has offered his workshops and seminars in several 
countries. The evidence shows that the petitioner is a successful Pilates educator whose work has 
received some attention in the field. This limited attention is not sufficient to show the petitioner's 
eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the evidence does not establish that 
he is "one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3); see also section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. 
C. Summary 
We have considered all evidence in the record and conclude that the petitioner has failed to submit 
sufficient relevant, probative evidence to satisfy the regulatory requirement of presenting at least 
three types of evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) or establish his eligibility through 
comparable evidence under 8 C.P.R.§ 204.5(h)(4). 
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 the 
beneficiary having: (1) a "level of expertise indicating that [he] is one of that small percentage who 
have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor," and (2) "that [he] has sustained national or 
international acclaim and that his [] achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. While we conclude 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, we need not explain that conclusion in a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
final merits determination.6 Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy 
the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three types of evidence, Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 
1122, and he has not submitted comparable evidence establishing his eligibility. See 8 C.P.R. 
204.5(h)(4). 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
6 We maintain de novo review of all questions of fact and law. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 
143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). In any future proceeding, we maintain the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as 
the office that made the last decision in this matter. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii); see also INA§§ 103(a)(1), 204(b); DHS 
Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 2.1 (2003); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii) (2003); Matter of 
Aurelio, 19 I&N Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (holding that legacy INS, now USCIS, is the sole authority with the 
jurisdiction to decide visa petitions).