dismissed EB-1A Case: Circus Performer

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 1 5 2015 
INRE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
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 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case , you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis .gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location , and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
};2~15~ 
Ron Rosenberg ;--
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will 
be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability as a circus performer, pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A), 
which makes visas available to petitioners who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability through 
sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their 
field through extensive documentation. Section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act limits this classification 
to petitioners with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. The 
director determined that the petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 
8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that 
meets at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he meets the criteria under the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v) and (viii). The petitioner submits a brief, previously submitted evidence, and 
new evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the evidence in the record does not establish the 
petitioner's eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. Specifically, the petitioner has not 
submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time achievement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or 
evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). As such, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is one of the small 
percentage who is 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. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority workers. -- Visas shall first be made available ... to qualified immigrants 
who are aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with extraordinary ability. -- An alien is described in this 
subparagraph if 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, 
education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated 
by sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in 
the area of extraordinary ability, and 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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 101st Cong., 2d 
Sess. 59 (1990); 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60898-99 (Nov. 29, 1991). The term "extraordinary ability" 
refers only to those individuals in that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of 
endeavor. !d.; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can 
demonstrate his sustained acclaim and the recognition of his achievements in the field through 
evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the 
petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he must submit sufficient qualifying evidence that 
meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
The submission of evidence relating to at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, 
establish eligibility for this classification. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 201 0) 
(discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required 
number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also Rijal v. 
USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (affirming USCIS' proper application of 
Kazarian), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 
(D.D.C. 2013) (finding that USCIS appropriately applied the two-step review); Matter ofChawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality" and that USCIS examines "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"). 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Previous P-1 Approval 
While USCIS has approved at least one P-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the 
petitioner, the prior approval does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition 
based on a different, if similarly phrased, standard. The regulatory requirements for an immigrant 
and nonimmigrant visa are different. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(p)(4)(i)(B) provides that 
"[a] person who is a member of an internationally recognized entertainment group ... may be 
granted P-1 classification based on that relationship . . . ." The regulation further defines 
"internationally recognized" to mean "having a high level of achievement in a field evidenced by a 
degree of skill and recognition substantially above that ordinarily encountered, to the extent that 
such achievement is renowned, leading, or well-known in more than one country." 8 C.P.R. 
§ 214.2(p)(3). The regulation relating to the immigrant classification, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2), 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
however, defines extraordinary ability in any field as "a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 
As such, the petitioner's approval for a nonimmigrant visa as a member of an internationally 
recognized entertainment group under the standard of "having a high level of achievement . . . 
substantially above that ordinarily encountered" is insufficient to demonstrate his individual 
eligibility for an "extraordinary ability" immigrant visa. 
B. Evidentiary Criteria2 
Under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the petitioner, as initial evidence, may present 
evidence of a 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. As such, as initial 
evidence, the petitioner must present at least three of the ten types of evidence under the regulations 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) to meet the basic eligibility requirements. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has 
not specifically challenged the director's conclusion as relating to the prizes and awards 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). In addition, the 
evidence in the record that is relevant to this criterion does not establish that the petitioner has 
received any awards or prizes, including his Diplomas of Honor, that are nationally or internationally 
recognized. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted documentation of his receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. The petitioner 
has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
2 We have reviewed all of the evidence the petitioner has submitted and will address those criteria the 
petitioner claims to meet or for which the petitioner has submitted relevant and probative evidence. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
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 the director did not consider all the evidence submitted in 
support of the criterion. More specifically, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because 
he has submitted evidence relating to videos of his performances uploaded to , a 
2009 article posted on website; a · 2011 news article 
published on the , information posted on an 
article; 2012 and 2013 articles; and a article. 
The evidence in the record, including all documents the petitioner filed initially in support of the 
petition, in response to the director's request for evidence (RFE) and on appeal, does not establish 
that the petitioner meets this criterion . 
First, videos do not constitute published material about the petitioner in major media. The 
petitiOner submitted a Google search printout showing that who provides 
entertainment booking services, uploaded all but one of the videos of the petitioner's performances 
to Mr. :description of one video provides information on the petitioner's circus 
act and contact information to arrange for the petitioner's performances. Mr. appears to 
have uploaded the videos as an advertisement for his booking services. The petitioner has not shown 
that such promotional material meets this criterion. The record contains no information about 
who uploaded the remaining video of the performance at the . Anyone 
with internet access can upload videos to Videos on do not all have the same or 
a similar level of viewership. While some videos may be popular with viewers; some may have little 
to no views. The record lacks information on how many views the videos have garnered. The 
petitioner has not shown that all videos, including videos showing his performances, 
which appear to have been uploaded for promotional purposes, constitute published material in 
major media. 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that the 2009 article in 
to · a Crowd Pleaser," posted on is about the 
petitioner or that the publisher is a professional or major trade publication or other major media. 
Although the article includes a picture of the petitioner and a caption, noting that the petitioner 
performed on the high wire, the body of the article does not mention the petitioner or his circus act. 
Rather, as its title suggests, the article is about the annual performance in 
_ including audience reception and the nature of the event. The body of the article 
does not provide specific information about the petitioner or his circus act. The petitioner has not 
shown that the article is about him, relating to his work. 
In addition, the petitioner has not shown that either or . constitutes a 
professional or major trade publication or other major media. The record includes no evidence 
showing that the website or publication is either a professional or a major trade publication. The 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
evidence in the record also does not show that the website or the publication is major media. The 
petitioner has submitted Wikipedia materials entitled" 1" 
and "Advance Publications." As there are no assurances about the reliability of the content from 
Wikipedia, an open, user-edited Internet site, the Wikipedia materials have limited evidentiary 
weight. 3 See Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F .3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008). Regardless, the materials 
from this website suggest is a local paper. The petitioner also submits online 
printouts from stating that the website is a "local mass medium" that "reach[ es] 
thousands of potential customers every month." The petitioner has not shown that , a 
website that is "local" in nature with the stated monthly potential customers, constitutes major 
media. The record lacks information relating to · circulation or reach, or evidence 
demonstrating that it is major media. 
Similarly, the petitioner has not shown that the , which published the article 
' and photographs of the petitioner's 
performances, constitutes major media. The petitioner submits a Wikipedia entry entitled " 
" As noted, Wikipedia materials have limited evidentiary weight because there are no 
assurances on the reliability of its content. See Badasa, 540 F.3d at 910-11. Moreover, even if we 
are to consider the Wikipedia information, which states that the is a local 
newspaper with a daily circulation between 6,703 and 7,185, the petitioner has not shown that the 
circulation level supports a finding that the is major media. 
Third, although the petitioner has submitted published materials that mention him and/or his circus 
act, he has not presented any published materials about him, relating to his work. One or a few 
references in an article that does not focus on the petitioner, relating to his work, are insufficient to 
show that the article is about him, relating to his work. For example, the online version of a 
2011 article entitled ' ., includes a 
photograph with the caption ' ' The 
3 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer entitled "WIKIPEDIA 
MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY": 
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary 
association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human 
knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its 
content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people 
with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information . 
. . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of 
any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose 
opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields .... 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_ disclaimer, accessed on July 8, 2015, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
print version of the article in the does not mention the petitioner in the 
article other than to list his family circus as an event at the fair. An accompanying advertisement for 
the fair includes a photo of the petitioner. While the petitioner documented a notable circulation for 
the publication, even if we concluded it is major media, the petitioner has not shown that the 
material is about him, relating to his work. Rather, the article is about the 
in which the petitioner performed among an unspecified number of performers. 
The record also includes online printouts from _, whose 
websites are and The printouts include photographs of the petitioner's 
performances. One of the photographs includes a caption that describes the petitioner's 
performance: "The [Petitioner] does a leap frog move on the high wire during a performance of the 
" The petitioner has not shown that photographs, even ones 
with a caption, constitute published material about the petitioner, relating to his work, because these 
materials provide little to no information about the petitioner relating to his work. Moreover, the 
petitioner has not shown that these websites constitute a professional or major trade publication or 
major media. According to the online material, was founded in and is ' 
." The petitioner has not submitted any evidence to 
substantiate this statement. 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 ofCal(fornia, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). As such, the petitioner has not shown that materials that posted on 
websites meet this criterion. 
Fourth, material from 
to the evidence submitted, 
does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. According 
is the "Official publication of the 
" The petitioner has not shown that this 
publication is a professional or major trade publication or is major media. In addition, the material 
in is written by the petitioner and it is about his introduction to his religion. The petitioner 
has not shown that his written material on this topic constitutes published material about him, 
relating to his work as a circus performer. 
Finally, promotional materials, including newspaper advertisements and programs given to circus 
attendees, do not meet this criterion. The record includes a newspaper advertisement of the 
published in the and programs from the 
and the . These promotional materials do not meet the plain 
language of the criterion, which requires evidence of published materials about the petitioner, 
relating to his work, published in a professional or a major publication or major media. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not submitted evidence of 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. The petitioner has not met this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 8 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director did not consider all the evidence submitted in 
support of this criterion. Specifically, the petitioner elaborates that he meets this criterion because 
he has submitted four reference letters from '' . dated , 2013, 
dated on 2013, • dated on 2013, and 
dated 2013." The petitioner states that "reference documentation [shows] 
that and are known as preeminent circus production 
organizations with distinguished reputations in the world." To meet this criterion, the petitioner 
must demonstrate that his contributions are both original and of major significance in the field. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The term "original" and the phrase "major significance" are not 
superfluous and, thus, they have some meaning. Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 
51 F. 3d 28,31 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoted inAPWUv. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2d Cir. 2003)). The 
petitioner must show that his contributions are original, such that he is the first person or one of the 
first people to have done a particular types of circus act in the field, and that his contributions are of 
major significance in the field, such that his act fundamentally changed or significantly advance the 
field as a whole. In addition, contributions of major significance connotes that his act has already 
significantly impacted the field. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-36. The evidence in the 
record, including all documents the petitioner filed initially in support of the petition, in response to 
the director's RFE and on appeal does not establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
The evidence in the record, including reference letters, shows that the petitioner has been a circus 
performer for many years and his former and current employers praise his skills and professionalism 
as a circus performer. According to a May 24, 2013 letter from Chief 
Executive Officer (CEO) and President of , the parent company of the 
the petitioner is "one of a kind performer that comes along only once in many 
generations; an exceptional high wire walking artist who processes the unique ability of performing 
dangerous feats in his act accompanied by his daughter." Ms. has also provided an 
October 22, 2012 letter that states that the petitioner is "an all-around High Wire walking artist who 
processes the unique ability of performing dangerous tricks in his act along with his daughter." 
During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioner submits a May 17, 2015 letter from 
, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of , stating that the petitioner's "talent 
abounds with versatility and dedication to the circus performing arts." According to a May 30, 2013 
letter 
from , Circus Director for the petitioner is "a 
great addition to the circus industry, he stood out from all the performers in the 2012 edition of the 
_ with his extraordinary act of High Wire." Mr. provides details 
about the petitioner's high wire act and states that the petitioner's "excellence in his field of work is 
over the top!" and that he thrilled "the audience as well as I every show." Mr. 
has also submitted an October 27, 2012 letter, in which he praises the petitioner's skills and 
character. According to a May 25, 2013 letter from Owner and Producer of' 
, the petitioner's professionalism was impeccable and that his "troupe is known to be the 
best in technique skills, [ e ]specially in the High Wire area." Ms. states that "[p ]erforming 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 9 
overhead on the High Wire, [the petitioner] is a star in the field." According to a May 28, 2013 
letter from Circus Impresario, Producer and Director of 
the petitioner "has worked [for Mr. ] many times . . . because of his 
unbelievable act of High Wire, a professional act like this one is very hard to find not only here in 
the US but all over the world." General praise and conclusory statements that the petitioner is a top 
High Wire performer in the field do not establish the petitioner meets this criterion. Rather, to meet 
this criterion, the petitioner must show that he has made original contributions that are of major 
significance in the field. 
The record includes some evidence that the petitioner's act is original. For example, Ms. · 
states that the petitioner's "original accomplishments" include "an original hands-free walking 
across the high wire; riding not 
only a bicycle but a unicycle on the high wire as well; performing 
dangerous head balancing feats on the high wire; and a remarkable two person high wire walk with 
[his] daughter " Ms. states that the petitioner "is a natural born athlete, what sets him 
apart and makes him unique is his style, charisma and exceptional 
talent as an aerialist." 
Original act and/or technique, without evidence of the act and technique's "major significance in the 
field," are insufficient to establish the petitioner meets this criterion. Ms. states that the 
petitioner has "help[ ed] set a new standard of high wire balancing technique in the international 
circus industry" and has "made original contributions to the circus industry with his high quality 
performances." Ms. however, does not explain how the petitioner has "help[ ed] set a 
new standard" or how the petitioner has had an impact in the field of circus performance. The 
record lacks evidence showing that other circus performers, who have not worked with the 
petitioner, have taken noticed of or adopted the petitioner's act or technique. Ms. states that 
"[the petitioner] made outstanding contributions to the High Wire performing art." She does not, 
however, provide specific evidence showing how the petitioner's performances have impacted the 
field such that the performances could be considered to be "outstanding contributions" in the field. 
Ultimately, the evidence in the record, including the reference letters, do not specify how the 
petitioner's performance has changed or advanced to field or demonstrate that the petitioner's impact 
in the field is consistent with contributions of "major significance" in the field, as required by the 
plain language of the criterion. Conclusory statements, such as "outstanding contributions," that 
lack details in support of the statements, do not meet this criterion. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. Similarly, repeating the language of the 
statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. 
Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, 
Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *1, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). USCIS 
need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc. v. United States Att'y Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
While the reference letters confirm that some aspects of the petitioner's act are original, the letters 
do not establish that his impact in the field has risen to a level consistent with a contribution of major 
significance. Regardless of the field, the plain language of the phrase "contributions of major 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
significance in the field" requires evidence of an impact beyond one's employer and clients or 
customers. See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding a finding that a ballroom dancer had 
not met this criterion because she did not demonstrate her impact in the field as a whole). 
Moreover, vague, solicited letters from former and current employers that do not specifically 
identify contributions or provide specific examples of how those contributions influenced the field 
are insufficient.4 Kazarian v. USCJS, 580 F.3d at 1036. The opinions of experts in the field are not 
without weight and have been considered above. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron Jnt 'l, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 
(eomm'r 1988). However, USers is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Jd. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may, as this decision has 
done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. 
See id. at 795; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 r&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BrA 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. Jd. 
at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 r&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. eomm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft a_[ California, 14 r&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l eomm'r 1972)); See Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d 
at 134-35 (upholding our decision to give minimal weight to vague, solicited letters from colleagues 
or associates that do not provide details on contributions of major significance in the field). 
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 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
Evidence of the display of the alien's work in the field at artistic exhibitions or showcases. 
8 e.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
The director concluded that the petitioner did not meet this criterion. On appeal, the petitioner has 
not specifically challenged the director's conclusion as relating to the display at artistic exhibitions 
or showcases 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. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director did not consider all the evidence submitted in 
support of this criterion. The petitioner elaborates that he meets this criterion because of his role in 
4 
In 2010, the Kazarian court reiterated that our conclusion that "letters from physics professors attesting to 
[the petitioner'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 II 
the ., and On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the 
reference letters from Ms. of ; Mr. of and 
, Owner and Producer of show that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. To demonstrate that he performs a leading role, the petitioner should present evidence 
establishing not only his title but his duties associated with the position. To demonstrate that he 
performs a critical role, the petitioner should present evidence establishing his impact on the 
organization or establishment as a whole. To show his role in an organization or establishment, the 
petitioner may submit an organization chart demonstrating how his role fits within the hierarchy of 
the organization or establishment. In addition, the petitioner must show that the organizations and 
establishments, in which he performs a leading or critical role, have a distinguished reputation. The 
evidence in the record, including all documents the petitioner filed initially in support of the petition, 
in response to the director's RFE and on appeal, does not establish that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. 
First, the petitioner has not shown that he performs a leading or critical role for the 
Although letters from Ms. of the provides that the 
petitioner is one of an unspecified number of circus performers for the circus, the letters do not 
provide details on whether the petitioner has had a leading or critical role in the 
Ms. praises the petitioner's skills, stating in her May 24, 2013 letter that the 
petitioner is "one of a kind performer that comes along only once in many generations." The letter 
also states that the petitioner "has dedicated his excellence to the and his 
participation in [the] show has been a big box office draw." Neither of Ms. letters 
provides specific information on the impact of the petitioner 's performance in the circus as a whole, 
such as but not limited to, specific information on increased revenues resulting from the petitioner's 
performance. The letters also do not state that the petitioner 's title and associated duties within the 
circus rank him above those of other performers, or that the petitioner's impact to the circus are more 
significant than those of other performers. Ms. letters show that the petitioner is one of 
the valued performers in the circus, but do not show that he has a leading or critical role in the 
circus. Similarly, the employment agreements, including the October 2014 agreement, between the 
petitioner and the do not indicate that the petitioner has had a role in 
addition to being one of an unspecific number of circus performers in the 
The programs and promotional materials for the do not feature the 
petitioner's act more prominently than the other acts. 
Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that the has a distinguished 
reputation. According to Ms. the is "one of the nation's 
premier circus production companies." The record also includes online printouts from the 
· website, stating that the circus is "one of the outstanding circuses in the United 
States." Such self-promotional evidence has minimal evidentiary value. See Braga v. Poulos, No. 
CV 06-5105 SJO 10, 2007 WL 9229758, at *1, 6-7 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), aff'd, 317 F. App'x 680 
(9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to rely on the promotional assertions on the cover 
of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). The petitioner has not supported the self-
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
promotional evidence with more independent evidence, such as, but not limited to, independent 
journalistic reporting of the circus or its reputation in nationally circulated publications. 
Second, the petitioner has not shown that he performs a leading or critical role for the . 
m According to Mr. of the , the organization hired the 
to perform in two locations in Maine. In his May 30, 2013 letter, Mr. 
praises the petitioner's high wire act and states that he "would highly recommend [the petitioner] to 
other groups that are looking for a great quality performer." Mr. letter provides that the 
petitioner worked as a performer for the The letter does not indicate that 
the petitioner worked, or performed any role, for the Similarly, Mr. October 
27, 2012 letter does not indicate that the petitioner has ever performed any role for the 
As such, the petitioner has not shown that he has performed either a leading or critical role for the 
organization. 
Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstrating that the has a 
distinguished reputation, as required under the plain language of the criterion. The petitioner has 
submitted online printouts from website, stating that its circus is a family 
entertainment event that raises funds for its programs. The online printouts, however, do not discuss 
reputation or establish that it has a distinguished reputation. Moreover, materials 
from are self-promotional materials that have minimal evidentiary value. See Braga, 
2007 WL 9229758, at *6-7. The petitioner has not supported the self-promotional evidence with 
more independent evidence, such as, but not limited to, independent journalistic reporting of the 
circus or its reputation in nationally circulated publications. The record also includes a Wikipedia 
material entitled ' ." This material has limited evidentiary value because there are no 
assurances on the reliability of its content. See Badasa, 540 F.3d at 910-11. Moreover, even if we 
are to consider the Wikipedia information, which primarily provides historic information about the 
, the petitioner has not shown that the an organization 
in which the petitioner asserts that he performs a leading or critical role is one and the same as the 
Even if the two organizations are one and the same, the Wikipedia material does not 
discuss ; reputation. Rather, it provides information relating to the circus' history and 
current activities. 
Third, the petitioner has not shown that he performs a leading or critical role for the 
Inc. According to a September 28, 2012 letter from Mr. , the "has worked with 
[the petitioner] many times over the course of ten (10) years" and that the petitioner's "excellent 
techniques on the unicycles and high wire are among the echelon of his profession." Although the 
letter provides that the petitioner has worked as a circus performer, the letter does not demonstrate 
that the petitioner has taken on a role in addition to being a circus performer. The letter also does 
not indicate that the petitioner's involvement in the is either leading or critical to the 
circus. Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstrating that the 
has a distinguished reputation, as required under the plain language of the criterion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
Fourth, the record includes other reference letters from the petitioner's current and former 
employers, including letters from Ms. of _ . a May 29, 2013 letter from 
of , a May 1, 2013 letter from of the 
and June 20, 2012 correspondence from that discusses 
the petitioner 's performance at the On appeal, the petitioner 
does not specifically challenge the director's finding that these remaining reference letters do not 
establish that the petitioner meets this criterion. The petitioner "suggests" on appeal that we review 
all of the evidence, which includes four additional reference letters. None of these reference letters 
demonstrate that the petitioner has performed either a leading or critical role for any organization or 
establishment that has a distinguished reputation. Ms. . _ concludes that the petitioner "plays a 
leading role due to his acrobatic abilities." This assertion does not explain how the petitioner fits 
within the hierarchy of the circus or how his abilities have impacted the circus. Mr. and 
Mr. praise the petitioner 's skills without detailing the petitioner 's role at any circus or its 
significance to the circus. The correspondence from Ms. is unsigned and does not bear 
sufficient indicia of being email correspondence. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not presented evidence that he has performed in 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). 
C. Summary 
The evidence shows that the petitioner has been working as a circus performer for many years, and 
that his former and current employers praise his skills and character. Notwithstanding the above 
activities, for the reasons discussed above, we agree with the director that the petitioner has not 
submitted the requisite initial evidence that satisfies three of the ten regulatory criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the petitioner has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small 
percentage who have risen to the very top of his or her field of endeavor. 
Had the petitioner submitted the requisite evidence under at least three evidentiary categories, in 
accordance with the Kazarian opinion, the next step would be a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated: ( 1) a 
"level of expertise indicating that the individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the 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. As the petitioner has not done so, the 
proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent regulatory requirement of 
presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3) 
and (4). Kazarian , 596 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless , although we need not provide the type of final 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
merits determination referenced in Kazarian, a review of the evidence on which the petitioner relies 
on appeal in the aggregate supports a finding that the petitioner has not demonstrated, through the 
submission of extensive evidence, the level of expertise required for the classification sought. 5 
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. 
5 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 detem1ination 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. § 1 03.1(t)(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).