dismissed EB-1A Case: Barista

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5566576 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 29, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a barista, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability 
through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in 
their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had a one-time achievement (a major , internationally recognized award) 
or met at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and 
we dismissed the appeal. The Petitioner then filed a motion to reopen the matter with us, which we 
denied. 
On second motion , the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that he meets the additional 
criterion claimed in his initial motion. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
I. LAW 
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.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence , then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media , and 
scholarly articles). Where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we 
will then determine whether the totality of the record shows sustained national or international acclaim 
and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 1 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements 
and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. BACKGROUND 
In her decision, the Director determined that the Petitioner met two of the requisite three criteria, 
regarding awards or prizes under and judging, but did not meet a third claimed criterion related to 
published material. On appeal, we upheld the Director's decision. 2 The Petitioner then filed a motion 
to reopen with us, providing new evidence and again claiming to meet the criterion for published 
material. We subsequently dismissed this motion, determining that the evidence did not demonstrate 
his eligibility for the additional criterion. 3 
The Petitioner now submits a second motion to reopen, provides new evidence, and asserts that these 
materials demonstrate that he meets the published material criterion. 
III. ANALYSIS 
At the outset, the Petitioner did not include the required statement about whether or not the validity of 
the unfavorable decision has been, or is, the subject of any judicial proceeding. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). Moreover, for the reasons discussed below, the new evidence submitted in 
support of the instant motion to reopen does not demonstrate that the Petitioner satisfied an additional 
criterion, as claimed. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
We previously determined on motion that the Petitioner had not submitted evidence sufficient to 
establish that he met the published material criterion. On second motion, the Petitioner provides five 
articles, some of which were previously submitted, as well as documentation re ardin the sources in 
which these articles were published. Three of these articles, .__---~----------
I t
1
' publi(hed at spr'F........,.""""'"".w...-t..----------li 
I l"4 published at www com, and 
1 See Kazarian v. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first 
counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USC1S, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 
2011 ). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the 
fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
2 See Matter of M-M-M-. ID# 1521185 (AAO July 16, 2018). 
3 See Matter of M-M-M-. ID# 2354183 (AAO Mar. 7, 2019). 
4 The Petitioner submitted this document with his first motion and asserted that it was published at www.c=].com. In 
2 
~----.--------r------" published at ireport.cnn.com, are about the Petitioner and related to 
his work. However, the Petitioner has not submitted evidence sufficient to demonstrate that 
sprudge.com, I ~com, or ireport.cnn.com are professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, as required. 
Evidence of published material in professional or major trade publications or in other major media 
publications about the alien should establish that the circulation (on-line or in print) is high compared 
to other circulation statistics and show who the intended audience of the publication is, as well as the 
title, date and author of the material. 5 With respect to sprudge.com, the Petitioner provides several 
documents ranking the web site among other coffee blogs and RSS feeds. The first, a document titled 
"Top 100 Coffee Blogs, News Websites & Newsletters to Follow in 2019" posted on the Feedspot 
website (https://blog.feedspot.com/coffee_blogs), ranks sprudge.com first of 100 blogs and indicates 
that it has tens of thousands of followers on social media. However, while the document states that 
the list is based upon "search and social metrics," we note that the ranking does not correspond to the 
indicated number of social media followers for the blogs and does not clarify how sprudge.com 
received the top ranking on this list. In addition, the document notes that it is compiled "from 
thousands of top Coffee [sic] blogs in our index," thereby excluding any blogs not in the index. 
Further, the Petitioner does not demonstrate the significance of this ranking or show how it reflects a 
status of major media in comparison to other media. 
A second article also from Feedspot, "Top Coffee RSS Feeds," ranks sprudge.com as the top RSS feed 
and describes it as "a site devoted to coffee news and culture" and "a great resource if you want to 
know what's happening in the world of coffee, and who is writing about it," but fails to indicate how 
this ranking was determined. Again, the Petitioner does not establish the significance of such a rank, 
or otherwise provide an objective comparison to show how receipt of such a rank is reflective of a 
status of major medium. Two additional articles, "8 Unique Coffee Sites for Coffee News," and "9 
Blogs for Coffee Lovers," also include sprudge.com. However, these articles do not provide 
comparative statistics for the included coffee sites or blogs, or otherwise demonstrate how being 
identified as a unique coffee site or one recommended to coffee lovers, is reflective of major media. 
As it relates to 0.com, the Petitioner provides two articles titled "Media inl f, an§ 
TV" from wikipedia.org, 6 and one frlm yelp tom titled "The Best 10 Television Stations i " 
The Wikipedia articlp.s....b.illb,identify as a television channel and affilip.te .... o.(NBC in , 
and the article titled L___j-TV" indicates that the channel's website is wwwL _ _J.com. However, 
the documents do not reflect thatO.com's online circulation is high relative to that of other 
websites, or otherwise demonstrate thatO.com is a major medium. The Wikipedia articles simply 
our decision, we determined that as it lacked "identifying characteristics from ·I I' or an Internet 
address," the evidence did not support this assertion. The document presented on second motion includes a link to this 
site, and so we will consider it here. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted With Certain 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14. 7 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https: / /www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/P o licyManual.html. 
6 We note that Wikipedia is an online, open source, collaborative encyclopedia that explicitly states it cannot guarantee 
the validity of its content. See General Disclaimer, Wikipedia (January 21, 2020) 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer; Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). 
3 
describe the news media in I I rd pro Ji de a description of I I TV. The web printout from 
yelp.com ranks television stations in Washington, rather than websites. The Petitioner does 
not show how a television station's rank based upon reviews on yelp.com demonstrates that its 
affiliated web site is a major medium. 7 
Regarding the article about the Petitioner published at ireport.cnn.com, he also has not established that 
this website qualifies as a major medium. While we acknowledge that CNN and its website are major 
media, the printout in the record indicates that this article was published on CNN iReport's website 
rather than by CNN. Specifically the article's banner reads "CNN iReport," and the article itself 
contains a statement that it was "[n]ot verified by CNN." The Petitioner does not clarify the 
relationship between CNN iReport and CNN, nor does he demonstrate that an article published there 
has the same visibility or readership as an article published on CNN' s website. Further, the Petitioner 
does not provide on-line circulation statistics for CNN iReport or for comparative media to show that 
ireport.cnn.com's circulation is high relative to others, and thus is a major medium. 
The remaining articles are not about the Petitioner, as required. One article, 
I ~" published at https://thecurbkaim._u_k_i_.c_o_m_,_d_i-sc_u_s_se_s_t_h_.e 
increasing numbers of visa denials at world coffee competitions and identifies several baristas who 
have had visas denied, of which the Petitioner is one. However, its primary focus is visa denials in 
eneral, with a discussion focusin on the Mexican barista cham ion's 2019 visa denial. The second, 
.__ ___________________________ ___," published online at 
baristamagazine.com, is an interview with the 2018 Iran Barista Champion, and does not mention the 
Petitioner. Articles that are not about a petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., 
Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at *1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding a finding 
that articles regarding a show are not about the actor). 
Even were these articles about the Petitioner, he does not provide sufficient evidence on motion to 
demonstrate that they appear in major media or professional or major trade publications. As it relates 
thecurbkaimuki.com, the record lacks evidence, such as on-line publication statistics or other relevant 
material for these sites, showing that the circulation for this web page is high relative to other online 
publications, or showing their intended audiences. Regarding baristamagazine.com, the Petitioner 
provides, among other evidence, a March 2019 article titled "Top 5 Coffee Magazines, Publications 
& Ezines To Follow In 2019," from blog.feedspot.com ranking it in first place and stating that the 
website has 29,045 Facebook fans and 42,813 Twitter followers. Again, the Petitioner does not 
demonstrate the significance of these statistics or show how they reflect a status of major media. He 
also includes a 2019 media kit for Barista Magazine indicating, "more than 100,000 people online" 
read the magazine, but does not provide independent evidence corroborating this assertion, or submit 
evidence, such as on-line circulation statistics or other relevant materials, showing these statistics are 
high relative to those of other websites. Furthermore, 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 
2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that self-serving assertions on the cover of a magazine 
as to the magazine's status is not reliable evidence of major media). We note that the aforementioned 
7 We note that the Petitioner indicates in the brief included with its first motion that this article was "accompanied by an 
interest piece which aired onc=]7:00 news." However, the record lacks evidence rupp01Tng this assertion, such as a 
link to a video or transcripts. Moreover, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how the television station's rank on 
yelp.com reflects a status of major medium. 
4 
article "8 Unique Coffee Sites for Coffee News" also mentions baristamagazine.com, but again the 
Petitioner does not demonstrate how being mentioned as one of eight unique coffee websites 
establishes that the web site is a major medium. 
For the foregoing reasons, the new evidence submitted by the Petitioner does not establish his 
eligibility for the published material criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The new evidence submitted by the Petitioner on motion is not sufficient to demonstrate that he has 
fulfilled at least three of the initial evidentiary requirements. As a result, we need not provide the type 
of final merits determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise 
that we have reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that 
the Petitioner has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The motion will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed. 
5