dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
Date: SEP 2 6 2014 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of A dministrative Appeals 
20 Massachusett s Ave. , N.W .. MS 2090 
Washin gto n, 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)( I )(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, .8 U.S. C. § 1153(b )(I )(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 
SELF-REPR ESENTED 
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 announc e new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent deci sions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for considerati on, 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://W\\'W.uscis.gov/form s for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F .R. § I 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank you , 
tJrl.4 
\'h Rf/{fs:~~erg 
I Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal.' We will dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner, a company director and media specialist, seeks classification as an employment­
based immigrant pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), as an alien of extraordinary ability in business. The director determined 
that the petitioner had not met the requisite criteria for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits various statements regarding her eligibility and additional evidence. 
In her appellate submission , the petitioner asserts that she meets the categories of evidence at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (v), (vii), (viii), and (ix). 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers.-- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who 
are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if--
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, 
education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim 
and whose achievements have been recognized in the field 
through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue 
work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 
(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. 723 101 st Cong., 2d Sess. 59 
(1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to 
those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. !d.; 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
1 The petitioner filed two Forms 1-2908. Notice of Anneal or Motion , dated August 13, 2013 
and August 14, 2013 . appealing the director ' s July 17, 2013 
decision. This decision incorporates the 
arguments and addresses both of the Form 1-2908 filings . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) requires that the petitioner demonstrate the alien's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field. Such acclaim must be established 
either through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally 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. USC IS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0). Although the court 
upheld our decision to deny the petition, the court took issue with our evaluation of evidence submitted 
to meet a given evidentiary criterion.2 With respect to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi), 
the court concluded that while US CIS 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." Id. 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 we 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 we concluded)." Id. 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, we 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. Id. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Evidentiary Criteria3 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted a March 10, 2012 . Award from the' 
association , which is "a part of the 
The petitioner's award from the chapter of the 
2 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 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
3 On appeal, the petitioner does not claim to meet any of the regulatory categories of evidence not discussed 
in this decision. Therefore , no determination has been made regarding whether the petitioner meets the 
remaining categories of evidence. 
4 "There are local California clubs for in most areas of the state." See 
http accessed on July 23, 2014, copy incorporated into the record of 
proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
reflects local recognition rather than a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
The petitioner submitted evidence showing that she was among "more than 3300 people" nominated 
for the . (2009). The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires 
the petitioner's receipt of nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. There is no evidence showing that the petitioner received an 
Earning a nomination is not equivalent to receiving a nationally or internationally recognized prize or 
award for excellence in the field. 
The etitioner submitted three certificates from stating that she was a "Finalist" for 
in 2007 in the categories of "Self-Help: Inspirational," "Health: 
Psychology," and "Self-Help: Relationshios." 5 In addition, the petitioner submitted a certificate 
stating that she was a "Finalist" for the in 2008 in the "Parenting 
& Family" category. Again, this regulatory criterion requires receipt of nationally or internationally 
recognized "prizes or awards," not just qualifying as a finalist. There is no evidence showing that 
the petitioner won a in the preceding 
categories. Selection as a finalist is not a prize or an award, and does not meet the plain language 
requirements of this criterion. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate from stating that she was a 
"Winner" in 2007 for the category of ' The petitioner , however, did not 
submit evidence demonstrating the national or international recognition of her particular award. For 
instance, there is no evidence showing the number of other entries, if any, that her book competed 
against in the ' category so as to demonstrate national recognition. The plain 
language of this regulatory criterion specifically requires that the petitioner's awards be nationally or 
internationally recognized in the field of endeavor and it is her burden to establish every element of this 
criterion. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner 's 
in the category of was recognized at a level commensurate with a 
nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the field. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
5 Th( online archive for 2007 lists more than one hundred winners and hundreds of 
finalists . See http://\.v1 17.pdf, accessed on August 5, 2014, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding . In addition, according to a solicitation for entries posted on 
website, authors self-nominate their books, must pay an "Affordable Entry Fee [of] $69 .00 per 
title/per category, " and have "over 100 active categories to choose from. " See 
http ://w ~J, accessed on July 23, 2014 , copy incorporated 
into the record of proceeding . Based on the preceding information , the petitioner has not shown that her 
are more than vanity book awards. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page 5 
The petitioner submitted her membership card and Certificate of 
Membership for the in the United States. In addition, the 
petitioner submitted a document entitled ' Professional Code of Ethics" listing the association's 
conditions of membership . The petitioner has not established that complying with the Code 
of Professional Ethics equates to "outstanding achievements." 6 In addition, the submitted evidence 
6 
The Professional Code of Ethics" states: 
As a condition of membership, all members of nust subscribe to this Code of Professional 
Ethics. By doing so, members recognize the necessity to preserve and encourage fair and 
equitable practices among all who are engag ed in professional speaking. 
Violations of this Code are determined in accordance with 
procedures. Any disciplinary action will be binding and final upon the · 
recourse to the Association , its officers, members or staff. 
hylaws , policies and 
member and without 
Article 1. Representation - The member has an obligation to oneself and to to 
represent oneself truthfully , professionally and in a non-misleading manner. The member 
shall be honest and accurate in presenting qualifications and experience in the member 's 
communication with others. 
Article 2. Professionalism - The member shall act, operate his/her business , and speak in a 
most professional and ethical manner so as neither to offend nor bring discredit to oneself, the 
speaking profession or one's fellow members . 
Article 3. Research - The member shall exert efforts to understand each client's 
organization, approaches, goals and culture in advance of a presentation , in order to 
profes sionally apply one's expertise to meet each client 's needs. 
Article 4. Intellectual Property- The member shall avoid using- either orally or in writing 
- materials , titles or thematic creations originated by others unless approved in writing by the 
originator. 
Article 5. Respect & Collegiality- The nember shall maintain a collegial relationship with 
fellow members based on respect, professional courtesy , dignity and the highest ethical standards. 
Article 6. Confidentiality - The member shall maintain and respect the confidentiality of 
business or personal affairs of clients, agents and other speakers. 
Article 7. Business Practices - The member is obligated to maintain a high level of ethical 
standards and practices in order to assist in protecting the public against fraud or any unfair 
practice in the speaking profession and shall attempt to eliminate from the profession all practices 
that could bring discredit to the speaking profession. 
Article 8. Diversity - The member shall not participate in any agreement or activity that 
would limit or deny access to the marketplace to any other speaker, to a client, or to the public. 
This shall include but not be iimited to economic factors , race , ethnicity , creed, color, sex, age, 
sexual orientation , disability , religion, or country of national origin of any party . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
does not show that members' achievements are judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of her membership m 
ThP petitioner also submitted certificates from the 
stating that she "attained the level of Accredited 
Speaking Member" and that she received the _ designation. 
There is no documentary PvirlPnrP (<;nrh ~s hvl::tw" ::t con"titJJtion. or membershin r_egulations) 
"howin~ hOWPVPT th::tt 
require outstanding achievements of t eir members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes 
Manager, California Office, 
a July 2013 letter from 
According to the 
General 
Company Profile" the petitioner submitted, is a business entity that she 
manages and controls. Ms. states: 
rThe petitioner] is a upheld by the 
·ince 2005 and is a current member both with the 
is an award credited only to Professional Speakers, who have 
excelled in their keynotes, customer references, testimonials and earned more than $250,000 
over a 2-year period, which [the petitioner] could substantiate along with only 1% of 
professional speakers worldwide. 
Ms. does not explain her affiliation, if any, with th~ or specifically 
identify the source of her information about the requirements for the designation. 
USCIS, therefore, need not rely on Ms. unsubstantiated claims. See 17 56, Inc. v. US. Att 'y 
Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions 
in immigration benefits adjudications); see also Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *4, *6 (upholding 
USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field). 
There is no documentary evidence from the showing the specific requirements for its 
designation. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter a/Treasure Craft ofCal(fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). Moreover, if testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater 
need for the petitioner to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 
1998). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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. 
The petitioner submitted a review of her book magazine (February 
2004) and an article (date illegible) about her in magazine entitled but the 
petitioner did not submit evidence such as objective circulation figures showing that the preceding 
magazines are major media. 
The petitioner submitted an advertisement in Equanimity for her but 
the date and author of the material were not provided, and there is no evidence showing that 
is a form of major media. In addition, the petitioner submitted an advertisement for 
wedding. and bridesmaid dresses in magazine. 
Photographs of the petitioner modeling a wedding gown appear in the advertisement, but the 
accompanying article was about Exclusive's designer dressmaker business, not the 
petitioner. Furthermore, the author of the material was not identified and there is no evidence 
showing that is a major trade publication or form of major media. The 
preceding advertising material, which is not the result of independent journalistic reportage, does not 
meet this regulatory criterion. 
The petitioner submitted an article in (December 2002 - January 2003) entitled 
This article constitutes health and lifestyle advice the petitioner authored, not 
published material about her. Therefore, the material does not meet the plain language requirements 
of this regulatory criterion. The regulations include a separate criterion for authorship of scholarly 
articles at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi).7 Furthermore, the petitioner has not established that 
is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article about her entitled "Mission to spread the happiness bug," but the 
title ofthe publication, its date, and the author of the material were not provided. 
The petitioner submitted a June 8, 2007 interview of her in entitled 
in which she discusses how the United Arab Emuates corporate culture 
can be improved. hut the articJe · s not about the oetitioner. The oetitioner also submitted a July 7, 
2007 article in 
The article, however, is about the event, not the petitioner. The plam 
language of the regulation requires "published material about the alien." Articles that are not about 
the petitioner do not meet this regulatory criterion. See, e.g., Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV -00820 
at * 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 2008) (upholding a finding that articles about a show are not about the 
actor). In addition, there is no evidence showing that are maJor 
media. 
7 
The petitioner, however, does not claim to meet the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). Even 
if the petitioner made such a claim, which she did not, the article is not a "scholarly" article 
and was not shown to have appeared in a professional or major trade publication or some other form of major 
media. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner submitted an April 5, 2008 article about her in ' but 
there is no evidence showing that the magazine is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a partial copy of an August 8, 2000 article ir 
entitled The article appears to be about how male demand for traditionally 
female beauty treatments is increasing, not the petitioner. Moreover, there is no evidence showing 
that is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted a March 25, 2010 article in but the 
article is about a consumer test of scented candles, not the petitioner. In addition, there is no 
evidence showing that is a form of major media. 
The petitioner submitted an article entitled but only the 
title ofthe article is legible. Thus, we are unable to determine if the article is about the petitioner . In 
addition, there is no evidence showing that the article was in a professional or major trade 
publication or form of major media. 
On anneaL the oetitione nojnts to five books that she authored entitled 
The petitioner asserts, 
without supporting evidence (such as published or online rankings that list the top-selling titles based 
on an analysis of book sales in the foreign markets), that her books are "best-sellers" in various 
countries such as Australia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. Again, 
USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated claims. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15; see also 
Visinscaia, 2013 WL 6571822, at *4, *6. Further, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Regardless, the preceding books constitute material the petitioner 
authored, not published material about her in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media. Therefore, the books do not meet the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
Again, the regulations include a separate criterion for authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).8 Furthermore, even if one or more of the preceding books were autobiographical in 
nature and therefore were about her, the petitioner has not established that the books equate to 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien 's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the 
work of others in the same or an allied field of specification for which classification is 
sought. 
The director discussed the evidence submitted for this regulatory criterion and found that the 
petitioner failed to establish her eligibility. On appeal, the petitioner does not contest the director's 
findings for this criterion or offer additional arguments. When an appellant fails to offer argument 
8 Even if the petitioner claimed to meet the category of evidence at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), which she does 
not, the material that she authored does not equate to "scholarly articles" and was not shown to have appeared in 
professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
on an issue, that issue is abandoned. Sepulveda v. US 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) (plaintiffs claims abandoned when not raised on appeal). Accordingly, the petitioner has 
not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major significance in the field. 
The director determined that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility for this regulatory 
criterion. The director stated that the letters from the petitioner's peers and colleagues failed to 
demonstrate that her work was of major significance in the field. The plain language of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) requires "[e]vidence of the alien's original scientific, 
scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related contributions of major sign?ficance in the 
field." (Emphasis added.) Here, the evidence must rise to the level of original business-related 
contributions "of major significance in the field." 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 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). In 
the appellate submission, the petitioner does not contest the director's findings regarding the letters 
from her peers and colleagues, or point to specific letters that demonstrate her eligibility for this 
criterion. 
Instead, the petitioner states: 
As you are now aware I am the director of 8 companies in the media field, 5 of which are 
based here in the USA, thanks to the MBA [Master of Business Administration] I passed at 
BSc [Bachelor of Science] Degree in 
IT [Information Technology], my training at , Professional Speaking Experience and 
Media Training as well as my multiple companies I have successfully established on 4 
continents. My doctorate was received based on my published papers on the correlation of 
and packaged in my unique way to 
(Enclosed are the EIN [Employer Identification Number] numbers and company details. You 
already have copies of my Degrees, MBA and PhD information.) 
The petitioner submitted EINs and Australian Company Numbers for the companies she has directed, 
but failed to provide tax returns showing her companies' annual revenues or business income. There is 
no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's direction of eight companies rises to the level of 
original business-related contributions of major significance in the field. In addition, the regulations 
include a separate criterion for performing in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Evidence relating to or even meeting the leading or critical role criterion is 
not presumptive evidence that the petitioner also meets this regulatory criterion. The regulatory criteria 
are separate and distinct from one another. Because separate criteria exist for contributions of major 
significance and performing in a leading or critical role for distinguished organizations, USCIS does 
not view those criteria as being interchangeable. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
statutory requirement for extensive evidence or the regulatory requirement that a petitioner meet at least 
three separate criteria. 
The petitioner points to her academic degrees, training at professional speaking skills, media 
training, and experience establishing multiple companies, but there is no documentary evidence 
showing that her original work has affected her field in a major way, has substantially influenced the 
work of other managers in the media field, or otherwise equates to original contributions of major 
significance in the field. With regard to the petitioner's doctorate, master's degree, and bachelor's 
degree, we have held, in a precedent decision involving a lesser employment classification than the one 
sought in this matter, that academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, is 
not a specific prior achievement that establishes an individual's ability to benefit the national 
interest. Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 219, n.6 
(Comm'r 1998). Thus, academic achievements are certainly not comparable to the original 
contributions of major significance in the field criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), 
designed to demonstrate an individual's eligibility for this more exclusive classification. Assuming 
the petitioner's skills, educational qualifications, and experience are unique, the employment 
classification sought was not designed for alleviating skill shortages in a given field. The issue of 
whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the 
U.S. Department of Labor through the alien employment certification process. !d. at 221. 
In addition, the petitioner states that her "doctorate was received based on [her] published papers on 
the correlation of ' but there is no evidence showing that 
the petitioner's published papers were frequently cited by business or mental health professionals, or 
that her published findings otherwise equate to original contributions of major significance in the 
field. Without additional, specific evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been unusually 
influential, has substantially affected the field, or has otherwise risen to the level of original 
contributions of major significance, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory 
criterion. 
Evidence of the display of the alien 's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or 
showcases. 
The petitioner submitted documentation showing that she gave a Teachers' Mass Lecture entitled 
that she participated in the 
trade fair and the ·, and that she spoke at a Professional Speakers Association 
event in The petitioner's field, however, is in business rather than the 
arts. The interpretation that 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii) is limited to the visual arts is longstanding 
and has been upheld by a federal district court. Negro-Plumpe v. Okin, 2:07-CV-820-ECR-RJJ at 
* 1, *7 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2008) (upholding an interpretation that performances by a performing artist 
do not fall under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii)) . As the petitioner is not a visual artist and has not 
created tangible pieces of art that were on display at exhibitions or showcases, she has not submitted 
qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vii). The ten criteria in the regulations are designed to cover different areas; not every 
criterion will apply to every occupation. Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that she 
meets the plain language requirements of this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page II 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner asserts that she has performed in a leading or critical role as "Director of 8 successful 
media and charitable companies in USA & Australia as founding president and CEO" [Chief Executive 
Officer]. The petitioner's appellate submission includes a Company Profile" 
(organizational chart) for her companies. Although the petitioner has performed in a leading role as 
Director, President, and CEO, there is no documentary evidence showing which, if any, of her eight 
companies has earned a distinguished reputation. Again, going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In addition, the petitioner asserts that she "served on the board o 
Australia. The petitioner submits a "Certificate of Recognition for 'stepping up' to servP. the 
membership of on the Marketing Team of the 2004 
Committee." The petitioner also submits a Certificate of Recognition for "valued assistance and 
guidance on Executive Committee Chapter 2004 Secretary for 1 
of Australia." Both certificates were issued by the the 
President. Although the petitioner states that she "served on the board of 
of Australia, the preceding certificates indicate that her service was with the 
_ ·, not the board for the national association. Again, USCIS need not rely on 
unsubstantiated claims. See 1756, Inc. v. US Att 'v Gen.. 745 F. Suoo. at 15. Furthermore, there is 
no documentary evidence showing that the has a 
distinguished reputation. 
The petitioner also asserts that she is a member of The petitioner 
submits a letter from stating that the chapter 
presented the petitioner with a Award in March 2012. In addition, Ms. 
states that the petitioner was recognized for her "talents as an author, television host and 
philanthropist," not for her specific contributions to the association. Ms. further 
states that the petitioner "is now an active member of E 
and is playing an active role in our Association's Activities." Ms however, does not state 
that the petitioner's role as a member is leading or critical to the association. In general, a leading 
role is demonstrated by evidence of where the petitioner fits within the hierarchy and duties of an 
organization or establishment, while a critical role is demonstrated by evidence of the petitioner's 
contributions to the organization or establishment. The petitioner did not provide an organizational 
chart or other similar evidence to establish where her role fit within the overall hierarchy of 
The submitted documentation does not differentiate the petitioner from the other members so as to 
demonstrate her leading role, and fails to establish that she contributed to the chapter in a 
way that was significant to the association 's success or standing. Furthermore, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that h as a distinguished reputation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion. 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she is "in the top 1% of earners in the speaker industry earning 
$50,000 per keynote and $100,000 for consultancy and training for the day." The petitioner submits 
a July 2013 letter fro that states: 
[The petitioner] is booked regularly because of her experiences as a serial entrepreneur, 
entertainer and best-selling author. 
* * * 
Comparable Speakers['] Payments are as follows: 
We have 3 tiers of speakers: 
Trainers and Experts: whose usual fee is $1000 to $2000 per hour. 
Authors and Business Executives $5,000 to $10,000 per hour. 
Premium Speakers: Fees $30,000 to $100,000 per hour. 
These include Sports Players, U.S. Presidents and 
people of exceptional experiences or 
abilities. As an exceptional speaker, entrepreneur and multiple award winning author, in 
Australia, Singapore, Dubai and USA [sic]. We book [the petitioner] at $50,000 per hour 
and $100,
000 for 6 hours Consulting. 
The petitioner, however, failed to submit documentary evidence (such as payroll records or income 
tax forms) to demonstrate the actual remuneration that she earned for her speaking or consulting 
engagements. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSojjici , 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for 
services "in relation to others in the field," not limited only to speakers booked by the 
agency (a business entity controlled by the petitioner as indicated in the 
Company Profile"). 
The petitioner must present evidence of objective earnings data showing that she has earned a "high 
salary" or "significantly high remuneration" in comparison with those performing similar work 
during the same time period. See Skokos v. US Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. App'x 712, 713-14 
(9th Cir. 2011) (finding average salary information for those performing lesser duties is not a 
comparison to others in the field); see also Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-45 (N.D. Ill. 1995) 
(comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen); Grimson v. INS, 
934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL 
enforcers); Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering professional 
golfer's earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers). The petitioner, however, offers no reliable basis for 
comparison showing that she has received a high salary or significantly high remuneration relative to 
others in her field who perform similar work. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
As the petitioner did not submit evidence of her actual earnings for any specific year and present a 
proper basis for comparison showing that she has earned a high salary or other significantly high 
remuneration for services in relation to others in the field, the petitioner has not established that she 
meets this regulatmy criterion. 
Evidence of commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office 
receipts or record, cassette, compact disk, or video sales. 
Although the petitioner does not specifically claim eligibility for this criterion she asserts in her 
a ~ellate submission that she has "written 40 songs," performed songs such as and 
_ 'and written "3 movie screenplays." The petitioner, however, has 
not submitted documentation of record sales or box office receipts demonstrating her commercial 
successes in the performing arts. Again, going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. The plain language of this regulatory criterion requires "evidence of 
commercial successes in the performing arts, as shown by box office receipts or record, cassette, 
compact disk, or video sales." There is no documentary evidence of receipts or sales demonstrating 
that the petitioner has achieved commercial successes in the recording or motion picture industries. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this regulatory criterion 
B. Summary 
The petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of three categories of 
evidence. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Even if the petitioner had submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: (1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the[ir] field of endeavor" and (2) "that the alien has sustained national or international 
acclaim and that his or her achievements have been recognized in the field of expertise." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2) and (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Although 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 final merits 
(b)(6)
NON-PRE CEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
determination .9 Rather , the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent 
regulatory requirement of three categories of evidence. !d. at 1122. 
The petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
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 ; Matt er of Otiende , 26 I&N Dec . 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
9 
The AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 
2012); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir . 2004) ; Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
In any future proceeding, the AAO maintains the jurisdiction to conduct a final merits determination as the office 
that made 
the last decision in this matter. 8 C.P.R.§ 1 03 .5(a)(1 )(ii). See also section 1 03(a)(1) of the Act; section 
204(b) of the Act; DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003) ; 8 C.F .R. § 2.1 (2003) ; 8 C .F.R. 
§ 1 03 . 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 petition s).